North Suburban Republican Forum

January, 2012
www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.com www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.org

Our next meeting is from 9:45-11:15 am, Saturday, January 14th featuring Dr. Jill Vecchio about what ObamaCare really is and how it impacts America We meet at our new location, the Anythink Huron Street Library community room, 9417 Huron St, Thornton, 80260. If you have a smart phone, use a bar code app for the QR code on the left, it will take you to our web site, www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.com

NSRF upcoming calendar in 2011: February 11 Upcoming legislative bills and what you can do to inform your legislator March 10 850 KOAs Michael Brown discusses the 2012 election & the presidential candidates April 14 What has the Colorado Legislature accomplished so far this session and what is on tap? May 12 The 2012 political timeline and Colorados upcoming state assembly April 14 Politics 101

Table of Contents:
y y y y y y y y y Adams County voter information ObamaCare, the GOP and You Colorado Republican Caucus on February 7, 2012 information The Supreme Court and Obamacare : A concise guide Finally, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Obamacare Challenges Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act definition from Wikipedia Krauthammer: Obamacare Numbers Don t Add Up Myths and facts about Obamacare The Impact of Obamacare

y y y y y

Free People, Free Markets: Principles of Liberty CRBC class information REACT online caucus class training information Elected officials information and phone numbers Politically is there a difference? Here are the facts NSRF membership application 2

ObamaCare, the GOP and You

By Dr. Marc Siegel Published January 03, 2012

A healthy new year to all my patients and to patients everywhere. This year will decide the future of the insuranceexpansion albatross that doctors and patients alike have come to call ObamaCare. My regular readers on this website and elsewhere have come to know my opinions. We dont have the horses to pull the ObamaCare cart. The insurance expansion was done without attention to the doctor shortage and the growing doctor discontent and dropping out of insurances especially Medicaid and Medicare. No tort reform leaves doctors continuing to practice defensively, while increasing regulation restricts our use of essential technologies. What I call the overuse syndrome pervades current health insurance (public and private) and is even worse with ObamaCare, where insurance covers too much without a built in disincentive for overuse of non-essential services (such as a large co-pay or deductible or expanded health savings account). Universal health insurance should be focused only on severe illness a catastrophic-plus policy. Insurance should be portable across state lines to encourage competition. The individual mandate is not only unconstitutional, it also undermines the essential role of government. If the government believes there is an unmet health care need, it should provide for it directly, as with a vaccine or antiviral drug in a pandemic. If the government finds that the poor are under-served, it can expand the National Health Services Corp and provide more federally funded clinics. The age of qualifying for Medicare should be raised to 68, and Medicaid should not be expanded. By contrast to my own in the trenches as a practicing physician position, here are the major positions of the GOP frontrunners, including Ron Paul, who was a practicing physician for many years who did not accept Medicare:

Mitt Romney: As governor of Massachusetts, helped to formulate and signed the 2006 state law mandating
insurance (known as Romneycare) which included an online marketplace called the Health Connector. Hasnt renounced it despite escalating costs in Massachusetts and a shortage of physicians leading to longer waits and E.R. visits increasing by at least 9%. Argues that ObamaCare did not grown out of Romneycare and that if elected he would allow states to opt out and encourage Congress to repeal it. Wants to strengthen health saving accounts by allowing people to use them to pay insurance premiums. Wants caps on medical malpractice lawsuits (non-economic damages) while providing states grants to find other solutions. Favors portability of insurance. Wants to bar insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions while restricting federal regulations. Opposes Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

Ron Paul: Outspoken opponent of the health reform law. Believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional
and introduced legislation to end it. Doesnt believe that people have a fundamental right to health care. Believes that Medicare is one of the entitlements that provide unnecessary dependence on government. Favors free market approaches for patients not yet on Medicare. Favors tax credits and deductions for medical expenses, high deductible health savings accounts, and portability of insurance.

