Nanny State Gone Wild: Defining Dependency Up

Nanny State Gone Wild: Defining Dependency Up
Michelle Malkin
Friday, December 25, 2009

The greatest gifts you can give your children can't be boxed and bowed. Consider the timeless gift of self-sufficiency -- a stubborn thirst to leave the nest, make it on your own and live as a free-willed adult. It's a concept that Big Nanny Democrats are sabotaging at every legislative turn.

Several times during the sneaky debate on the government health care takeover bill this past Sunday, Democrats hailed a provision requiring insurance plans that cover dependents to provide benefits to children up to age 26. Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin and Tom Harkin both specifically championed the unfunded mandate in their floor statements.

This manifestation of the Nanny State is especially galling given the massive levels of generational theft the Democratic majority has presided over this past year. If they truly cared about the physical and financial well-being of young Americans, they'd stop piling on expensive regulations that simply put affordable health insurance out of their reach.

I propose a new symbol for the Democrats. Out: donkey. In: a giant adult pacifier.

I can tell you what most fiscally responsible parents are thinking when they hear the feds "taking care" of everyone else's adult "children" by confiscating their tax dollars and forcing private companies to comply: You've got to be kidding me. Yes, Virginia, there are still some of us left who believe our children shouldn't depend on a government-manufactured umbilical cord as they approach their third decade on earth.

Nonetheless, there are now an estimated 20 states that have already passed legislation requiring insurers to cover adult children. The slacker mandates cover "kids" ranging in age from 24 to 31. And it's these government health care mandates that are driving up the cost of insurance.

Health policy researcher Nathan Benefield of the Commonwealth Foundation reported that in New Jersey, Nanny State peddlers claimed the adult kiddie protection law would help 100,000 uninsured young adults. "Yet in two years, only 6 percent of that estimate has been realized. The primary reason -- health insurance is still too expensive."

Wisconsin has experienced similar results. "Whenever you insure somebody whom you didn't insure before there's some additional risk," insurance expert James Mueller told the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Mueller points to the premium increases that have followed coverage mandates on employer-sponsored plans. "The problem with all these good ideas is there's funding necessary," Mueller said. In Wisconsin, not only are adult children covered, but also the children of those "children" if they live in single-parent homes.

As he rammed through this mandate and the mountain of other government regulations buried in Demcare, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised on Sunday: "We are reshaping the nation. That's what we want to do."

Indeed, this defining dependency up phenomenon is part of the larger push for single-payer-by-proxy. The other universal health care Trojan horse signed into law this year -- the expansion of SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program) -- welcomed more non-"children" into the government insurance fold.

Both political parties have advocated federal waivers to use SCHIP funds for adults, including parents of Medicaid/SCHIP children, caretaker relatives, legal guardians and childless adults. According to the General Accounting Office, SCHIP-funded expenditures on adults nationwide "totaled about $674 million in 2006." J.P. Wieske of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance notes that the bennies provide an incentive for parents to drop their private coverage in order to take advantage of free or discounted health insurance for their children. "It has become a program for the middle class at the expense of the poor."

This is the engine that will power the Demcare architects' most naked, radical ambitions: "Health care as an inalienable right," as Sen. Harkin put it. How? By breeding a massive permanent culture of dependency and bottomless debt in the name of the "children" from birth through quarter-life -- and beyond.
________________________________________________
Passage By Pork Rather Than Good Public Policy
Michael Reagan
Thursday, December 24, 2009

As families across our nation prepare to celebrate Christmas together, Democrats in the United States Senate and their ringleader, Harry Reid, have been deviously busy once again. They're working hard to fill taxpayers' stockings with large lumps of coal in the form of health care reform legislation that will likely decrease the quality of care for Americans, create a flurry of new taxes, and exponentially increase America's deficit. How is that for holiday cheer?

While Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska appeared to be holding out as the Democrats' 60th vote because of his moral concerns over taxpayer-funded abortions, he suddenly "found the light" when offered an additional $100 million in assistance for Nebraska's state Medicaid program.

This new provision, negotiated by Harry Reid and Sen. Nelson, will make Nebraska one of only three states to have their Medicaid expansion fully funded, leaving the rest of the country to pick up the tab. This compromising carrot is made all the more disturbing by the cost to the American taxpayer -- the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released new information on Sunday saying that this amendment alone will end up costing $1.2 billion over 10 years, hardly chump change.

And in a less obvious bribe, Sen. Nelson also cut a deal to get tax and free breaks for Nebraska's insurance companies. (Not surprisingly, the Center for Responsible Politics reports that Nelson has been given nearly $650,000 from insurance companies over the past five years -- more than any other industry has contributed.) These negotiated breaks are significant, saving companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield up to $20 million. In other words, even as more tax money will be flowing into Nebraska, considerably less will be flowing out. For all the other states, a bad bill just got that much worse.

But as I wrote just a few weeks ago, a cause for concern in this debate is not only the "what" of the actual legislation itself: it is the "how" we got here. When this debate headed to the Senate after the left wing-led House pushed through its own version of reform, Harry Reid faced an uphill battle in finding the necessary 60 votes. But rather than relying on the actual merits of the legislation, if any such merits actually exist, the Senate's fearless leader opened the troughs for a pork feeding frenzy.recognizing that his only chance at passage required buying off key Senators.

Now, I am not naïve in this criticism, fully recognizing that when placed in a similar position of power, Republicans in Congress have been guilty of similar activities. Today in Washington, it seems that bribery by tax dollar has become the norm when it comes to moving bills along. But for us taxpayers, that is simply not acceptable.

Senators Reid, Nelson, Landrieu and other Democrats are simply trading their votes, trading their principles, so they can create a cycle of political gain rather than demanding good legislation. Their despicable behavior is meant to secure national "victories" for Democrats while also trying to pacify the growing chorus of opposition to the latest offered health care reform proposal within their own state by masking it with pork, plain and simple.

Today, a lobbyist can face criminal charges for taking an elected representative to lunch or offering small gifts in exchange for votes or attention. President Obama has frequently boasted about his "ground-breaking" efforts to crack down on these types of negotiations. In the Senate, however, it is openly acceptable for intra-congress bribery costing billions of dollars in our tax dollars to take place. Landrieu and Nelson have both gloated over their respective high price tags.

Where's the honor here? The transparency, good governance, and integrity we were promised? Senate Democrats and President Obama should be ashamed they that have let petty bribes and penny-pinching politics triumph over sense and judgment. How's that for the true meaning of Christmas?