HOWARD DEAN: Employers Have No Right to Make Health Decisions, but Government Does! by Susan Jones Dec. 2, 2013.

Howard Dean: Employers Have No Right to Make Health Decisions, But Gov't Does

Filed under Government, Law/Legal, ObamaCare

2

33

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a liberal Democrat, says decisions about health care should rest with the federal government, not with individual employers who pay for their workers’ health insurance.

“So, you know, this is one country,” Dean told CNN’s “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley on Sunday. “We all have to live by a set of things that are passed in Washington and agreed to by the court. We’ll see what the court does, but I don’t think a particular employer has a right to decide what kind of health care their employees are going to get. That’s now in the hands of the federal government, and that’s where it should be.”
Dean was talking about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control-abortion-sterilization mandate. The store’s owners are devout Catholics who argue that the government cannot compel them to violate religious beliefs.

Health Law Costs Increase Triggers House Republican Inquiry... March 2, 2012 Bloomberg News

Health Law Cost Increase Triggers House Republican Inquiry

Friday, 02 Mar 2012 06:37 PM

A    A   |

• 7
  inShare

The Republican chairman of the U.S. House tax-writing committee questioned why Obama administration spending estimates for insurance subsidies under the health-care law rose by $111 billion from a year ago.
President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget request, released Feb. 13, projected that subsidies for low-income and working-class families would total $478 billion through 2021. The administration pegged the cost at $367 billion over the same period in its fiscal 2012 budget proposal.
The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Republican Dave Camp of Michigan, asked the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, Kathleen Sebelius, to explain the change in a budget hearing Tuesday. Sebelius didn’t have an answer, saying the estimate appears in the Treasury Department’s budget. Camp followed up with a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today.
The increase “cannot be explained by legislative changes or new economic assumptions, and therefore must reflect substantial changes in underlying assumptions” about the way the subsidies would work, Camp wrote. He asked whether the administration believes insurance premiums would be more expensive than earlier predictions, or if more workers would lose coverage through their employers than expected.
Obama’s 2013 budget more than offsets the higher cost of insurance subsidies with lower spending on Medicaid, the U.S. health program for the poor. Medicaid is projected to spend $3.6 trillion, or $275 billion less than in 2012.
Insurance Subsidies
Republicans are seizing on the higher subsidies knowing that changes Congress made to the health-care law since it was enacted in 2010 also reduced Medicaid costs, said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. “They will say anything in their quest to put insurance companies back in charge,” he said in an e-mail.
The subsidies will be provided to uninsured people to buy individual policies in marketplaces called exchanges that begin operating in 2014. Medicaid and the exchange subsidies are related because people who seek insurance through the exchanges will be enrolled in Medicaid if they earn poverty-level wages.
About two-thirds of the increase in exchange subsidies is due to changes Congress made to the law, Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. Congress passed a measure last year that would reduce eligibility for Medicaid and result in higher enrollment in subsidized private insurance policies sold through the exchanges, Camp said.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Medicaid change would add $11 billion to the cost of subsidies through 2021, Camp said.

© Copyright 2012 Bloomberg News. All rights reserved.

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To STUFF ObamaCare Down Our Throats by Doug Book Feb. 28, 2012

How The Commerce Clause Will Be Used To Stuff ObamaCare Down Our Throats

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 BY DOUG BOOK 10 COMMENTS

inShare9

In 1942, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Supreme Courts ruled that an Ohio farmer named Filburn was NOT permitted to raise the amount of wheat he wished on his own farm, for the purpose of feeding his own family. And for 70 years this and a handful of similar, overreaching decisions by the Court have resulted in the wholesale abuse of a power granted Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, namely the “Commerce Clause.”