Newt Gingrich: Also urges tax credits for purchasing insurance. Founded the Center for Health Transformation. Believes in increasing transparency as a way of reducing medical errors. Would repeal Obamacare and replace it with portability, tort reform, and an emphasis on health savings accounts and electronic medical records. Believes states should have high risk pools to cover those without insurance who become sick. Extensive revamping of Medicaid in ways to give states more freedom and encourage user financial involvement. 3

Rick Santorum: Emphasizes repeal of the health reform law and believes health care entitlements get
patients hooked. Supports the initial Ryan plan to replace current Medicare with a voucher program. Supports caps on medical malpractice. Would like to see Medicaid revamped and scaled back.

Rick Perry: Believes Obamacare is unconstitutional and supports its repeal. Does not support state insurance exchanges or high risk insurance pools. Favors state solutions. Opposes Medicaid expansion in 2014 and the current Obamacare provision that states cant restrict Medicaid eligibility. Believes states should be able to opt out of Medicare. Supports tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and has instituted it in Texas.
I can find GOP candidate positions on the health reform law and the current health care system to endorse and even to admire, beginning with the recognition that ObamaCare will lead to out of control spending, reckless entitlement expansion at a time of economic hardship, and that the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed. But a problem I have with each candidates position is the failure to recognize that health insurance itself (private as well as public) covers far too much and is too easy to overuse for non-essential services. We wont reign in the health care costs in the U.S. until we all realize that we are too addicted to the concept of health insurance itself. Only when our doctors wont see us now will we really begin to realize that even if health insurance is universal, health care definitely isnt. Only when we have to pay for a service out of pocket will we really begin to know and feel again what that service really costs. Marc Siegel, M.D. is an associate professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center. He is a Fox News Medical Contributor and author of several books. His latest book is "The Inner Pulse; Unlocking the Secret Code of Sickness and Health."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/03/obamacare-gop-and/#ixzz1iXMdk0nZ

http://www.caucus.cologop.org/
Caucuses are coming up February 7th! Save This Date! It is the one of the most important events in the political calendar. Check your registration here https://www.sos.state.co.us/Voter/secuRegVoterIntro.do or go to your local county clerk s office, info here: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/election/Resources/CountyElectionOffices.html. You have to reside in your precinct 30 days prior to the Caucus in order to vote in the caucus. Be a part of the process, and make real change in 2012!

THE GROUND GAME IS WHERE OUR ELECTION POWER LIES!

RUN TO BE AN OFFICER OR DISTRICT CAPTAIN IN YOUR DISTRICTS! Saturday, 7 January, 9:45am (well be finished before noon) Registration begins 9:00 Mountain Range High School Cafeteria 12500 Huron St, Westminster (use east entrance)
Once every 10 years, following the census and reapportionment, we start almost from scratch in organizing the Republican State House and Senate Districts in our county. Each district must elect new Officers and District Captains! The ONLY requirement for running and serving in these positions is that you are a registered Republican and live in the particular district. (And I would personally add, that you be willing to give your time over this next year to saving our country.) You do not need to have experience or to have been active for a long time. Registration and residency are the only requirements. These positions give you on-the-ground clout in your own neighborhoods, AND they put you on the Executive Committee, which meets the second Tuesday of every month and is the advisory body for AdCo Republicans. This year, it ALSO makes you an automatic delegate to the County Assembly (which, for the first time this year, is where we will be electing delegates to the State and Congressional assemblies.) We have a very good reason for doing this, which will be explained at the meeting on Jan 7. Please try to identify your new House and Senate District before you come to the meeting. The best way to do that is to Google Colorado Reapportionment Commission. In the first paragraph on their home page, it will say Click here for the final approved plans. You can then find the plans. Each set of plans has many pages of maps, so scroll down to find Adams County. At the organization meeting, we will have some copies of the maps but if you will need to use those, please arrive as soon after 9:00 as you can. COME! GET INVOLVED! MAKE A COMMITMENT IN THESE CRUCIAL ELECTIONS-OF-A-LIFETIME.

