When I read Ms. Marcus’s Washington Post op-ed, my first reaction was to wonder if she’s shooting for Linda Douglass’s job as WH health care propaganda minister. Her accusation that Republicans unjustifiably used scare tactics was quickly ‘backed up’ with criticizing the House GOP’s arguments:

Kentucky Republican Brett Guthrie: “The bill raises taxes for just about everyone.” Not true. The bill imposes a surtax on the top 0.3 percent of households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.

Ms. Marcus differentiates taxes from the ‘choice’ on obeying the mandate to buy an expensive health insurance policy or paying a fine instead of buying the health insurance. I’m betting people won’t differentiate between a tax, that onerous mandate or the fine. I’m betting that they’ll just think of those options as money out of their pockets. Whether you call it a fine, a mandate or a tax isn’t important to a family’s financial situation. They’re just out alot of money.

Georgia Republican Tom Price: “This bill, on page 733, empowers the Washington bureaucracy to deny lifesaving patient care if it costs too much.”

Not true. The bill sets up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research “in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.”

The minute I hear that an unaccountable bureaucrat will decide “the manner in which diseases” can be “effectively and appropriately” treated”, especially when I know that someone like Ezekiel Emanuel will be administering the program, is the minute I’m thinking the worst.

The legislative language doesn’t prevent the CCER from telling Grandma to take a pill to alleviate the pain her cancer is causing vs. actually treating and possibly beating the cancer into remission. This administration has been quite clear that they plan on cutting treatments to senior citizens.

Michigan Republican Dave Camp: “Americans could face five years in jail if they don’t comply with the bill’s demands to buy approved health insurance.”

Not true. The bill requires people to obtain insurance or, with some hardship exceptions, pay a fine. No one is being jailed for being uninsured. People who intentionally evade paying the fine could, in theory, be prosecuted, just like others who cheat on their taxes.

This is stunning. Ruth Marcus unknowingly just highlighted something that the Democrats don’t want you to know: that they’ll fine you for buying health insurance that they don’t approve.

The minute Pelosicare is signed into law, HSAs aren’t a nannystate-approved health insurance policy.

Let’s suppose that you’ve currently got an HSA and a policy that covers catatstrophic events like a broken leg, stroke or heart attacks. The minute Pelosicare takes effect, the Obama administration will send you a notice that your insurance isn’t in compliance with Pelosicare and that they’re fining you for not complying with Pelosicare’s mandates.

You’ve done the right thing. You’re providing health insurance for your family with your money. You’ve worked hard. You’ve done the right thing. And you’re getting fined for that.

Doesn’t that frost you???

I’m betting that you remember the times President Obama said that people could keep their insurance if they liked it, that nothing would change. Thanks to Pelosicare, that’s now BS with an asterisk. You CAN keep the policy. The bad news is that you can’t pay for it with pretax dollars. The worst news is that you’ll get fined for keeping it.

Does Ms. Marcus understand that that’s nannystatism run amok? I’m betting that she doesn’t. Further, I’m betting that she doesn’t understand the backlash that Pelosicare is creating, both in the courts and in voting booths nationwide next November.

Here’s another opportunity for Ms. Marcus to play Linda Douglass:

Florida Republican Ginny Brown-Waite: “The president’s own economic advisers have said that this bill will kill 5.5 million jobs.”

Not true. Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has estimated that the bill would increase economic growth and add jobs. Republicans misuse Romer’s previous economic research on the impact of tax increases to produce the phony 5.5 million number.

You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?

Folks, she’s got us on this one. Christina Romer didn’t estimate that we’d lose 5.5 million jobs during her time as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. According to Politifact, here’s the accurate wording:

Another Republican lawmaker, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, put it more accurately when he wrote in a July 20 column, “According to methodology developed by Dr. Christina Romer, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the government takeover would cost Americans 4.7 million jobs over the next 10 years.”

Isn’t that reassuring. We won’t lose “5.5 million jobs” and Christina Romer didn’t develop that methodology while she was chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. She said it when she was a peer-reviewed faculty member at UCal-Berkeley. That distinction makes all the difference.

Is Ms. Marcus that excited to dance on the head of that tiny pin? Is she that desperate to defend this indefensible legislation? Apparently, there’s nothing she won’t do to make this a reality. Apparently, she’s sold her soul just like Linda Douglass did.

Why am I not surprised?

Technorati: Mandates, Pelosicare, Fines, Tax Increases, Ruth Marcus, Linda Douglass, Christina Romer, Unemployment, Democrats, John Boehner, HSAs, Constitution, Republicans, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative