An arrogant ObamaCare Plan details new taxes, cuts in Medicare and government regulations, crippling and obstructing the “bipartisan healthcare reform summit” on Feb. 25th signaling that the Democrats are not serious about starting over and including Republican ideas in their plans?

Offering nothing new, the scheme defrauds America with a plan that repackages the same approach already taken by the U.S. Senate. A scheme that Americans have already rejected in the latest Rasmussen Poll – as 56% Oppose ObamaCare.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cannot even score the latest ObamaCare scheme because it lacks enough detail to do so. The White House claims that the scheme will save $100 billion over 10 years and $1 trillion over 20 years is refuted by the Wall Street Journal that estimates the bill will cost $950 billion over 10 years. To balance out Obama’s scheme a tax increase of more that $1,000,000,000 is needed in the next 10 years.

Obama has lied again arrogantly introducing massive healthcare tax increases on every American earning less than $250,000/yr.

Democrats will shove ObamaCare down every Americans throat like it or not, it will happen and Obama is pushing it through and it must be stopped.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said. “We took our best shot at bridging the differences.” He then indicated that the White House is open to the Democrats using a parliamentary tool called “reconciliation” to pass the bill without 60 votes in the Senate, saying that the president’s proposal is designed for “maximum flexibility” so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster.

Every person will be hurt with increased costs of an out of control Government Run Health Care bureaucracy taking over private insurance with Federal regulations. The scheme completely ignores and does not include Republican proposals for a series of modest changes to bring down costs and improve coverage, including tort reform and new freedoms for insurance companies to sell their policies across state lines.

A record number of Americans are out of work and ObamaCare funding is more than $1 Trillion short and cannot be paid for without new taxes.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress are taking money out of our pockets with more than a dozen new taxes created by the bill. These would add up quickly for families:

Pelosi said, “We (Liberal Democrats) will go through the gate,” “If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own…” (I think the word that Queen Nancy was grasping for was “good”).

But guess what, folks? It doesn’t have to be this way at all.

What needs to be done here is to contact your local representative(s) and President Obama, voicing your displeasure over what they (the Democrats and Obama) have in mind. By the way, here are the numbers:

202-456-1111 (White House switchboard)

202-456-1414 (Congressional switchboard)

The representatives who are involved in this legislation realize that their jobs are on the line here, so a phone call to them will, at the very least, get a response and preferably get some changes in the voting on the Democratic side.

The sooner you contact them, the more effective it will be as time is short as this healthcare bill recently introduced by the President will come up for a vote soon. Consider this a “call to arms.”

Take it for what it’s worth, but the inner circle of Martha Coakley, candidate for the Senate seat that has been vacant since the death of Ted Kennedy, may be sweating bullets.

Why is that such a big deal, you’re wondering? It has absolutely nothing to do with me at all. But it does have to do with people who are advisers to Barack  Obama. These “advisers” apparently don’t like the chances of Coakley winning the Massachusetts senatorial seat, according to Democratic sources.

They state that they’re still hopeful that the President’s visit to Massachusetts on Sunday will go a long ways towards seeing Coakley topple candidate Scott Brown, with help from Democratic activists.

I tend to think that the late visit by Obama will not help Coakley at all; come to think of it, it will hurt Coakley and help Brown, because of:

• Coakley is out of touch. Her take on healthcare reform is outdated and completely out-of-synch with what the citizens of Massachusetts want.
• The reporter incident. Pictures don’t lie, folks. It’s been plastered all over the place. One of Coakley’s staff did a body check on an American Standard reporter who was looking to ask Coakley a single question. That kind of behavior smacks of Chicago-style politics, to a degree.
• Coakley’s misrepresentation of Brown. Her obvious distortion of Brown’s record will come to haunt her 24 hours from today.
• She can’t “define” herself. Usually, a candidate has a platform that they stand by. Coakley hasn’t really given voters an idea of what she’s all about. Brown, on the other hand, has informed these voters about what he stands for – in spades.
• Her distaste of using the “R” word. Like being a Republican is the equivalent of being a political leper. Which is what she is doing by slamming Brown.
• Terrorists in Afghanistan snafu. You’ve probably seen the clip where she said that terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan. We all know that they are there in droves. Again, she’s out of touch or incredibly naive on that subject.
• The negative Brown ads. This certainly will not help Coakley when the voters go to the polling place on Tuesday. Some of the ads include the UPS-like “What can Brown do to you?” ad, the “Let’s look under Scott Brown’s hood” ad, and last but certainly not least, the completely tasteless ad in which the superimposed face of Brown is in front of a burning World Trade Center. That folks, is a sign of a desperate candidate.

All of these missteps will ensure that she does not get elected to “the people’s seat” and allow her to remain the Attorney General of the state of Massachusetts. See there, Martha? Even I can spell Massachusetts.

So there you have it, people. If you’re a voter who resides in the district in where this election is taking place, you have more than enough incentive to go to the polling place near you and pull the lever for Scott Brown. Trust me on this – the nation’s healthcare rides on this special election. A vote for Coakley ensures that your healthcare options get decidedly worse. A vote for Brown, on the other hand, will put the nail in the coffin for Obamacare.