In the Wickard v Filburn case, the Court opened to Congress the nearly unlimited power to exercise legislative authority relating to virtually ANYTHING Congress may define as “commerce among the several states.” The Ohio farmer had been fined $117 because he grew winter wheat in excess of the quantity permitted by quota in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

And even though it was for use on his own farm, the Court decided that Filburn had violated the law, ruling that  through the Act, Congress had the power to create quotas which “…not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.”  (my italics) The Court considered such sweeping authority to regulate a “…‘necessary and proper’ implementation of the power of Congress over interstate commerce.”

Over the years, Congress has claimed almost unlimited authority to create and defend legislation under its Commerce Clause powers by manufacturing increasingly fanciful connections between congressional action and commerce among the several states.

In 1995 for example, the government claimed before the Supreme Court that authority supporting the federal law against possession of a gun within 1000’ of a school was derived from theCommerce Clause, arguing that school violence would impact negatively on insurance rates and limit travel to an area considered unsafe, both having an effect on commerce!  On this occasion at least,  the Court did not buy into the governments strained assertions.

Yet it is upon the powers wielded by Congress under the Commerce Clause that Barack Hussein Obama is depending for a favorable Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act–ObamaCare. The Department of Justice will argue that the federal government has the authority to force American citizens to purchase healthcare coverage mandated by ObamaCare and apply a penalty to those who do not because it has the power to regulate commerce. And the sale and purchase of insurance are commerce.

In response to the government’s assertions, the Liberty Legal Foundation has filed an Amicus (friend of the Court) brief with the Supreme Court pertaining to the ObamaCare-related, “Health and Human Services v Florida” case. But rather than claim the Commerce Clause does not provide the authority required to support Obama’s assault on the liberty of the American people, Liberty Legal argues that the Court should recognize and correct the error made by the 1942 Court and overturn the Wickard v Filburn decision.

For as Liberty Legal rightly points out, “Wickard was a direct cause of exponential growth in federal spending, decreased faith in Congress, shocking growth in federal regulations and loss of freedom in America..”

Oral arguments pertaining to ObamaCare will begin on March 26^th and continue for a record 3 days. We already know how 4 members of the Court will decide, including Justice Kagan who reveals the left’s well-known class and respect for rules of proper behavior by her refusal to recuse herself from the case even though she literally helped pass the legislation!

It will be upon the honor of the remaining 5 members of the Court that the liberty of the American public will depend.

Please see the excellent work done on behalf of the American people by the Liberty Legal Foundation at: http://libertylegalfoundation.org/

Obama Care Versus Individial Freedom.. By Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) Feb. 22, 2012

ObamaCare Versus Individual Freedom

by Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) on February 22, 2012 · 0 comments      Print This Post

