Today in Washington, D.C. - April 20, 2010 - UnConstitutional D.C. Voting Rights Bill Stalls In House - Healthcare Premiums Going Up Under ObamaCare
Today, the Senate is expected to hold the final vote on the nomination of Lael Brainard to be an undersecretary in the Treasury Department and to debate and vote on the nomination of Marisa Demeo to be a judge at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Senate will then consider the nomination of Stuart Gordon Nash to the D.C. Superior Court.
In the House, the issue of granting the District of Columbia a voting member in Congress in violation of the Constitution of the United States, has again been removed from the House agenda. Earlier today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that the House will not take up legislation this week. He also said it was unlikely the bill would be considered in the House later this year. The bill had been previously passed the House in complete disregard of the US Constitution which says that only States may have voting representatives in Congress. The District of Columbia was to be a non-voting area. However, citizens living in District were previously granted voting privileges. The Senate then also passed the bill with the assistance of Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) who was also seeking an additional congressional seat for Utah. Hatch when confronted with the unconstitutional aspects of the act, said let the Supreme Court decide verses opposing the bill.
Fortunately the Senate included in their provision of the bill the requirement for the District of Columbia to eliminate its tough gun control laws; some of which have already been Constitutionally challenged. As a result the House had to reconsider this change and has not been able to agree on the rights of citizens in the District of Columbia to own and to bear arms as provided by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. If the bill is not taken up again before the 2010 elections, it is expected that the unconstitutional bill will die. Note: if Congress, wishes for the District of Columbia to have a vote in Congress, let them submit a Constitutional amendment for consideration by the People of the United States. For more background info, read articles here and hear and an older 2007 ARRA News Service article: D.C. Voting Rights bill slowed down but not DOA -- What parts of the U.S. Constitution are "value voters" willing to give up?
Government Health Care: Though President Obama signed his unpopular health care takeover into law last month, most of the major provisions have yet to take effect. During this interim, news stories are surfacing all across the country about the expected impacts of Democrats’ partisan and hastily considered legislation.
Over the weekend, The New York Times wrote, “New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people … is falling apart.”
Because of stringent requirements on insurance companies in New York State, the NYT explains, “Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the ‘adverse selection death spiral.’”
According to NYT, “Since 2001, the number of people who bought comprehensive individual policies through HMOs in New York has plummeted to about 31,000 from about 128,000, according to the State Insurance Department. At the same time, New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.”
And it’s not just in New York this is expected to happen. Oklahoma’s state insurance commissioner, Kim Holland, told The Oklahoman she expects insurance rates to increase in her state. “Holland said she doesn’t see a reduction in insurance rates. ‘If anything, they’re going to go up.’”
Republicans warned of precisely this consequence throughout the health care debate. Back in November, the CBO explained that the Senate’s health care reform bill would result in higher insurance premiums. And just days before the final bill was passed press reports warned that premiums would go up. In fact, the AP wrote in a fact check piece, “Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print. Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say.” Even Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, acknowledged in March, “Anyone who would stand before you and say, ‘Well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down,’ I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we're trying to do is slow the rate of increase.”
As said repeatedly by Republicans, “Higher premiums, higher taxes, and higher health care costs are not what [Americans] signed up for. This is not what they were promised. This is not reform.” Democrats were wrong to pass the bill over bipartisan opposition in Congress and the objections of the overwhelming majority of the American people. The health care law needs to be repealed and replaced before the negative consequences begin to pile up.
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, judicial nominees, District of Columbia, voting member of Congress, US Constitution, health care, higher premiums
To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
In the House, the issue of granting the District of Columbia a voting member in Congress in violation of the Constitution of the United States, has again been removed from the House agenda. Earlier today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that the House will not take up legislation this week. He also said it was unlikely the bill would be considered in the House later this year. The bill had been previously passed the House in complete disregard of the US Constitution which says that only States may have voting representatives in Congress. The District of Columbia was to be a non-voting area. However, citizens living in District were previously granted voting privileges. The Senate then also passed the bill with the assistance of Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) who was also seeking an additional congressional seat for Utah. Hatch when confronted with the unconstitutional aspects of the act, said let the Supreme Court decide verses opposing the bill.
Fortunately the Senate included in their provision of the bill the requirement for the District of Columbia to eliminate its tough gun control laws; some of which have already been Constitutionally challenged. As a result the House had to reconsider this change and has not been able to agree on the rights of citizens in the District of Columbia to own and to bear arms as provided by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. If the bill is not taken up again before the 2010 elections, it is expected that the unconstitutional bill will die. Note: if Congress, wishes for the District of Columbia to have a vote in Congress, let them submit a Constitutional amendment for consideration by the People of the United States. For more background info, read articles here and hear and an older 2007 ARRA News Service article: D.C. Voting Rights bill slowed down but not DOA -- What parts of the U.S. Constitution are "value voters" willing to give up?
Government Health Care: Though President Obama signed his unpopular health care takeover into law last month, most of the major provisions have yet to take effect. During this interim, news stories are surfacing all across the country about the expected impacts of Democrats’ partisan and hastily considered legislation.
Over the weekend, The New York Times wrote, “New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people … is falling apart.”
Because of stringent requirements on insurance companies in New York State, the NYT explains, “Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the ‘adverse selection death spiral.’”
According to NYT, “Since 2001, the number of people who bought comprehensive individual policies through HMOs in New York has plummeted to about 31,000 from about 128,000, according to the State Insurance Department. At the same time, New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.”
And it’s not just in New York this is expected to happen. Oklahoma’s state insurance commissioner, Kim Holland, told The Oklahoman she expects insurance rates to increase in her state. “Holland said she doesn’t see a reduction in insurance rates. ‘If anything, they’re going to go up.’”
Republicans warned of precisely this consequence throughout the health care debate. Back in November, the CBO explained that the Senate’s health care reform bill would result in higher insurance premiums. And just days before the final bill was passed press reports warned that premiums would go up. In fact, the AP wrote in a fact check piece, “Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print. Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say.” Even Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, acknowledged in March, “Anyone who would stand before you and say, ‘Well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down,’ I don't think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we're trying to do is slow the rate of increase.”
As said repeatedly by Republicans, “Higher premiums, higher taxes, and higher health care costs are not what [Americans] signed up for. This is not what they were promised. This is not reform.” Democrats were wrong to pass the bill over bipartisan opposition in Congress and the objections of the overwhelming majority of the American people. The health care law needs to be repealed and replaced before the negative consequences begin to pile up.
Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, US Congress, judicial nominees, District of Columbia, voting member of Congress, US Constitution, health care, higher premiums
To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 4:04 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home