LETS ROLL!!
Patty McCoy, Adams County Republicans Chair heypattymac@juno.com 303-457-1291

FACT SHEET

The Supreme Court and 'ObamaCare': A concise guide

The Roberts Court will rule on a complex, politically explosive issue in the middle of a heated presidential campaign. Here's what all the fuss is about
POSTED ON NOVEMBER 15, 2011, AT 10:02 AM

President Obama signs the Affordable Health Care for America Act into law on March 23, 2010: Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether "ObamaCare" is even constitutional. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty ImagesSEE ALL 60 PHOTOS

The one-two punch of complicated health-care reform legislation and impenetrable legal arcana may seem better suited to a university law seminar than a"political and constitutional blockbuster." But the sharply divided Supreme Court practically guaranteed political fireworks by agreeing on Monday to decide the constitutionality of President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act (ACA) right in the heat of the 2012 election. Here, a guide to the Supreme Court's"biggest case of the century": What's the time frame for the ACA ruling? The Supreme Court will hear 5 1/2 hours of oral arguments over two days in March or April 2012, and hand down its decision before the end of June right in the midst of the presidential campaign. How split is the court? Right down the middle. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are liberal, and widely expected to support Obama's law. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts are conservative. Swing voter Anthony Kennedy could go either way and is often the court's deciding vote. What exactly is the court deciding on "ObamaCare"? Four things, really. First, whether the law can even be challenged, or if the Anti-Injunction Act which prevents taxpayers from challenging a tax or penalty before it goes into effect pushes any legal challenge back to 2015, after the individual mandate (which requires Americans to obtain health insurance) kicks in. Then, the justices will decide if the individual mandate is constitutional. If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the court will decide whether that invalidates the entire ACA. Finally, to the surprise of just about everybody, the justices agreed to decide if the law's expansion of Medicaid is an infringement on states' rights. What have lower courts ruled? Four federal appeals courts have weighed in on the law, with two in Washington, D.C., and Michigan upholding the ACA's individual mandate, the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit court striking it down (but arguing that the lack of a mandate didn't bring down the rest of the law), and the Virginia-based 4th Circuit citing the Anti-Injunction Act to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the 11th Circuit appeal. None of the lower court judges has endorsed the Medicaid part of the case. What's the Medicaid issue about? The ACA extends Medicaid a state-administered health care program largely paid for with federal funds to include low-income adults. Republican officials in 26 states argue that that amounts to federal coercion, since states that fail to comply will lose all their Medicaid funding. Since no lower court judge bought that argument, it's a real stunner the Supreme Court took up the issue. Well, it's probably out of courtesy to the 26 states, says Ilya Shapiro at Cato @ Liberty. But "as a practical matter, this could be a bigger deal than the individual mandate." Congress attaches "plenty of strings to the grants it gives states," and if the justices side with the 26 states, it could cripple Congress' future ability to tie the money it doles out to policy issues. What are the arguments for striking the law down? The central question with the individual mandate is whether the Constitution's Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate not just interstate economic activity, but also what opponents call economic "inactivity" in this case, not buying health insurance. Does punishing Americans for not purchasing health insurance lie outside Congress' power "to regulate commerce"? Opponents say the ACA is a massive overreach of that constitutional authority.

And for upholding it? The "key flaw" in the opponents' case is the "failure to recognize that literally everyone at some point will use the health care system," so "everyone is already making an 'affirmative' active economic choice to purchase health insurance or to self-insure," says Erwin Chemerinsky in the Los Angeles Times. Unless the conservative justices indulge in partisan politics, "this should be an easy case to predict the law is clearly constitutional." It's also a good first step to "reduce medical costs and provide health insurance to all Americans," says the San Jose Mercury News in an editorial. Besides, "the most recent polls indicate a majority of Americans now support moving forward with the reforms." Any guesses on how the justices will rule? There's no consensus among court-watchers. ACA opponents should be cheered by the "whopping 5.5 hours of oral argument," instead of the typical one hour, says Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy. Clearly, at least some justices are taking the challenges very seriously. "Kennedy will be the decider," says Harvard's Noah Feldman at Bloomberg, and he'll probably be persuaded that it's best to kick the issue down the road, or even uphold the law. "You don't need a law degree to know how the Supreme Court is going to vote," says Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker, you "just know which way the wind is blowing." If "Obama looks like a lame duck" when the court decides the case, Kennedy will be more likely to undo the president's signature issue. If Obama "looks like a winner," "ObamaCare" will probably win, too.