President Obama’s new mandate requiring all employers to purchase insurance coverage for their employees that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception is an outrage, of course.
But what kind of outrage is it? Most of the public outcry has understandably centered around the mandate’s assault on religious liberty.
The mandate forces every businessman or non-profit executive with religious objections to these products to buy them anyway, or pay a fine.
The mandate is unconstitutional, for its violation of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause.  It is also illegal, for its violation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Some of the outrage has been rightly directed specifically at the president, as both the mandate and the underlying law, ObamaCare, are his doing.
Indeed, many pro-life citizens and members of Congress only supported ObamaCare’s passage because the president assured them that conscience rights would be protected. Thus the mandate is also a personal betrayal.
And some of the outrage is more practical.  The Obama administration’s mathematically impossible assertion that abortion drugs, sterilization and contraception will somehow now simply be “free,” and thus not paid for by morally opposed insurance customers, suggests the president believes in magic.
All of these affronts to the rights and intelligence of the American people are enough to warrant the criticism the new mandate has invited.
The violation of conscience rights is simultaneously unconstitutional, illegal, and ridiculous – any one of which are sufficient grounds for its immediate rescission.
Yet, it is still not our true cause of concern.  Ultimately, the character and ideology of the president, and the particular constitutional provisions being trampled by this one mandate are incidental, compared to the manifest threat to freedom intrinsic to ObamaCare itself.
The problem is not how the federal government is abusing its new power in this instance, but that the government – indeed, a single person – suddenly wields this power at all.
To many, the anti-religious freedom mandate seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Today, the government forces us to buy abortion pills – tomorrow they may force us to pay for euthanasia, or deny expensive treatments to the very weak or very old.
However, just as frightening as the proverbial slippery slope is the proverbial see-saw. If a pro-choice liberal president can force insurance companies to cover the morning after pill, could a pro-life conservative president force them not to?
Could an anti-smoking president deny coverage for lung disease? Could a president who embraced new age, alternative medicine restrict coverage for traditional medical treatments?
The danger is not that they would, but, under ObamaCare, that theycould. That ObamaCare turns the temporary executive of one branch of a limited government into an emperor with absolute power over one-sixth of our economy, and the most intimate of personal life decisions.
Abraham Lincoln once said, “As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master.”  What he meant was that if we ourselves wish to live free of oppression, we have a responsibility not to oppress others.
In the same way, if you don’t want government to coerce your health care choices, you should take great pains not to let government coerce anyone else’s.  Health insurance choices should be as diverse as we are.
But that kind of freedom and diversity is prohibited under ObamaCare. What this latest Obamacare mandate reveals is that this law is fundamentally inconsistent with liberty.
The question is, which is more important?  Is ObamaCare a threat tofreedom?  Or is freedom a threat to ObamaCare?
The controversy over this particular consequence of Washington’s health care takeover will soon be followed by another, and another, and another– the next mandate, the next rationing, the next restriction, the next loss of liberty.
There will be no rest – ever – from these battles so long as ObamaCare remains on the books. Regardless of their outcomes, these battles by definition cannot be won.
All Americans – liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice, devout or secular – must recognize that these skirmishes are a trap, a distraction.
A truly free people would never have them at all.  They are like arguments over the silverware pattern, while our house is burning down.
The threat to our constitution, our God-given rights, and your privacy is not in the government officials who have power over our health care choices.  The real threat is in the poisonous law that gives them that power in the first place.
This controversy has taught us one thing: The government takeover of health care is not merely imperfect, it is essentially corrosive.  It cannot be tweaked.
It cannot be improved on the margins.  It cannot be fixed.  ObamaCare is a cancer, and every last word of it must be repealed.

Obamacare (the ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’) must be repealed! Select Here and Take Action.

Jim DeMint is a conservative Republican Senator representing South Carolina.

Freedom Vs. Socialism... by Kevin "Coach" Collins Feb. 22, 2012

Freedom Vs. Socialism

February 22, 2012 By Kevin "Coach" Collins 10 Comments

inShare15

Since Barack Obama has no respect for America or Americans, he will doubtlessly announce that the October 2012 unemployment rate is about 6.5% or some other ridiculous lie. Does it make any difference? Not really, because he and the Charlie McCarthy dummy who is posing as our Vice President won’t be able to survive the reality of what they have done to us since January 2009.
The problems Obama will face are growing, not subsiding.
In just the last month, the pump price of gasoline has risen .20 a gallon.  While this is bad enough, it is still worse because it put the price at a level higher than it has been in February since 1981. The reason for the rise is totally out of Obama’s control; he can’t lie his way out of it. The Iranians want to squeeze the Europeans who are already looking at $8.00 a gallon gas, so they are denying France and England oil.

The Europeans will come here to buy their gasoline because our $3.52 per gallon looks great!  When they do our price will go up whether we car pool, drive less, decide we won’t buy from this company or that company or not.  The price of gas on January 19, 2009 was $1.85.
The percentage of those who are unemployed who have been unemployed for 6 months or more has gone from 16% to 45.1 % . Never since the Great Depression has it been that high.
All of the following measurements of our national misery are presented as “On Obama’s Inauguration Day” compared to today.  These numbers come from The Senate Republican Conference.  
The raw number of unemployed Americans: 12.05 million to 12.76 million. +710,000
Americans living in poverty: 39.8 million to 46.2 million. +6.4 million
American receiving Food Stamps 32 million to 46 million +14million
Misery Index (An index combining the unemployment rate and inflation rate) 7.8 to 11.3 up 45%
Federal debt 10.6 TRILLION DOLLARS to 15.4 TRILLION DOLLARS up 44%
Federal debt assigned to each American $34,731 up to $49,058
Cost of health insurance costs per employed worker $3,354 to $4,129
College tuition $6,591 up to $8,244 an increase of 25%
The total number of available jobs 133.6 million down to 132.4 a loss of 1.2 million jobs
The value of the average American’s home $169,700 down to $147,800
No amount of phony statistics or lies can cover holes this big.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Ruled Obama Care Unconstitutional.... Politico News by Jennifer Haberkorn Aug. 12, 2011

