LOSE LIBERTY,FREEDOM, CHOICE

Courtesy Congressman Trent Franks office:
Summary of Dems Health “Reform”
Below is a summary of the Democrats' Health "Reform" Legislation introduced this week. As you know, President Obama continues to press Congress to put this massive health care overhaul on the fast track for passage.
Please note the "Cost" and "Tax Increases" sections highlighted below. As reported by the New York Post, this massive health-care "reform" package would create a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for New York's top earners.
The Heritage Foundation also notes the outrageous "surtax" on high income earners which will cripple small business and inevitably result in more jobs being lost:
The House plans to pay for the lion’s share of their bill with a new surtax on households earning $350,000 and above. It starts at 1%, bumping up to 1.5% at $500,000 in income and to 5.4% at $1 million. Since many small business owners fall within this income range, this surtax will also be a huge job killer.
Editorializing on the House’s surtax, The Washington Post writes:
[T]here is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority’s proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. …There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. … Pretending that “the rich” alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it.
House Democrat Health “Reform” Legislation:
A Government Takeover of Health CareJuly 15, 2000
Background:
On July 14, 2009, the Chairmen of the three House Committees with jurisdiction over health care legislation—Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA), Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY)—introduced H.R. 3200, http://thomas.loc.gov/
“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.” The legislation is a revised version of the “discussion draft” first publicly released on June 19. The Chairmen announced their intent to commence hearings in their respective Committees beginning on July 16, with an eye toward floor action before the August recess.
EXECUTIVE summary:
The introduced bill sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system—one defined by federal regulation, mandates, myriad new programs, and higher federal spending. The bill would ensure the heavy hand of federal bureaucrats over the United States health care system, levying costly new taxes on individuals and businesses who do not comply. Many Members may question how additional federal mandates and bureaucratic diktats raising costs appreciably for all Americans would make health care more “affordable.” Many Members may also be concerned that the bill’s provisions—only partially masked by budgetary gimmicks and “smoke-and-mirrors” accounting—cost well over $1 trillion, financed largely by significant job-killing tax increases imposed on small businesses during a recession.
Highlights of major provisions likely to cause Member concern include:
Creation of a government-run health plan that experts say would result in 114 million Americans losing their current coverage—a clear violation of any pledge to allow individuals to keep their current health plan;

More than half a trillion dollars in tax increases on certain income filers, a majority of whom are small businesses—and $818 billion in tax increases overall;
Insurance regulations that would raise costs for nearly all Americans, particularly young Americans, and confine choice of plans to those approved by a board of bureaucrats;
New price controls on health insurance companies that provide perverse incentives to keep individuals sick rather than managing chronic disease, while impeding patient access to important services just because those services do not provide a direct clinical benefit;
Additional federal mandates that would significantly erode the flexibility currently provided to employers—and could result in firms dropping coverage;
Massive expansion of Medicaid—fully paid for by the federal government—to all individuals with incomes below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($29,326 for a family of four), replacing the existing private health coverage of millions with taxpayer-funded health care;
Language opening employers operating group health plans to State law remedies and private causes of action—subjecting employers to review by 50 different State court rulings, thereby raising costs and encouraging more employers to drop their current health plans;
Establishment of bureaucrat-run health Exchange that would abolish the private health insurance market outside the Exchange—and could evolve into a single-payer approach due to the Exchange’s ability to cannibalize existing employer plans;
Creation of a new government board, the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee,” that would empower federal bureaucrats to impose new mandates—including a mandate to obtain and provide abortion coverage—on individuals and insurance carriers;
Taxation of individuals who do not purchase a level of health coverage that meets the diktats of a board of bureaucrats—including those who cannot afford the coverage options provided;
New, job-killing taxes—over $200 billion worth—on employers who cannot afford to provide their workers health insurance, which could result in up to 4.7 million employees losing their jobs;
Penalties as high as $500,000 on employers who make honest mistakes when filing paperwork with the government health board—which would likely dissuade businesses from continuing to provide coverage, increasing the amount of health care provided through the bureaucrat-run Exchange;
“Low-income” health insurance subsidies to a family of four making up to $88,200;
Arbitrary and harmful cuts to popular Medicare Advantage plans that would result in millions of seniors losing their current health coverage; and
Expanded price controls on pharmaceutical products that would discourage companies from producing life-saving breakthrough treatments.
Preliminary scoreS
On July 14, the Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary score for certain provisions in the bill—with the noteworthy caveat that “those estimates are based on specifications provided by the tri-committee group rather than an analysis of the language released today.” As a result, CBO notes that “our review of that language could have a significant effect on our analysis.”