http://theweek.com/article/index/221434/the-supreme-court-and-obamacare-a-concise-guide
P HAR MA & H EAL TH CA RE

11/14/2011 @ 12:15PM |

Finally, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Obamacare Challenges

The Supreme Court. Image via Wikipedia

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court granted writs of certiorari to one of the Obamacare constitutional challenges: Florida v. HHS. Florida v. HHS is the key case, coming up from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Obamacares individual mandate was overturned. Both sides appealed the Eleventh Circuit decision, with HHS appealing the voiding of the individual mandate, and Florida et al. appealing the decision

by the Eleventh Circuit to uphold the remainder of the law (the lower court had overturned Obamacare in its entirety). With respect to HHS appeal, the Supremes will focus on Question 1 of HHS petition: Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution [i.e., the Commerce Clause] to enact the minimum coverage provision [i.e., the individual mandate]. For Floridas appeal, the Court will also focus on Question 1, which is: Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest-grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply? This is the complaint that Obamacare forces states to expand their Medicaid programs in violation of the Tenth Amendment, one that the states have so far lost in every lower court. In addition, the Supreme Court asked the Florida v. HHS parties to brief and argue whether or not the suit violates the Anti-Injunction Act, the statute that has been at issue in some of the other lower-court cases. The Anti-Injunction Act aspect of the case revolves around whether or not the mandate is a penalty, as most courts have ruled, or a tax, as some judges have argued. The National Federation of Independent Business, which was also a party to the Florida v. HHS lawsuit, was granted cert limited to the issue of severability presented by Question 3 of their petition, which was whether the ACA must be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution. Hence, all of the key questions from the various lawsuits will be considered through the lens of the Eleventh Circuits decision to declare the mandate to be unconstitutional, while upholding the rest of the law. This is a good thing for mandate opponents, as the Eleventh Circuit decision is, as I wrote in August, the most rigorous and complete repudiation of the mandate ever written. Notably, the Court is allocating an unusually large amount of time to hear oral arguments in this case. The Supremes allotted two hours to the mandates constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, 90 minutes for the severability question, one hour for the Medicaid-Tenth Amendment question, and one hour on the AntiInjunction Act issues, for a total of five-and-a-half hours over two days. According to SCOTUSblog, this is a modern record. Typically, the Court limits oral argument to one hour per case. This case will be one of the most important that the Supreme Court has heard in yearsand not even because of the mandates specific impact on the lives of every American. Upholding the mandate will mean that Congress has virtually unlimited power to force Americans to buy privately-manufactured products, something that will have massive implications for American law. On the other side, invalidating the mandate will require the Court to tackle the hornets nest unleashed by its tortured jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, starting with Wickard v. Filburn. The Court, in overturning the mandate, will have to constrain Congress powers under the Commerce Clause in ways that havent been articulated since before the New Deal.

Finally, this case will stand as a landmark regarding conservatives efforts to place more judges on the bench who respect the original language and intent of the Constitution. Has the Federalist Society failed or succeeded in this task? Will judicial conservatives like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy respect recent precedents, or much older ones? We will find out in seven to eight months.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/14/finally-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-obamacare-challenges/

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. PPACA reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of preexisting conditions, expands access to insurance to over 30 million Americans, and increases projected national medical spending while lowering projected Medicare spending. PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 6039 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill. A majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of PPACA. As of October 2011, the constitutionality of PPACA has been upheld by three out of four federal appellate courts, with the fourth declaring the law's individual mandate alone asunconstitutional. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the suits, and has scheduled over five hours for oral arguments on the matter in March 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Krauthammer: Obamacare Numbers Don't Add Up

Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:41 AM

President Barack Obama's healthcare plan contains some shocking numbers: A supposed savings of $230 billion over the next decade -- which is achieved by boosting spending by $540 billion and increasing taxes by $770 billion. "This is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare," writes syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. "This is a hell of a way to do deficit reduction: a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in taxes," Krauthammer writes. Krauthammer also says Obama's healthcare overhaul legislation was crafted to enbsure that it would result in a positive Congressional Budget Office calculation that would be acceptable to voters. Krauthammer calls on Republicans to take action against Obamacare: "Explain the phony numbers, boring as the exercise may be. Better still, hold hearings and let the CBO director, whose integrity is beyond reproach, explain the numbers himself."