Court says mandate unconstitutional By: Jennifer Haberkorn August 12, 2011 01:29 PM EDT

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law's requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds the Supreme Court will choose to review the law. The suit was brought by 26 states — nearly all led by Republican governors and attorneys general — and the National Federation of Independent Business. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal. The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate. Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton. The panel partially upheld a ruling issued in January by Judge Roger Vinson, who struck down the entire health reform law. However, the 11th Circuit said that the rest of the legislation can stand even if the mandate is unconstitutional. The panel also said that the law's expansion of Medicaid is constitutional, ruling against the states.  The Department of Justice won't say yet whether it will appeal to the Supreme Court or ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the decision.  The majority of the panel said they couldn't uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress's powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits. Vinson cited this broccoli argument in his sweeping ruling striking down the entire law. "We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers," Dubina and Hull wrote in an expansive, 200-page ruling. "'Uniqueness' is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision." The federal government argued that the law  regulates only how people obtain health care — something all Americans will need at some point in their lives. They say the uniqueness of the market makes health care different than broccoli or gym purchases. "People are seeking this good already," Neal Katyal, the acting solicitor general, said during oral arguments. "It's about the failure to pay, not the failure to buy." During oral arguments in Atlanta in June, the panel spent a significant amount of time discussing whether the mandate is "severable" from the rest of the law. Hull in particular asked the federal government three times where the line should be. The ruling comes six weeks after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the mandate in a similar suit, giving the health law a 1-1 record at the circuit level. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard two related cases in May, has not issued its rulings yet. The White House downplayed the ruling, pointing to the 6th Circuit and lower courts that have upheld the law. "There has been no shortage of court cases regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Before today, four courts, including the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, examined the health reform law and found it constitutional," Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior adviser, wrote in a White House blog post. "Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional." The split rulings make the suit a strong contender to be taken up by the Supreme Court in the fall term. The Thomas More Law Center, which lost the 6th Circuit ruling, has already filed its appeal. In this case, the federal government will have 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court — in a process called certiorari — or ask the entire 11th Circuit to review the ruling. "I can't think of any time a federal law was struck down — let alone a federal law of this scope — that the United States sought 'certiorari' and the cert was denied," said Brad Joondeph, a University of Santa Clara law professor who follows the health law cases atacalitigationblog.blogspot.com. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who inherited the lawsuit from her predecessor, Bill McCollum, praised the ruling. "Today we have prevailed in preventing Congress from infringing on the individual liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution," she said in a statement. Republican presidential candidates, who argue the mandate is unconstitutional, are already praising the ruling. Rep. Michele Bachmann told reporters in Iowa that she had "helped to make that argument about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate." "Effectively giving a national voice to those arguments — the court has listened to those arguments," Bachmann said. Marcus, who wrote the dissent, railed against the decision, calling it "wooden, formalistic and myopic." He said that Congress has shown time and again that it has power over the national health care markets, especially in its ability to set prices under Medicare, its regulatory authority over insurers and drugmakers and its ability to issue rules that cut across both how care is delivered and covered. "Both the congressional intent to link the two and the empirical relation between the purchase of health insurance and the consumption of health care services are clear," Marcus wrote. The ruling is likely to worry not only supporters of the health law but also the insurance industry. The panel said all of the rest of the law — including its ban on insurers denying patients because of pre-existing conditions — can stand. Insurers — and the federal government — have argued that the two must be tied together. Insurers in particular have said that premiums would have to increase if they were required to accept everyone without the mandate. "Throughout the health care reform debate there was broad agreement that enacting guarantee issue and community rating would cause significant disruption and skyrocketing costs unless all Americans have coverage," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans. "States that have implemented these laws without covering everyone have seen a rise in insurance premiums, a reduction of individual insurance enrollment and no significant decrease in the number of uninsured." Matt DoBias contributed to this report.

