Fact-checking Obamacare Summit

We should be thankful for yesterday’s 7-hour health care summit – it was helpful in that it allowed Americans to hear the fundamental differences in approaches to meeting health care challenges. On one side, commonsense conservatives laid out fiscally-sound, free market-based, patient-centered solutions; and on the left’s side we heard about the Democrat’s belief that growing government is the only way to meet challenges.

As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts.” When these “facts” concern one-sixth of our economy and something as important to our personal wellbeing as health care, we’d better make sure they are the real deal.

Please take a look at the compilation below from GOP.com correcting the top five falsehoods from yesterday’s summit. I appreciate their research and revelations compiled here.

- Sarah Palin

TOP FIVE FALSEHOODS If Democrats Would Start Listening To The American People, They’d Stop Telling Falsehoods

NO ONE’S TALKING ABOUT RECONCILIATION?

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Claims “No One Has Talked About Reconciliation.” “No one has said -- I read what the President has online -- no one has talked about reconciliation but that's what you folks have talked about ever since that came out, as if it's something that has never been done before.” (“Transcript: White House Health Summit, Morning Session,” Kaiser Health News, 2/25/10)

But Reid Himself Is Talking About Reconciliation. “Harry Reid’s got a gift for hyperbole – and it keeps on giving. The Senate majority leader’s latest gem came in response to hints that Democrats might try to use the fast-track budget ‘reconciliation’ to bypass a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s health care plan. After advising Republicans on Tuesday to ‘stop crying over reconciliation as if it’s never been done before,’ he ticked off a list of legislative feats he contends were accomplished through the filibuster-busting process: ‘Contract [with] America was done with reconciliation. Tax cuts, done with reconciliation. Medicare, done with reconciliation.’” (Jonathan Allen, “Hyperbolic Harry,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/24/10)

“For Some Bizarre Reason, During His Initial Presentation, Sen. Reid Said That ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’ … But That's Obviously Not True. Everybody's Talking About It. And A Lot Of Dems Would Be Pretty Upset If They Weren't Talking About It.” (Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo’s “Editors Blog” Blog, 2/25/10)

“A Number Of Democratic Senators Have Signed A Letter Urging Reid To Use Reconciliation To Pass The Public Option.” (Eric Zimmermann, “Reid: 'No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/25/10)

Obama Health Reform Advisor Says The Door Is Open For Reconciliation. “Linda Douglass, the communications director of the White House Office of Health Reform, left reconciliation on the table as an option for passing a health care bill if Democrats and Republicans don't reach consensus during Thursday's summit. … ‘Certainly if that were not to be the case, he would be asking for a simple up or down majority vote and would certainly hope that the Republicans would not try to block that simple up or down majority vote.’” (Carol Lee & Patrick O’Connor, “Douglass Open To Reconciliation,” Politico’s “44” Blog, 2/25/10)

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T INTERESTED IN RECONCILIATION?

Obama Claims Americans Don’t Care About Reconciliation. “You know, this issue of reconciliation has been brought up. Again I think the American people aren't always all that interested in procedures inside the Senate. I do think they want a vote on how we’re going to move this forward.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But 52% Of Americans Don’t Want The Democrats To Use Reconciliation To Pass Their Government-Run Health Care Experiment. “In the survey, Americans by 52%-39% oppose Senate Democrats using the procedure, which allows a bill to pass with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.” (Susan Page, “Poll: Expectations Low On Health Summit,” USA Today, 2/25/10)

DEM PROPOSALS WILL LOWER PREMIUMS?

President Obama Claimed CBO Determined His Plan Would Lower Premiums. PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No, no, no, no. Let me -- and this is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight.” ALEXANDER: “That's my point.” OBAMA: “Well, exactly, so let me -- let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But Actually, CBO Determined The Bill Would Raise Premiums For Americans Purchasing Insurance Individually. “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), 11/30/09)

INCREMENTAL PLANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “[I]naction And Incrementalism Are Simply Unacceptable.” (Mike Allen, “Will Dr. Obama Go For Plan B-1, Or Plan B-2? -- Dems' Post-Summit Message: POTUS Was 'Thoughtful, Comprehensive,' Rs 'Insulted The Summit' -- New NYT Expose May Finish Gov. Paterson,” Politico’s “Playbook,” 2/25/10)

But 56.4 Percent Of Americans Prefer An Incremental Approach. “Moreover, 56.4 percent of people indicated they would prefer Congress to tackle healthcare reform on a step-by-step basis, not take the comprehensive approach as embodied in the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but has stalled for the past month.” (Jeffrey Young, “Poll: Most Americans Think Congress Should Start Over On Healthcare,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/16/10)

PUBLIC FUNDS WOULDN’T GO TO ABORTION?