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/charles-krauthammer-health-care/2011/01/23/id/383620 9

Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 01/18/2011

Myths and facts about 'Obamacare'

By Glenn Kessler House Republicans on Wednesday plan to press forward with their repeal of the health care bill passed last year. They have the votes, so passage is not in doubt. But the Democrats who control the Senate have no interest in following suit, and President Obama had pledged a veto. So this is mostly a symbolic act. But it does provide an opportunity to look back at some of the persistent myths about the legislation. Some of the public confusion about what is in the bill is understandable. The long battle in Congress was often mind numbing except to a handful of policy experts, and key features were dropped or added along the way. Opponents often seized on small elements and exaggerated the impact, even if those provisions were no longer in the bill. Since the bill was passed ten months ago, polls indicate that Americans have a greater understanding of what ended up in the final version--and support for the overall law has slowly grown. During last year's midterm elections, both Factcheck.org and PolitiFact.com did yeoman work trying to pick apart the various claims made about the bill; The Washington Post also joined forces with Kaiser Health News to produce an excellent examination of myths and facts about the law. Even so, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll as recently as Septemberfound that a sizeable group of seniors believed that the health-care overhaul contained provisions that are simply not in the bill. Here then is a review of some of the most persistent myths of the health care bill.

"This is a 'government takeover' of the health care system"

This snappy talking point is used by Republicans repeatedly to bash Obama's crowing legislative achievement, but it is simply not true. In fact, PolitiFact.com labeled this claim the 2010 "lie of the year," but that has not stopped lawmakers from making this claim. It will surely be heard again on the House floor during the repeal debate. In many ways, the health care law resembles the Massachusetts reform enacted in 2006 under then Gov. Mitt Romney (a potential Republican rival of Obama in 2012). It builds on the existing private insurance system but adds requirements and incentives to ensure that most people have some form of health insurance. Under the new law, there is no government alternative to the private system--this was a potential provision that was dropped during the congressional tussle--but the number of people who qualify for the existing federal-state Medicaid program for the poor will be expanded. States (or the federal government) will run "exchanges" -essentially marketplaces -- in which private insurers will sell insurance to individuals and small businesses, but this should mean more people will get private insurance, not fewer. Tax credits will also be offered to people who have trouble buying private insurance. Certainly, the law bolsters government regulation of the health care system, such as forcing insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people who have existing medical conditions. People who currently do not have health insurance will be required to buy it. But the core of the health system in the United States will remain the existing private insurance market. So it in no way resembles the government-run health systems used in most industralized countries in the world.

"Medicare benefits will be cut--and payments will be cut to Medicare doctors".

This was another GOP attack line during the campaign, though in many ways this was payback for the Democrats' very effective use of the same charge against Republicans after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994 and attempted to pass a balanced-budget plan that sought to restrain growth in Medicare spending. The politically radioactive word "cut" is a misnomer. Under the health care law, Medicare spending will continue to increase year after year, but at a slower than anticipated pace. Both parties, in theory, agree this would be a good thing. Medicare is the venerable government-run health care plan for Americans over 65, and one of the fastestgrowing parts of the federal budget.

10

The health bill will reduce projected Medicare spending by $575 billion over ten years, primarily by reducing projected fees to hospitals and other providers and by reducing payments to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans. Benefits have also been added, eating into the overall projected savings, but the impact on the Medicare Advantage plans is unclear. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Medicare and Medicaid, has estimated that seniors may need to pay more in out of pocket costs for such plans. He has also cast serious doubt on whether the Medicare savings claimed in the second decade could be achieved without significant pain for many hospitals, nursing facilities and other providers. In fact, since 1997, Congress all but once has waived a planned cut in Medicare payments to doctors, mostly recently in December. So depending on the political pressure, some of these projected "cuts" may never materialize in any case.

