LEGISLATORS SAYING NO TO OBAMA CARE – WITH THE SUPPORT OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS..  I can’t say that I’ve spent time in the past checking out the bills related to health care in Missouri.  However, I will certainly support the proposed constitutional amendment that my MO Rep.Tim Jones (Dist. 89) (and MO Sen. Jane Cunningham) plan to offer in the next legislative session and I hope you will join me in this effort when the time is right. I’ll try to keep you up-to-date on this amendment as it goes through the legislative process. Below (1) is an excerpt taken from Rep. Jones’ Interim Report of Nov. 16th. Note:  Sen. Cunningham was 1 of 3 Senators who opposed the appointment of Linda Martinez (illegal alien advocate) for Economic Dir. of MO. Ed Martin’s org. joined together with MAII and other org. opposing appointment, 2009. (Ed Martin running for U.S. Congress vs Rep. Russ Carnahan: www.edmartinforcongress.com )  Martinez was eventually confirmed by the MO Senate but later resigned a few months ago.

Below Rep. Jones’ Report is commentary on the Heritage Foundation’s morning newsletter re Obama’s health care (2).  And here is an excerpt from article on the New American website, http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/election/1317 , “The states of Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming are all proposing some sort of legislation to unshackle themselves from what some describe as a trampling of state?s rights by the federal government?s passage of the healthcare reform package.  Arizona has already passed legislation entitled the Health Care Freedom Act that allows the ballot initiation to appear in 2010.”  Also, Carey Baker, FL, running for Commissioner of Ag, has also sponsored opt-out legislation. (See electapatriot.com).

Just in case you haven’t called the U.S. Senate already:  Sen. Bond: 202-224-5721; St. Louis Ofc.: 314-725-4484; Sen. McCaskill:  202-224-6154; St. Louis Ofc.: 314-361-8649.  Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121.  All Senate contact info can be found at www.senate.gov if you would like to call other Senators.

(1) Does Government-Run Health Care Mean Higher Taxes? Unless you have been fortunate enough to be vacationing on a remote desert island or exploring deep space, you have likely been inundated with news and discussions regarding the takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government.  Recently, our Lt. Governor, Peter Kinder (R-Cape Girardeau), took a stand against President Obama?s promotion of his government-run health care plan, crafted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.   Washington Democrats want you to believe that the current plans pending in Congress will not add to the trillions of dollars of national debt.  Additionally, they are not telling you that YOU and your family are going to be picking up the tab on these excessive new health care costs.

Governors across the country ? from both parties ? are expressing grave concerns with the federal push for government-controlled health care.  We are in one of the worst economic recessions that our country has ever seen.  This is not the time to implement such an expensive program.  It would burden our taxpayers while they are struggling at home to pay their bills and provide for their families.

In Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have made good financial decisions and provided our state with a balanced budget each year.  While other states sink around us, Missouri has held strong in our tough economic climate.  The federal plan for government-controlled health care would undo all of our hard work and very quickly bankrupt our state. 

Governor Jay Nixon has remained silent on this issue.  But as your State Representative, I am speaking out against government-run health care.  I simply will not stand for an increase in your taxes or severe cuts to vital state programs.  Government cannot spend its way back to prosperity.  History has shown this to be true, time and time again.

To that end, as I announced earlier this summer, I will be filing a House Joint Resolution that calls for a Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Missouri that is designed to say NO to any Government takeover of our health care system.  My good friend and colleague, Senator Jane Cunningham, will file the same proposal in the Senate.  If this Resolution passes both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly, then it will be placed on the ballot in November 2010 for you and your family to decide whether or not you want to join me and millions of other Americans in telling the Federal Government to keep their hands off of our health care.  No where in the enumerated powers of the Federal government, which are fully detailed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is the federal government given the power to mandate that the individuals of the states be FORCED into any particular health care plan.

We do need to address the rising costs of health care.  And many conservatives and Republicans have designed plans to do just that.  Addressing issues of transparency, portability, fair tax treatment and appropriating money towards the ?uninsurable? problem and addressing pre-existing conditions are some of the pillars of the reasonable, calculated, intelligent health care reform.  A massive government takeover of our health care system, resulting in punitive taxes, rationing of care and mandating of services is absolutely the wrong path to take.

I hope that you will continue to join me as we work towards maintaining our health care freedoms here in the State of Missouri and I will definitely keep you posted on our progress in this matter.

This morning’s newsletter from the Heritage Foundation raised a number of valid concerns regarding Obama’s plan for health care.  Most interesting (and alarming), however, is the great discrepancy between Obama’s promises and the reality before us.  Here’s what Obama said:

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality, affordable options for those who don?t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and our government, while strengthening the financial health of Medicare.  It is legislation that is fully paid for and it will reduce our long-term federal deficit.”

That sounds almost too good to be true.  Because it is.  By using the exact findings by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), the Heritage Foundation exposed the effects of HR 3962:

Health Care Costs Increase: ?In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.? In other words, Obamacare bends the cost curve up, not down.

Millions Lose Existing Private Coverage: ?However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their – and their employees? – advantage to end their plans ? We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.? In other words, Obamacare will cause millions of Americans to lose their existing private coverage.

Millions Pay Fines Yet Remain Uncovered: ?18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.? In other words, 18 million Americans will either face jail time or be forced to pay a new tax they will receive no benefit from.

Millions Lose Medicare Advantage: ?Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks ? We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).? In other words, 8.5 million seniors who currently get such services as coor­dinated care for chronic conditions, routine eye and hearing examinations, and preventive-care services would lose their existing private coverage.

Millions Placed on Welfare: ?Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.? In other words, more than half the people who gain health insurance will receive it through the welfare program Medicaid.

Seniors Access to Care Jeopardized: ?H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers? Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers? costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).? In other words, the Medicare cuts in the House bill are so out of touch with reality that hospitals currently serving Medicare patients might be forced to stop doing so. Thus making it much more difficult for seniors to get health care.

Poor?s Access Problems Exacerbated: ?In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. ?providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group.? In other words, those 21 million people who are gaining health insurance through Medicaid are going to have a very tough time finding a doctor who will treat them.”

So there you have it.  Obama’s lofty promises reduced to reality.  Today, the Bill will be introduced to the Senate, per Senator Reid’s movement.  However, public approval for government health care has dropped from 69% in 2006 to just 47%.  Now, 50% of Americans do not believe that health care is the government’s responsibility, and “many” believe that their care will worsen with the passing of the health care bill.  After reading the CMS’s report on the actual repercussions of the pending legislation, it’s no wonder that the