It is also unclear precisely which provisions in the bill were and were not included in the CBO score. The score generally includes the cost impact of low-income subsidies, new insurance regulations, and penalties on individuals not purchasing and employers not offering “acceptable” coverage. However, the Medicare provisions in the discussion draft received a separate preliminary score released last week—but these provisions changed significantly when compared to the discussion draft, and are not included in the score released yesterday. Moreover, while some of the Medicaid changes were included in the specifications which CBO reviewed when preparing its preliminary score, it is unclear whether the score includes all the bill’s Medicaid provisions, or only the ones highlighted in the specifications.
Cost: With the above caveats, CBO estimates that the selected provisions would result in nearly $1.28 trillion in federal spending during the 2010-2019 period—$438 billion for the Medicaid expansions, $773 billion for “low-income” subsidies, $53 billion for small business tax credits, and $15 billion in interactions relating to tax revenues (resulting from changes in employer-sponsored coverage).
Summary of Dems Health “Reform”
Below is a summary of the Democrats' Health "Reform" Legislation introduced this week. As you know, President Obama continues to press Congress to put this massive health care overhaul on the fast track for passage.
Please note the "Cost" and "Tax Increases" sections highlighted below. As reported by the New York Post, this massive health-care "reform" package would create a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for New York's top earners.
The Heritage Foundation also notes the outrageous "surtax" on high income earners which will cripple small business and inevitably result in more jobs being lost:
The House plans to pay for the lion’s share of their bill with a new surtax on households earning $350,000 and above. It starts at 1%, bumping up to 1.5% at $500,000 in income and to 5.4% at $1 million. Since many small business owners fall within this income range, this surtax will also be a huge job killer.
Editorializing on the House’s surtax, The Washington Post writes:
[T]here is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority’s proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households. …There is simply no way to close the gap by taxing a handful of high earners. … Pretending that “the rich” alone can fund government, let alone the kind of activist government that the president and Congress envision, is bad policy any way you look at it.
House Democrat Health “Reform” Legislation:
A Government Takeover of Health Care

July 15, 2000
Background:
On July 14, 2009, the Chairmen of the three House Committees with jurisdiction over health care legislation—Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA), Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY)—introduced H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.” The legislation is a revised version of the “discussion draft” first publicly released on June 19. The Chairmen announced their intent to commence hearings in their respective Committees beginning on July 16, with an eye toward floor action before the August recess.
EXECUTIVE summary:
The introduced bill sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system—one defined by federal regulation, mandates, myriad new programs, and higher federal spending. The bill would ensure the heavy hand of federal bureaucrats over the United States health care system, levying costly new taxes on individuals and businesses who do not comply. Many Members may question how additional federal mandates and bureaucratic diktats raising costs appreciably for all Americans would make health care more “affordable.” Many Members may also be concerned that the bill’s provisions—only partially masked by budgetary gimmicks and “smoke-and-mirrors” accounting—cost well over $1 trillion, financed largely by significant job-killing tax increases imposed on small businesses during a recession.
Highlights of major provisions likely to cause Member concern include:
Creation of a government-run health plan that experts say would result in 114 million Americans losing their current coverage—a clear violation of any pledge to allow individuals to keep their current health plan;
More than half a trillion dollars in tax increases on certain income filers, a majority of whom are small businesses—and $818 billion in tax increases overall;
Insurance regulations that would raise costs for nearly all Americans, particularly young Americans, and confine choice of plans to those approved by a board of bureaucrats;
New price controls on health insurance companies that provide perverse incentives to keep individuals sick rather than managing chronic disease, while impeding patient access to important services just because those services do not provide a direct clinical benefit;
Additional federal mandates that would significantly erode the flexibility currently provided to employers—and could result in firms dropping coverage;
Massive expansion of Medicaid—fully paid for by the federal government—to all individuals with incomes below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($29,326 for a family of four), replacing the existing private health coverage of millions with taxpayer-funded health care;
Language opening employers operating group health plans to State law remedies and private causes of action—subjecting employers to review by 50 different State court rulings, thereby raising costs and encouraging more employers to drop their current health plans;
Establishment of bureaucrat-run health Exchange that would abolish the private health insurance market outside the Exchange—and could evolve into a single-payer approach due to the Exchange’s ability to cannibalize existing employer plans;
Creation of a new government board, the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee,” that would empower federal bureaucrats to impose new mandates—including a mandate to obtain and provide abortion coverage—on individuals and insurance carriers;
Taxation of individuals who do not purchase a level of health coverage that meets the diktats of a board of bureaucrats—including those who cannot afford the coverage options provided;
New, job-killing taxes—over $200 billion worth—on employers who cannot afford to provide their workers health insurance, which could result in up to 4.7 million employees losing their jobs;
Penalties as high as $500,000 on employers who make honest mistakes when filing paperwork with the government health board—which would likely dissuade businesses from continuing to provide coverage, increasing the amount of health care provided through the bureaucrat-run Exchange;
“Low-income” health insurance subsidies to a family of four making up to $88,200;
Arbitrary and harmful cuts to popular Medicare Advantage plans that would result in millions of seniors losing their current health coverage; and
Expanded price controls on pharmaceutical products that would discourage companies from producing life-saving breakthrough treatments.