"A secretive government committee ('death panels') will be created to make end-of-life decisions about people on Medicare"
This claim, first made by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, has been thoroughly debunked and was labeled "lie of the year" in 2009 by PolitiFact.com. Yet it persists in the popular imagination. The September Kaiser poll found that 30 percent of seniors still believed this to be the case--and 22 percent were not sure, meaning fewer than half knew the claim was false. The charge stemmed from a proposed amendment to the bill that would have covered the cost of end-of-the-life planning discussions. Democrats quickly dropped the provision after the firestorm created by Palin's assertion, even after it was proven to be factually incorrect. But the issue remains politically sensitive. In late December, The New York Times reported that under new Medicare regulations for annual physical examination, "the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment." The White House reversed course days later, ordering the Medicare agency to delete references to end-of-life planning in its new regulations.

"Repealing the bill will increase the deficit"

This is technically true--it comes from a Congressional Budget Office estimate--but we've documented before the problems with both this statement and the estimate. Democrats are sure to make this claim as they fight back against repeal, so here is a link to our previous post on this topic. Bottom line: This is a pretty shaky claim for Democrats to make, especially since the health care law was not really intended to reduce the deficit, but to reduce the number of uninsured Americans,

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/health_care_myths.html

11

Impact of Obamacare: Facts, Statistics, and Charts

Americas health care system needs reform, but not the sort of changes enacted under the new health care law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as Obamacare) moves our health care system in the wrong direction. This highly unpopular law asserts federal control over health care benefits and financing, establishes a complex one-size-fits-all health system, and centralizes Americas health care decisions in Washington. Instead, Congress should transform the health care system into one that empowers individuals and familiesnot Washington to control more of their health care decisions.

The Impact on Jobs and the Economy The Impact on Families The Impact on Your Future The Impact on the Uninsured The Impact on Businesses The Impact on Doctors The Impact on States The Impact on Seniors Repealing Obamacare

The Impact of Obamacare on Jobs and the Economy

Last year, America was told the new health care law would help the economy and create jobs. Today, even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms that job losses will be inevitable under Obamacare. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - New taxes, penalties, and fees resulting from the new law will decrease the amount of investment in the economy. This reduced investment will in turn lead to a decline in productivity, causing the economy to produce $706 billion less worth of goods and services. - On February 10, 2011, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf testified before the House Budget Committee that Obamacare will result in an estimated 800,000 fewer U.S. jobs. THE SOLUTION - Stop new tax increases and promote tax cuts that would expand private insurance coverage and grow the economy. READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Obamacare: Impact on the Economy by Karen Campbell, Ph.D., Guinevere Nell, and Paul Winfree

The Impact of Obamacare on the Uninsured

The real impact Obamacare will have on the uninsured is not what many Americans might have expected. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - Those who gain coverage will be enrolled in Medicaid, the welfare program for the poor, or in a health plan designed by the government. - The millions who remain uninsured will still depend on overcrowded emergency rooms for routine care.

12

THE SOLUTION - Give tax relief or direct assistance and provide portability for those who buy their own health care coverage, allowing individual Americans to take their insurance coverage from job to job. READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Obamacare: Impact on the Uninsured by Kathryn Nix

The Impact of Obamacare on Families

Many provisions of the new law weaken family choice of coverage, undermine parental participation in minor childrens health care decisions, and penalize the decision to marry. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - Obamacare provides $125 million per year for school-based health centers and a new program to reduce teen pregnancy, with no requirement to reduce abortions. - These federally funded projects deny parents any knowledge about the services their children receive. THE SOLUTION - Rather than bureaucrats and lobbyists prescribing health care benefits and services, respect the role of families in moral decisions involving their health care. READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Obamacare: Impact on the Family by Chuck Donovan