Rep. Steve King  (R-IA) has issued a statement supporting C-SPAN’s request to broadcast congressional negotiations on healthcare reform, comparing the current closed-door talks to “Chicago-style gangster government.”

President Obama pledged during a presidential debate in January 2008 that he would be “bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.”

In a letter to House and Senate leaders released on Tuesday, C-SPAN Chief Executive Brian Lamb asked for negotiations on a compromise bill to be televised, as Democrats work to reconcile differences between legislation passed by the two chambers.

“We respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single America,” the letter read in part.

Rep. King, an Iowa Republican and member of the Subcommittee on Regulations, Healthcare and Trade, said in his statement issued on Wednesday: “In January 2008, candidate Obama pledged not to negotiate healthcare legislation ‘behind closed doors.’ Instead he committed to ‘broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN.’ There are serious differences between candidate Obama’s statements in 2008 and President Obama’s actions in 2010.

“Today, the healthcare legislation is being negotiated behind closed doors, and C-SPAN’s request to broadcast these negotiations is being rebuffed. Tuesday night President Obama and liberals in Congress decided to bypass conference committee debate to craft government-run healthcare legislation in secret in an effort to expedite its passage into law.

“These closed-door, back room dealings may be the norm in a Chicago-style gangster government, but they are not acceptable in our constitutional republic. Americans have a right to know what is going on so they can make their voices heard.

“When asked about President Obama’s pledge to allow C-SPAN access to healthcare debates, Speaker Pelosi dismissively said, ‘there are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.’ Apparently the speaker of the House doesn’t mind the idea of the president breaking his promises to the American people. But the American people do mind, and they expect President Obama to follow through on the promise he made to them on the campaign trail.”

The use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions has been one of the most contentious issues surrounding the healthcare reform debate, but the position of the great majority of Americans is clear: They oppose it.

A new Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters found that 72 percent do not approve of allowing abortions to be paid for with public funds under any healthcare system created by the federal government.

The survey asked respondents, “Do you support or oppose allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a healthcare reform bill?”

Only 23 percent said they support the idea, and 5 percent did not know.

“Although a small majority favors abortion rights, allowing the use of public money for the procedure under a national healthcare plan, which has been a matter of some dispute in both houses on Congress, is extremely unpopular,” said Pat Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Republicans oppose public funding for abortions by a 91 percent to 5 percent margin. Most Democrats also oppose funding, 54 percent to  38 percent. Among independents, only 23 percent support funding and 74 percent oppose it, according to the poll of more than 1,600 registered voters.

Both the House and Senate versions of the healthcare reform bill contain restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions. And the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976 and renewed consistently since then, bars the use of federal funds for subsidizing abortion within Medicaid.

The “healthcare reform” bills in Congress would hit 39 states hard with new expenses by raising Medicaid eligibility above the current income cutoffs.

The only states that won’t have to raise eligibility because of the Senate bill are Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin (plus the District of Columbia). And the House bill would force even Massachusetts and Vermont to pay more.

Hardest hit would be Texas ($2,750 million a year in extra state spending under the Senate bill), Pennsylvania ($1,450 million), California ($1,428 million) and Florida ($909 million). Who knows if Florida could avoid imposing an income tax if it has to meet so high an unfunded mandate?

The required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high in some states whose senators are swing votes on Obamacare:

• In Arkansas, home to swing Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, the annual increased state spending would come to $402 million (not counting the federal share) — about a 10 percent increase in the state budget, which is now $4 billion a year.
• In Louisiana, whose Sen. Mary Landrieu sold her vote on a key procedural motion in return for more Medicaid funding, the increase would come to $432 million (a 5 percent hike in state spending) — more than wiping out the extra funds she got in return for her vote.
• In Sen. Evan Bayh’s Indiana, spending would go up by $586 million a year, a rise of 4 percent.
• In Sen. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska, the added state spending would be $81 million a year, a 2 percent increase.The Sebate Obamacare bill would cost North Dakota, home of Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, $14 million. South Dakota, represented by Sen. Tim Johnson, would have to boost Medicaid spending by $33 million.

The Senate Obamacare bill would cost North Dakota, home of Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, $14 million. South Dakota, represented by Sen. Tim Johnson, would have to boost Medicaid spending by $33 million.

The Medicaid-expansion provisions of the Senate bill are complex. In the first year of the program (2013), states must enroll anyone who earns less than 133 percent of the poverty level in their programs. For a family of four, the national average poverty level in 2009 is $22,000 a year. So any family that size that makes less than $29,000 would be eligible for Medicaid.

Many states, particularly in the South, actually have Medicaid cutoffs below the poverty level. Arkansas, for example, cuts off its Medicaid eligibility at only 17 percent of poverty level, and in Louisiana it goes up to only 26 percent. For these states, the spending increase required by the new bill is huge.

For the first three years of the program (2013-2015) the federal government would pay for all of the costs of the Medicaid expansion. But, starting in the fourth year of operation — 2016 — the average state would be obliged to pay 10 percent of the extra cost.

For Democratic governors, this provision means sudden death. Particularly in states with limited Medicaid coverage, it would require huge tax increases.