Pelosi Said Abortion Wouldn’t Be Funded Under The Plan. “The law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)

But The Bill Allows Federally Funded Abortions. “Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks -- one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.” (Paul Kane, “To Sway Nelson, A Hard-Won Compromise On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 12/20/10)

Pro-Life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Calls Obama’s Abortion Language “Unacceptable.” “Unfortunately, the president’s proposal encompasses the senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (Ben Smith,” Stupak: “Unacceptable,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/23/10)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Says 15 To 20 House Dems Who Can’t Support Obama’s Proposal. “Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who led efforts to tighten abortion language in the House health care bill, said Wednesday morning there are 15 to 20 House Democrats who cannot support President Barack Obama’s effort to bridge the gap between the House and Senate health plans. … He said well over a dozen House members will likely balk, not just on abortion but on the residual tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which he said the House had already rejected.” (“Stupak: 15-20 Dems Can’t Back Obama Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” Blog, 2/24/10)

Sarah Palin Reacts to the Healthcare Summit

More of the Same, Only More Expensive

From Sarah Palin's Facebook:

The President has wrestled control of the health care debate away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by finally introducing his own plan. Unfortunately, the White House’s proposal includes everything we found untenable about the old Senate bill – only this one is even more expensive! This is what you might call putting “perfume on a pig.”

What’s in this “new” proposal? It has the unpopular (and arguably unconstitutional) individual mandate that forces people and employers to purchase health insurance – only this time with much harsher fines on employers who choose not to go along with another expensive government mandate. It has provisions that will make employers think twice before expanding their workforce. It has cuts to Medicare Advantage, a popular program which allows seniors to pay a little more money out of pocket for better coverage. And, of course, it still has sweetheart deals – only this time they’ve been extended even more.

We don’t know what the final long-term cost of this will be because the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t had a chance to calculate costs. We do know that the White House recognizes that its proposal will cost tens of billions more over the next ten years than the already-expensive $2.5 trillion Senate bill. The President promised last July that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” But he’s now proposing a health care bill with uncertain fiscal repercussions that could lead to endless deficits.

The rising cost of care has driven the entire health care reform debate. So how does the President’s proposal address this central issue? Price controls. That’s right: Washington, D.C. wants to give a panel of bureaucrats the power to cap insurance premiums and prices. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, “artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers.” This leads to rationing. Any economist worth his salt – including the White House’s own Larry Summers – will tell you that price controls lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. It’s another step towards government controlled health care and away from the real solution: free market, patient-centered reform.

With a government-growing proposal this bad, it’s no wonder the President wants bipartisan cover for it in an election year. Thursday’s health care summit is already being revealed as little more than a photo-op. The Obama administration still denies the existence of the House Republicans’ health care plan that offers alternative solutions to health care challenges – even though the White House website links right to it.

The President’s proposal doesn’t include pro-free market ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, giving individual buyers the same tax benefits as those who get insurance through their employers, or instituting real medical liability reform. Despite the “kumbaya” rhetoric, Democrats are making plans to ram this bill through the Senate using a partisan procedural maneuver that will bypass the normal bipartisan debate process.

In the meantime, the White House will continue to ignore Republican reform ideas and cast the GOP as the party of no. That’s a hard sell considering that Democrats still hold the majority in the House and Senate. The only real “gridlock” preventing Democrats from doing what they want is the very real threat of America's voice being heard at the ballot box.

The public is clearly opposed to the Democrats’ health care bills. Americans want to scrap these big-government plans and start over with common-sense, incremental reform. Some on the left have urged Democrats to vote for Obamacare because it’s a foot in the door for universal health care. They understand what’s at stake; so should the rest of us.

The President can perfume this proposal however he wants, but it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Washington should listen to Americans now, or Washington will hear us in November.

- Sarah Palin

Abortion Language in White House Health Care Proposal Worries Some in Washington

From Fox News:

The 11 page White House proposal on health care has hit some snags in Washington, with outside groups complaining the language in the plan does not go far enough in explicitly banning the use of federal funds for abortions. Americans United for Life (AUL) is asking President Obama to re-evaluate the wording in his proposal regarding abortion, saying he had previously promised no federal dollars would be used to fund the procedure.