The Impact of Obamacare on Seniors

According to surveys, no group of Americans is more skeptical of Obamacare than senior citizensand with good reason. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - Nearly one-quarter of all seniors rely on Medicare Advantage, the private health care option in Medicare. However, Obamacare makes such deep cuts to that program that half of those covered will no longer be able to keep the coverage they have. - New taxes on drug companies ($27 billion) and medical device makers ($20 billion), as well as new reporting requirements and regulations imposed on physicians, will make access to health care and services more costly and difficult for seniors under Obamacare. THE SOLUTION - Give seniors greater choice of doctors, private health plans, and services under Medicare. READ THE FULL REPORTS NOW - Obamacare: Impact on Seniors by Robert Moffit - Obamacare: Impact on Taxpayers by Curtis Dubay

The Impact of Obamacare on Doctors

The new health care law reinforces the worst features of existing third-party payment arrangements in both the private and public sectors. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - Obamacare expands governments role as the primary payer of health care by adding 18 million people to the Medicaid program, which on average reimburses doctors only 56 percent of the market rate for medical procedures. - Due to increased regulation and less reimbursement, 66 percent of doctors are considering no longer accepting government health programs. THE SOLUTION - To make the costs of health care more predictable and sustainable for providers, fix Medicare and Medicaid by allowing patients to choose the coverage that best suits them. READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Obamacare: Impact on Doctors by Robert Moffit

The Impact of Obamacare on States

Obamacare will impose significant new Medicaid costs on states and constitute a major federal usurpation of long-standing state authority in regulating private insurance.

13

OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - By 2019, over 80 million people will be on the Medicaid programrequiring billions of dollars from state budgets and taxpayers. - Twenty-one State Attorneys General have filed suits to protect their citizens from being forced, in violation of the Constitution, to purchase government-approved health insurance. THE SOLUTION - Because no two states are alike, promote federalstate partnerships to accommodate the unique and diverse health care challenges facing the states. READ THE FULL REPORTS NOW - Obamacare: Impact on States by Edmund Haislmaier and Brian Blase - Revitalizing Federalism: The High Road Back to Health Care Independence by Robert Moffit

The Impact of Obamacare on Businesses

The new health care law will impose new compliance regulations, employer mandate taxes, and numerous indirect costs on small- and medium-size companies. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - $52 billion in new taxes will be imposed on businesses by mandating that employers provide health insurance. - New IRS reporting requirements and other business-related taxes and regulations will also penalize growth and success. THE SOLUTION - Encourage portability of health insurance so that workers own their health care plan regardless of job or job status, and allow employers to decide how much they wish to contribute toward their employees health care costs. READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Obamacare: Impact on Businesses by John Ligon

The Impact of Obamacare on Your Future

Families like yours should have complete control of their health care dollars and decisions. In addition to portability of health insurance (see previous page), policymakers should press for transparency in health carewith prices of medical goods and services clear and uncorrupted by excessive government interference. Health plans and providers should compete on a level playing field in a free, open, interstate market. Following this path, you would be able to buy the health insurance plan you want, at a price you are willing to pay, and ultimately receive better quality health care at lower cost. OBAMACARE FACTS AND FIGURES - Obamacare adds a trillion dollars in new health care spending, creating prohibitively expensive new entitlements for longterm care and a subsidy scheme that discourages work and penalizes marriage. - Obamacare will impose about a half a trillion dollars in new taxes and will increase the deficit by $500 billion over the next 10 years, a massive burden on the next generation of taxpayers. THE SOLUTION - Rein in runaway spending and deficits. Rather than creating new government-run health care programs,implement sound fiscal policies to avert the crisis facing Americas existing entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations by James C. Capretta

Repealing Obamacare and Getting Health Care Right

Despite what was promised, Obamacare clearly does not establish a patient-focused health care system that saves money. But could America reform our existing system and get there? Absolutely. HOW TO REVERSE OBAMACARE - Congress must repeal the new law. Congress cannot build sound market-based health care reform on this crumbling foundation, which is utterly incompatible with consumer choice and free markets. - While working to achieve full repeal, Congress can block implementation at every opportunity by stopping funding for key provisions. For example, Congress could prohibit funding from going toward the Internal Revenue Service for enforcing the