© 2011 POLITICO LLC

Mass. Healthcare Reform Augurs Badly for Obamacare!! Newsmax.com

Mass. Healthcare Reform Augurs Badly for Obamacare

A new study of the healthcare reform enacted by Massachusetts and its then Gov. Mitt Romney five years ago offers an ominous warning about the likely effects of Obamacare on the nation as a whole.

Researchers at the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suffolk University in Boston found that the Bay State healthcare reform plan has led to increased healthcare expenditures and private health insurance costs, as well as additional payments for Medicare and Medicaid, for a total of $8.5 billion in new outlays.

In 2006, Massachusetts enacted healthcare reform legislation that promised to extend healthcare coverage to all citizens while significantly lowering costs. The law imposes mandates on residents to obtain health insurance and on employers to provide it if they have 11 or more employees.

It also expands Medicaid coverage, establishes a health insurance subsidy program, and creates an insurance exchange that helps those who are ineligible for Medicaid buy competitively priced health plans.

The BHI report states: "Now that the law has been in effect for more than five years, we can begin to assess its impact on the state of Massachusetts."

Among the findings:

• State healthcare expenditures have risen by $414 million over the five-year period.

• Private health insurance costs have risen by $4.31 billion.

• The federal government has spent an additional $2.41 billion on Medicaid in Massachusetts.

• Medicare expenditures increased by $1.42 billion.

The total cumulative cost over the period is just over $8.5 billion.

But the state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government, which continues to absorb a significant part of the cost of healthcare reform through enhanced Medicaid payments and the Medicare program — meaning Americans outside Massachusetts are helping to pay the bills for the healthcare plan.

In analyzing the study's results, the researchers observe: "Cost‐containment is often a major goal of health reform plans. However, this particular healthcare reform legislation did not provide an effective means for containing costs.

"The promise of cost‐containment rested on a vague hope that the newly insured would seek preventive care, access their primary care physicians earlier in their illness and avoid costly emergency room visits. Yet the number of emergency room visits rose from 2.351 million in 2006 to 2.521 million in 2009, or by 7.2 percent over the period. The total cost of emergency visits has soared by 36 percent over the period, or by $943 million."

The large number of newly insured residents in the state has increased demands on the primary care system, forcing patients to visit emergency rooms at a rate significantly higher than expected.

The BHI report also states that "by increasing demand for healthcare services without an equal increase in their supply, the universal healthcare law guaranteed that the price of healthcare services and health insurance would increase."

The researchers point out that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed by President Barack Obama in March 2010 is "essentially identical" to the Massachusetts law.

Obama claimed the law will lower healthcare costs. But the researchers conclude: "If the federal law is modeled after the Massachusetts law, it stands to reason that Massachusetts' experience with healthcare reform provides an idea of what is in store for the country under the federal law."

Obama Administration Officials Plan Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors

Filed under Government, Health {42 comments}

Alarmed by a shortage of primary care doctors, Obama administration officials are recruiting a team of "mystery shoppers" to pose as patients, call doctors' offices and request appointments to see how difficult it is for people to get care when they need it.

The administration says the survey will address a "critical public policy problem": the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Federal officials predict that more than 30 million Americans will gain coverage under the health care law passed last year. "These newly insured Americans will need to seek out new primary care physicians, further exacerbating the already growing problem of P.C.P. shortages in the United States," the Department of Health and Human Services said in a description of the project that it submitted to the White House.

