Chris Christie Vetoes Obama Health Insurance Exchange Bill

TRENTON, N.J. -- Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday vetoed legislation that would set up a state health insurance exchange as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, saying the state shouldn't rush to enact such a law and possibly create new burdens on taxpayers while the constitutionality of the federal act remains to be decided.

"Because it is not known whether the Affordable Care Act will remain, in whole or in part, it would be imprudent for New Jersey to create an exchange at this moment in time before critical threshold issues are decided with finality by the court," the Republican governor said in announcing his veto.

The state legislation would have established an online marketplace for the middle-class to buy federally subsidized health plans starting in 2014.

The governor said he intends "to fully oversee New Jersey's compliance in a responsible and cost-effective way" if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the overhaul. A decision is expected in June.

Democratic Assemblyman Herb Conaway, a lead sponsor of New Jersey's bill and himself a doctor, said the governor had put "national political pressures ahead of the well-being of New Jersey."

Christie has become one of the nation's most high-profile Republican governors and was courted as a potential presidential candidate. After declaring he wouldn't seek the nomination, he threw his support behind Mitt Romney, and is still considered a possible vice presidential candidate, though he has said he probably wouldn't be a good fit for that position. Romney said he would repeal the health care law if elected

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., a Democrat who helped write the health care law, said Christie's veto would unnecessarily delay New Jersey's implementation of a key part of it.

In his veto message, the governor said he was concerned "that a hastily created exchange in New Jersey will impose unnecessary obligations upon the state's taxpayers." But he also said his administration will continue preparations begun two years ago to implement the law should it stand.

Christie is only the second governor to veto legislation establishing a state insurance exchange.

In New Mexico, GOP Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed a bill last year that would have set up an exchange, citing cost concerns and legal challenges to the federal law. For a while, it looked as if Martinez would move ahead on her own authority, and her administration accepted a $34 million federal grant to lay the groundwork for a state insurance exchange. But progress slowed to a crawl this year, and the director of the state's health reform office resigned in March.

The Obama administration refused to address Christie's veto directly. Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields said the administration is confident New Jersey residents will have access to a health insurance exchange on Jan. 1, 2014, as called for in the federal law.

At least 10 states have passed bills to set up insurance exchanges, and two, New York and Rhode Island, have done so through executive orders, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. More than a dozen other states have legislation pending.

The states are all in various stages of preparation for the overhaul.

The exchanges represent half of the president's strategy for expanding coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people, including 1.3 million in New Jersey. Low-income people would be covered through expanded Medicaid programs.

Christie's decision "is consistent with what a lot of other states have done, which is to take a wait-and-see approach," said Sabrina Corlette, who directs research on insurance issues at Georgetown University's health policy institute in Washington.

"Unfortunately for New Jersey, assuming the Supreme Court upholds the law, the veto will make it more difficult for them to (set up) their exchange, since there would be much less time to do it," she said.

States have a Jan. 1, 2013 deadline for Washington to approve their plans for the new health insurance markets, or else the federal government can come in and run things.

Christie said the legislation he vetoed would have committed the state to operating a Medicaid-like program without assurance enough federal funds would be available to support the plan and limited the pool of plan participants as a result of its certification provisions, likely increasing costs. He also complained about the $50,000 salaries the bill would have provided those who serve on the exchange's board of directors.

Because of all the uncertainties, the governor said, it is impossible to know whether the bill "best suits the interests and needs of all New Jerseyans who will be required to finance these policy choices."

Starting in 2014, the federal law as now written requires most Americans to obtain health insurance, either through an employer or a government program or by buying their own policies. In return, insurance companies would be prohibited from turning away the sick. Government would subsidize premiums for millions now uninsured.

The law's opponents argue that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to obtain coverage. The administration says the mandate is permissible because it serves to regulate interstate commerce.

____

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.

From HuffPost's Jason Linkins, here's a look back at some of the biggest health care lies that have surfaced.