Preliminary scoreS
On July 14, the Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary score for certain provisions in the bill—with the noteworthy caveat that “those estimates are based on specifications provided by the tri-committee group rather than an analysis of the language released today.” As a result, CBO notes that “our review of that language could have a significant effect on our analysis.”
It is also unclear precisely which provisions in the bill were and were not included in the CBO score. The score generally includes the cost impact of low-income subsidies, new insurance regulations, and penalties on individuals not purchasing and employers not offering “acceptable” coverage. However, the Medicare provisions in the discussion draft received a separate preliminary score released last week—but these provisions changed significantly when compared to the discussion draft, and are not included in the score released yesterday. Moreover, while some of the Medicaid changes were included in the specifications which CBO reviewed when preparing its preliminary score, it is unclear whether the score includes all the bill’s Medicaid provisions, or only the ones highlighted in the specifications.
Cost: With the above caveats, CBO estimates that the selected provisions would result in nearly $1.28 trillion in federal spending during the 2010-2019 period—$438 billion for the Medicaid expansions, $773 billion for “low-income” subsidies, $53 billion for small business tax credits, and $15 billion in interactions relating to tax revenues (resulting from changes in employer-sponsored coverage). Offsetting payments would include $29 billion in taxes on individuals not complying with the mandate to purchase coverage, as well as a total of $208 billion in taxes and payments by businesses associated with the “pay-or-play” mandate.
Most notably, CBO Director Elmendorf—speaking at a July 15 Energy and Commerce Committee briefing on the bill as introduced—admitted to Members that the Democrat bill would essentially have no impact on the long-term growth of health care costs—the legislation’s purported goal. Many members may be concerned that spending nearly $1.3 trillion to finance a government takeover of health care would not only not help the growth in health costs, but—by creating massive and unsustainable new entitlements—would also make the federal budget situation much worse.
Tax Increases: The Joint Committee on Taxation notes that the bill provisions would increase federal revenues by $581 billion over ten years—over and above the $237 billion in tax increases related to the individual and employer mandates noted above—for a total of $818 billion in tax increases over ten years. JCT found that the “surtax” would raise nearly $544 billion, the worldwide interest implementation delay would raise $26.1 billion, the treaty withholding provisions would raise $7.5 billion, and the codification of the economic substance doctrine would raise $3.6 billion. Finally, the tax on health benefits used to finance the Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund would raise $2 billion over ten years.
Out-Year Spending: The score clearly indicates that of the nearly $1.28 trillion in spending under the specifications examined by CBO, only $8 billion—or only 0.6%—of such spending would occur during the first three years following implementation. Moreover, the bill in its final year would spend a total of $254 billion to finance coverage expansions. Thus the true cost of ten years’ worth of spending once the bill is fully implemented would likely exceed $2 trillion.
Budgetary Gimmicks: As noted above, the bill includes several provisions—some of which are not reflected in the CBO score—to mask its true cost. Most egregiously, the bill includes directed scoring provisions instructing CBO not to score the nearly $100 billion in spending included in the plain text of the bill regarding the retiree reinsurance and the public health investment fund. The bill also makes changes designed to lower the bill’s apparent cost—for instance, reducing a permanent extension of the qualifying individual program to a two-year extension.
Coverage: The score also claims that the number of uninsured individuals would be reduced to 17 million by the end of the ten-year budgetary window, a reduction of 37 million in 2019 when compared to current law. Approximately 30 million individuals would purchase their health insurance from the Exchange, including more than 6 million individuals who would lose their current private health coverage purchased on the individual market and enroll in the government-run Exchange.
The CBO score asserts that employer-based coverage would increase slightly, due to the individual and employer mandates. However, CBO also notes that because the government-run plan reimburses at Medicare rates, its costs would be approximately 10 percent lower than other forms of coverage. Particularly as the Lewin Group has indicated that a government-run plan would cause up to 114 million Americans to lose their current coverage, some Members may question CBO’s apparent assumption that employers would not choose to drop their health plans to enroll their workers in a government-run plan with purportedly lower costs than existing coverage.
Undocumented Individuals: The CBO score notes that the specifications examined would extend coverage to 94 percent of the total population, and 97 percent of the population excluding unauthorized immigrants. However, the score goes on to note that of the 17 million individuals remaining uninsured, “nearly half”—or about 8 million—would be undocumented immigrants. Given that most estimates have placed the total undocumented population at approximately 12 million nationwide, some Members may question whether this statement presumes that some undocumented immigrants would obtain health insurance—including health insurance funded by federal subsidies. Source: Maricopa GOP