Inland Republicans press on against illegal immigration Friday Jan. 28, 2011

BS Ranch Perspective:

It seems to me that there has to be something done about the Immigration laws in this country. Not only that but there has to be a line drawn as to where and when spending stops for those that are not here legally. Now I know that the Constitution of the United States extends its rights to those that are here illegally, and it allows the Illegal Immigrant to have benefits that they otherwise would not have in their own country. It really doesn't seem right now does it.

The Illegal Immigrant needs to be responsible for their own Medical Coverage, either by their own country, if there country supports that type of Medical Coverage such as Canada, or Europe. If this was the case then their own country should be responsible for the care of their own citizens. The Illegal Immigrant here undocumented should not be able to get any medical benefits from the State or Federal Government. Now I agree that Life Saving Measures should be taken care of, I am not that heartless, but there has to be a line or Limit to what is spent to save ones life depending on what is wrong with them. The coverage should figure on how long it is to take care or stabilize their situation then ship them back to their own country and have their medical coverage in their home country to take care of them from that point on.

The Over 25 Million a year that is spent to bandage up Illegal Immigrants that come here sometimes to get an open heart surgery, or some lung treatments, why many come here for treatment for AIDS. There Country in many cases has limited coverage for AIDS. So they storm to Palm Springs to get treatment, Now it has been told to me that Palm Springs is the Place to go if you are infected with AIDS. Now I don't know how many people are here for treatment of AIDS, but this I can tell you that most places that are considered to be a Catholic Religion Country, might not cover anyone that has AIDS, because of the sigma that comes with that disease, that it is basically a sexually transmitted Disease, that is most commonly associated with the Homosexual Community. Now I know that AIDS is not a Sexually Transmitted Disease, and I also know that it isn't only associated with Homosexuals. But those in their country believes that it is, and that is all it takes for that country not to cover such diseases!! Now the United States has the best Doctor's for this Disease, and the best facilities for treatment of this Disease!! That is a huge magnet for those that suffer from this disease and needs treatment. I know that if I should ever be afflicted with AIDS, I would want to be treated by Doctor's in the United States rather then in a smaller Country, with free health care. Now we are on our way to being one of those countries and I can see that we will drop to the treatment of AIDS simply because there will not be as many American Doctor's. There will not be as many Hospitals as there is now, all will reduce because of the lack of income for a Doctor that Suddenly is working for the Federal Government and not for themselves or a high paying Hospital that is proud to have a surgeon that knows what he is doing, Now when the changes come in and the Federal Government Realizes that they cannot possibly pay for the care of so many Americans along with those that are here Illegally. What I am saying is that the Doctor will be paid less, as a Federal Employee, and facilities will be closed because of cost, and the federal Government not able to keep up with the costs of said ObamaCare!!

WE need to close our Hospitals to those that are here in this country, Undocumented, or as they are more commonly known Illegal Immigrant. or Illegal Alien! It has to stop, not just with Illegal Immigrants. The ObamaCare really needs to be repealed and then the Federal Government needs to reform the Medical Services in this country, but not by taking the whole system on and running it.. they need to make rules and Regulations that has it run far more efficiently then it does now! The less that the Federal Government is involved the better and more money that Hospitals, Doctor's and Nurses will make!!

That is my Opinion, Please let me know yours,

BS Ranch
___________________________________________________________________________________

Inland Republicans press on against illegal immigration

10:00 PM PST on Friday, January 28, 2011

By BEN GOAD
Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - As the GOP looks to improve the party's image among the nation's burgeoning Hispanic community, area House Republicans are pressing forward with legislation meant to fight illegal immigration.

Democrats and pro-immigration advocates predict that such tactics could amount to political suicide in advance of the 2012 elections, especially in heavily Latino Inland Southern California. But Reps. Gary Miller, Ken Calvert and others say they are trying to crack down on law-breakers in general, not the Hispanic community in particular.