Charmaine Yoest, the director of Americans United for Life (AUL), has said repeatedly that her organization, which has met with various officials at the White House, would only be satisfied with a bill that strictly limits federal funding of abortions, language included in the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House legislation, but not clarified in the Senate version. “The President promised the American people that 'no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.' Incredibly, his health care proposal doesn’t contain a single mention of the Life issue,” Yoest said in a statement. “As I made clear to the White House in a meeting last fall, unless they include specific legislative language banning the use of federal funds for abortion, they will be establishing taxpayer funding for abortion. Today was the President's opportunity to keep his word."

President Obama’s proposal on health care, published on Monday on the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) specifically deals with the Senate legislation and not the House passed legislation. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer says the proposal is only an “opening bid” for a meeting Thursday at Blair House between Republicans, Democrats and the President and is seen as a way to bridge the differences between the House and Senate passed legislation. When asked about the abortion language during a telephone briefing with reporters, Pfeiffer said the language in the Senate bill was what the White House would be using for their proposal.

AUL argues the Senate bill’s funding restriction is too narrow and allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive federal subsidies. “Any health care reform measure must explicitly exclude both federal funding for elective abortions and subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortions, and ensure that no government entity may mandate abortion coverage,“ Mary Harned, AUL’s Staff Counsel told Fox. “The abortion funding restriction in the Senate bill is narrow and explicitly allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive federal subsidies. There are also loopholes in the Senate bill that could allow government entities to require private insurance companies to cover elective abortions. Therefore, the Senate bill needs language mirroring the Stupak-Pitts amendment, such as the Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment that was offered and tabled on the Senate floor. "

The Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House legislation would prevent coverage for abortions in the so-called public option. The amendment also prevents private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if those plans accept people who receive government subsidies on health care. However, the Senate backed legislation does not have a public option as the House legislation does, and it has various other differences that need to be reconciled between the two houses of Congress, as well as the White House before any agreement can be reached on the overall bill.

Meanwhile, in advance of a protracted argument and potential filibuster on the entire bill, the White House is urging Republicans in the Senate and House to have an up or down vote on health care reform. "Our proposal is designed to give ourselves maximum flexibility to ensure that we can get an up or down vote if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform,” Pfeiffer said.

The health care meeting between Republicans, Democrats and the President will take place Thursday and will be broadcast live on CSPAN.

Sarah to be on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno

From Fox News:

Jay Leno will be reclaiming "The Tonight Show" with help from Sarah Palin, Lindsey Vonn and Jamie Foxx.

They will be among Leno's guests next week when he returns as host of NBC's late-night show.
Foxx, Olympic skier Vonn and musical guest Brad Paisley will appear on Monday.

Palin is scheduled for Tuesday, along with Olympic snowboarder Shaun White.

NBC said Monday that other guests set for Leno's first week back include Olympic champion Apolo Anton Ohno, Avril Lavigne, Morgan Freeman and Matthew McConaughey .

Conan O'Brien exited as "Tonight" host after NBC sought to move him to a later time slot.

YES, Team USA!

From Sarah Palin's Facebook

Congratulations to Team USA’s men’s hockey team for a sensational game this evening. We needed this! It made us so proud to be fans of this team, this sport, and this great country. America's Olympic team of hard working, selfless team players – with no individual superstars – is an inspiring story for all. Now on to the next chapter in this great sports story… Go Team USA!

- Sarah Palin

Awesome job, Team USA! KEEP, KEEP, KEEP IT UP! USA! USA! USA!

Alexander Haig

At the end of my first post about Alexander Haig, I promised that I would provide some facts about him. Here are some facts:

-Graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1947
-Worked in Washington until a combat tour in Vietnam in 1966-67
-1969: Returned to Washington to work for Henry Kissinger
-1973: Becomes Chief of Staff under Richard Nixon after top aides resigned during Watergate and remains so until immediately after Nixon's resignation.
-1974-79: Serves as the NATO Commander
-1981-82: Serves as Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan; resigns supposedly over policy disagreements.
-1988: Runs unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

*After the failed assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, Secretary Haig reportedly got in hot water when he publically said, "As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending the return of the Vice President and in close touch with him."

Source:
http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/alexanderhaig.html