When the House of Representatives voted to pass President Obama’s health care reform bill on March 21, 2010, it was opposed by a majority of Americans. In addition to opposing the bill itself, many Americans objected to the manner in which the bill was passed. To avoid the stronger Republican opposition after the election of Scott Brown from Massachusetts, the house passed a previously passed senate bill and then both houses voted on a separate bill containing fixes for the first bill. This was unprecedented.
Now it seems that there was even more political chicanery involved in the passage of the bill. Several weeks after the passage of the health care bill, on April 22 Medicare’s Office of the Actuary released a report that was full of bad news for President Obama and the Democrats [http://bit.ly/96rJu9]. This report from a nonpartisan office stated that the reform bill will actually increase health care costs, in spite of President Obama’s repeated assurances that the bill would control costs.
Further, the report stated that the bill’s cuts in Medicare could drive up to 15% of hospitals and health care providers into the red [http://bit.ly/96rJu9]. These losses could lead to fewer health care providers as demand increases. This would lead to more limited access to health care, especially for seniors who depend on Medicare. Cuts to Medicare’s Advantage program would also mean that many seniors will face higher out-of-pocket costs.
The one bright spot in the report for Democrats was that the percentage of Americans with health insurance is estimated to increase. However, even the White House admits that the bill still won’t cover all Americans.
In addition to the bad news contained in the report, it was also revealed that the report had been submitted prior to the health care vote. Reports are that the report had been submitted to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius more than a week prior to the vote [http://bit.ly/dhIsJ7]. Sebelius’ staff reportedly refused to review the report until after the vote. Conflicting reports [http://bit.ly/bwOA11l] are that the report was received only three days before the vote, which was not enough time to review it.
In either case, it looks bad for the Democrats. It is now apparent that the rush in getting the bill passed was related directly to the HHS report. In either case, the vote was pushed through on a Sunday so that the contents of the report would not be made public before the bill became law. The Democrats knew that bad news was coming and delayed it.
In fact, one HHS staffer said as much: "The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote, which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think" [http://bit.ly/dhIsJ7].
He goes on to say that the contents of the report were widely known in Democratic circles: "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff, and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report" [http://bit.ly/dhIsJ7].
After years of Democratic complaints about governmental lies, here we have a black-and-white case of intentional deceit. While President Obama and congressional Democrats were claiming that the health care bill would reduce costs, they were aware that actuaries within their own administration were pointing out the flaws in their plan. Even now, more than a month after the vote, are still claiming that the obscenely expensive bill will actually decrease the federal deficit.
All of this points to the fact that the intent of the Democrats is to mislead. They know and have known the truth about their bill for a long time. They concealed the truth in order to deceive the American people and their elected representatives into passing the bill.
We can only hope that the American people will remember this deceit and the arrogance of the Democratic leadership in November.
Repeal – Replace – Reform