14

individual mandate. - Congress has a constitutional mandate to provide oversight to the executive branch. Congress should pursue fair, open, and thorough hearings on the implementation of the new law. For example, the Obama Administrations use of waivers and exemptions from its own rules deserves scrutiny. THE SOLUTIONS - As stated throughout this report, there are policy solutions Congress should consider to get health care right. We should promote personal control through tax equity, ensure portability of health insurance, fix our financially troubled government health care programs, and engage in federalstate partnerships to address the particular challenges faced by very different states. READ THE FULL REPORT NOW - Repealing Obamacare and Getting Health Care Right by Nina Owcharenko THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD FOR AMERICA After repeal of Obamacare, Congress should pursue targeted policy solutions that address practical problems faced by millions of Americans in a step-by-step and fully transparent legislative process. The elements outlined above are at the core of transforming todays health care economy into one where individuals and families can control their own dollars and make their own decisions.

http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/impact-of-obamacare

15

16

17

18

NSRF Board of Directors John Lefebvre Leonard Coppes Jan Hurtt Phil Mocon Brian Vande Krol Gary Mikes Mike Arnall Dick Poole Dana West

President Vice President Treasurer Secretary Issues Issues Planning Planning Communications

Email Address john.lefebvre@comcast.net ljcoppes@yahoo.com jansadvertising@msn.com ph7ss@msn.com brianvandekrol@yahoo.com advancedrefrigeration@msn.com forensic@gate.net dana.west@live.com

Telephone 303-451-5558 303-287-9145 303-451-0934 303-427-5453 303-466-4615 303-252-1645 303-655-1258 303-373-1521 303-280-0243

Join the North Suburban Republican Forum on the Internet and Facebook: http://www.northsuburbanrepublicanforum.org/ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=95611986640&_fb_noscript=1

Yearly membership dues are $20, while a couple is $30. Make checks payable to NSRF. It only costs $3 per person to attend the monthly meeting and a continental breakfast and beverage (coffee, tea, orange juice or water) is included. A membership application is located on the last page. Fill it out and bring it along with you.

To subscribe or unsubscribe from our monthly newsletter, send an email to Dana.West@live.com with your name and subscription instructions in the body. 19

Politically, is there really a difference? Here are the facts:

Democrat platform
y y y y y y y y y y y y Bigger government More onerous rules and regulations More government control over your life More government spending & higher tax rates Anti-business policies Gun control & weak national defense Obamacare Equality of outcome Social justice Liberal/Progressive Community and social responsibility-based The U.S. debt is due to a revenue problem y y y y y y y y y y y y

Republican platform
Smaller government Less onerous rules and regulations Less government control over your life Less government spending & lower tax rates Pro-business policies Gun rights & strong national defense Private health care choices Equality of opportunity Personal responsibility Conservative Individual rights and justice-based The U.S. debt is due to a spending problem

20

The North Suburban Republican Forum

NSRF Membership Application
We meet on the second Saturday of each month to discuss politics from 9:15-10:45am at Gander Mountain (9923 Grant St, Thornton, CO, 80229) in the employee training community room. A continental breakfast is provided with coffee, tea, orange juice and bottled water. Http://www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.com Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________________ City: ____________________________________________________________Zip: _____________________ Best phone number to reach you: H/W/C______________-________________-________________________ Email: __________________________________________________________@_______________________ How did you hear about the NSRF? ____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________ ______ New member ______ Current member renewal ______ Individual Membership $20 per calendar year ______ Family Membership $30 per calendar year for couples ______ Deluxe $56 individual/$66 family per year includes 12 monthly fees + yearly dues Paid via __________ cash __________ check #__________ Todays date: _____________________________________________________________________________ Received by NSRF board member: ____________________________________________________________

If you have a smart phone, use a bar code app for this QR code. It will take you to our web site.

21