Today in Washington, D.C. - Aug 3, 2010 - Media Supports Kagan Conspiracy But Finally Reports on Dem's Deceptions On Obamacare, Bureaucracy & High Premiums

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) rolled out the Kagan nomination and is also trying to force through several bills before the Aug recess. Reid wants the Senate can go on vacation and avoid questions at home about Kagan. He knows that the American people are unhappy with Congress and that many of his Senate colleagues will face their constituents once on recess.  After the recess, they will return cowering and some will be in fear for their re-election. Today, the Senate began consideration of the disappointing nomination of Elena Kagan  to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. A "very short" debate on her nomination is "scheduled" through 8:15 PM. With little to no time being allotted for a comprehensive debate, expect a vote by Thursday; possibly even tomorrow.

Reid is afraid to allow the debate of Kagan's record to be widely exposed to American voters. An Ethics - Criminal Complaint filed by Declaration Alliance is seeking to have Supreme Court nominee Kagan disbarred from practicing before the court she aspires to join. While RINOs like Sen Lindsey Graham (SC) are complicit in their unwillingness to represent there constituents by doing due diligence in their oversight responsibility on Kagan's nomination, Senator Ben Nelson (NE) has become the first Democrat to oppose Kagan saying “... I have heard concerns from Nebraskans ... Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination.” Reid cannot abide a further breach and is pressing forward for the Senate confirmation vote.  And even the "lame" street press is supporting Reid in his "Kagan Conspiracy" by declaring victory for Kagan's confirmation before the vote is even taken.

Last night, after Democrats were unable to fully offset the cost of their state bailout bill (H.R. 1586), the Senate voted 95-0 to table a pending motion to agree to it. The bill was set aside, but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expected to try again with a new substitute amendment. A cloture vote on that bill has been set for Wednesday.

It’s been a few weeks since the Democrats’ massive, unpopular health care law has been in the news, but there are several stories involving the bill this week, and, as has been the case since it was signed into law, they all feature negative consequences, hidden, troublesome provisions in the bill, or show the truth of the bill contradicts Democrats’ sales job. Politico has a must-read story whose headline says it all: “Health reform's bureaucratic spawn.” Meanwhile, The New York Times examines the changes the law requires and notes a number of potential negative effects. On top of that, the Obama administration got caught in its double-counting of Medicare cuts. And of course, yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Virginia’s lawsuit against the health care law based on the individual mandate could proceed.

Politico’s story aptly illustrates the consequences of Democrats writing a 2,800-page bill, jamming it through Congress, and then having House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declare, “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . .” Politico writes, “Don’t bother trying to count up the number of agencies, boards and commissions created under the new health care law. Estimating the number is ‘impossible,’ a recent Congressional Research Service report says, and a true count ‘unknowable.’ . . . The provisions of the law that create the new entities vary dramatically in specificity. The law says a lot about some of them and a little about many, and merely mentions a few. Some have been authorized without any instructions on who is to appoint whom, when that might happen and who will pay.”  Politico also reports, “One entity might not be enough and could spawn others, resulting in an ‘indeterminate number of new organizations.’ The CRS report cites as an example a minority health provision that ‘requires the heads of six separate agencies within Health and Human Services to each establish their own offices of minority health.’”

While Politico looks at the bureaucratic fallout, The New York Times today finally after months of supporting Obamacare, notes the challenges in implementing the law without “destabilize[ing] or disrupt[ing] the existing market in a way that makes insurance less available or more expensive to consumers.” Of course, that’s precisely what this law will do, and the NYT acknowledges this even as the story points to some of the benefits touted by Democrats. As an example, the NYT points to the flap about coverage for children with pre-existing conditions. After President Obama signed the law, insurers were notified they must cover all children, but “[f]our months later some insurers said they would stop writing new coverage for children in the individual insurance market.”

Further, the Times story notes that new requirements in the law mean “[c]onsumers could see higher premiums” and another provision that “requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of every premium dollar on medical care and activities to improve its quality” could mean “some insurers may curtail sales to individuals or small businesses if they find the requirements too difficult to meet.” Indeed, the NYT reports, “The insurance superintendent in Maine, Mila Kofman, cited that concern in asking the federal government for an exemption from the medical loss ratio requirement. “Absent a waiver, I believe that the federal standard may disrupt our individual health insurance market,” said Ms. Kofman, a strong supporter of the new law.”

Meanwhile, two events yesterday again exposed the misrepresentations made by Democrats and the Obama administration in selling the health care takeover in the first place. On a conference call with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the American Spectator’s Philip Klein that it’s perfectly okay for the administration to count cuts in Medicare as extending the life of the Medicare trust fund when that money is also being used to pay for the expanded insurance coverage in the law. But even the AP notes, “[C]ritics say trust fund solvency will only improve on paper, since actual savings from the Medicare cuts would have been spent to provide coverage for more than 30 million uninsured Americans.”

Finally, in rejecting a motion from the Obama administration to dismiss Virginia’s suit against the health care law, federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said of the individual mandate, “Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America. . . . The Commerce Clause aspect of this debate raises issues of national significance. The position of the parties are widely divergent and at times novel. The guiding precedent is information but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and the associated Necessary and Proper clause been extended this far.” Yet Democrats repeatedly dismissed constitutional concerns during the debate over the health care bill.

Yet again, Americans who disapproved of the health care bill before it was passed are learning about the unintended consequences, the hidden bureaucracy, and the misleading claims made by the Obama administration and Democrats about the bill, all after the fact. This bill needs to be repealed and replaced with common-sense reforms that won’t break the bank and raise premiums for Americans.

---

Tags: US Senate, Washington, democrat deceptions, Harry Reid, Kagan Conspiracy, Elena Kagan, SCOTUS, Obamacare, bureaucracy, high premiums To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!