"The laws of this country were designed to apply to people equally," said Miller, R-Diamond Bar. "Never once have we discriminated against any one given race of people. If you are here from Germany illegally or Ireland illegally ... I got no problem sending you home."

Republican bills introduced this year include measures to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants; to make it mandatory for all companies to use an electronic employment verification system to ensure their workers' legal status; and to build 20 new federal detention centers for illegal immigrants.

"We think they're targeting Latinos," said Raul Gonzalez, legislative director for the pro-Hispanic National Council of La Raza.

Gonzalez suggested that much of the legislation and anti-illegal immigration rhetoric espoused by Republicans over the past election cycle was meant to rally the conservative base. But in the long term, he said, it could backfire as Latinos represent an increasingly large part of the citizenry.

Hispanic people make up nearly 16 percent of the U.S. population and were credited with playing a large role in the 2008 presidential election.

Political peril seen

In the days after Republicans seized control of the House in a landslide November election victory, Inland Democrat Joe Baca predicted Republicans would tone down their opposition to illegal immigration.

"They know we're a large electoral vote, so their attitudes may change," said Baca, D-Rialto, who is of Hispanic descent. "They can't afford to alienate more of the Latino vote."

For that very reason, a group of Republican leaders, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, called upon the party to reach out to the Latino community during a GOP conference earlier this month.

"It is important to realize that the Hispanic population, which is the fastest-growing population in the country, will also eventually be the fastest-growing population of voters," Bush said. "... It would be incredibly stupid over the long haul to ignore the Hispanic vote."

Miller and Calvert, R-Corona, both staunch opponents of legislation to legalize undocumented immigrants, agreed that it is important to engage the Hispanic community but said many Latino voters back their efforts to curtail illegal immigration.

"I've always had a large Hispanic community," Calvert said of his district, which includes Riverside, Corona and Norco. "I've had support in the Hispanic community as long as I've run."

E-VERIFY

Calvert has long championed legislation to expand the use of E-Verify, an automated system that allows employers check worker eligibility status in order to keep illegal immigrants out of American jobs.

Some companies already use the system, but Calvert is working on a bill with the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, that would make the program mandatory for all employers.

Undocumented workers who are willing to accept lower wages bring down the cost of labor, hurting both the economy and the nation's lingering unemployment crisis, Calvert said. He expects the bill to be introduced by spring.

Some immigration advocates oppose the legislation, pointing to instances where it has incorrectly denied people who should have been granted approval to work. Gonzales, of La Raza, acknowledged that the E-Verify plan resonates with the public, but said imperfections in the system make it a bad fix.

"The system has problems with mismatches," Gonzalez said. "We don't think it's a good solution."

Calvert scoffed at the argument, citing figures showing the system is more than 99 percent effective and challenging critics to name another government program that successful.

The bill passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate. Calvert said he is confident it will pass in the current Congress.

Birthright citizenship

Perhaps more controversial is Miller's quest to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right that any child born in the U.S. becomes a citizen, whether their parents are in the country legally or not. Once they turn 21, those children can petition the government for citizenship or legal resident status for their undocumented relatives.

Miller said the law has given way to what some call the "birth tourism" industry, which arranges the travel and hospitalization of non-Americans who wish to have their babies on U.S. soil for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for them.

He said much of the business comes from non-Hispanic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Korea, to emphasize that the law is not intended to target Latinos.

Miller introduced the bill last year, only to see it stall in the Democratic-controlled House. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, is the lead sponsor this year. Miller is a co-sponsor.

Gonzalez said the bill has little chance of passing in the Senate, where Democrats still enjoy majority status, and called the effort a misguided attempt to politicize the immigration issue and drum up support from hardline conservatives.

Calvert said he was supportive of the idea, and said he would continue to press against illegal immigration, regardless of the political implications.

"I don't blame people who want to better their lives," Calvert said. "But it's up to us to uphold our laws."

Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com