Loading Slideshow

• Healthcare In America Is Already 'The Best In The World'

  One of the more positive sounding admonitions from health care reform opponents was that the United States had "the best health care in the world," so why would you mess with it? Well, it's true that if you want the experience the pinnacle of medical care, you come to the United States. And if you want the pinnacle of haute cuisine, you go to Per Se. If you want the pinnacle of commercial air travel, you get a first class seat on British Airways. Now, naturally, you wouldn't let just anyone mess with someone's tasting menu or state-of-the-art air-beds. But like anything that's "the best," the best health care in the world isn't for everybody. The costs are prohibitively high, the access is prohibitively exclusive, and the resources are prohibitively scarce. What do the people in America who "fly coach" in the health care system get? Well, at the time of the health care reform debate, they were participating in a system that was, by all objective measurements, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/us-health-care-expensive_n_624248.html">overpriced and underperforming</a> -- if you were lucky enough to be participating in it. As anyone who's fortunate enough to have employer based health care or unfortunate enough to have a pre-existing condition can tell you, health care for ordinary people already involved all of those things that we were told would be a feature of the Affordable Care Act -- long waits, limited choice, and rationing. When the <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx">Commonwealth Fund rated health care systems by nation</a>, the top marks in the surveyed categories went to the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Ezra Klein examined the study, and <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/us_health-care_system_still_ba.html">observed</a>: "The issue isn't just that we don't have universal health care. Our delivery system underperforms, too. 'Even when access and equity measures are not considered, the U.S. ranks behind most of the other countries on most measures. With the inclusion of primary care physician survey data in the analysis, it is apparent that the U.S. is lagging in adoption of national policies that promote primary care, quality improvement, and information technology.'"

• Death Panels

  The only thing that perhaps matched the vastness of the spread or the depth of the traction of the "death panel" lie was the predictability that such a lie would come to be told in the first place. After all, this was a Democratic president trying to sell a new health care reform plan with the intention of opening access and reducing cost to millions of Americans who had gone without for so long. What's the best way to counter it? Tell everyone that millions of Americans would have increased access ... <i>to Death!</i> The best account of how the "death panel" myth was born into this world and spread like garbage across the landscape has been penned by Brendan Nyhan, who in 2010 wrote "Why the "Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate." <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/health-care-misinformation.pdf">You should go read the whole thing</a>. But to summarize, the lie began where many lies about health care reform begin -- with serial liar Betsy McCaughey, who in 1994 <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/andrew-sullivans-mccaughe_n_313157.html">polluted the pages of the New Republic</a> with a staggering pile of deception in an effort to scuttle President Bill Clinton's health care reform. As Nyhan documents, she re-emerged in 2009 when "she invented the false claim that the health care legislation in Congress would result in seniors being directed to 'end their life sooner.'" Nyhan: "McCaughey's statement was a reference to a provision in the Democratic health care bill that would have provided funding for an advanced care planning for Medicare recipients once every five years or more frequently if they become seriously ill. As independent fact-checkers showed (PolitiFact.com 2009b; FactCheck.org 2009a), her statement that these consultations would be mandatory was simply false--they would be entirely voluntary. Similarly, there is no evidence that Medicare patients would be pressured during these consultations to "do what's in society's best interest...and cut your life short." But the match that lit the death panel flame was not McCaughey, it was Sarah Palin, who repeated McCaughey's claims in a Facebook posting and invented the term "death panel." As Nyhan reports, Palin's claims were met with condemnation from independent observers and factcheckers, but the virality of the term "death panel" far outstripped its own debunking. To this day, the shorthand for this outrageous falsehood remains more firmly planted in the discourse than the truth. One thing worth pointing out is that Palin, in creating the term "death panel," <i>intended</i> to deceive people with it. In an interview with the <em>National Review</em>, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228636/rogue-record/rich-lowry">Palin admitted</a>: "The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally." Rather, it was "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.' He got his point across." Of course, while Reagan was exaggerating for effect, he wasn't trying to prey on the goodwill of those who were listening to him.

• The Affordable Care Act Is A "Jobs-Killer"

  Naturally, the GOP greeted anything that the Obama White House did -- from regulating pollution to flossing after meals -- as something that would "kill jobs." The Affordable Care Act was no different. As you might recall, Republicans' first attempt at repeal came in the form of an inartfully named law called the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." But did the health reform plan threaten jobs? Not by any honest measure. <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/17/106950/is-health-care-law-really-a-job.html">Per McClatchy Newspapers</a>: <blockquote>"The claim has no justification," said Micah Weinberg, a senior research fellow at the centrist New America Foundation's Health Policy Program. Since the law contains dual mandates that most individuals must obtain health insurance coverage and most employers must offer it by 2014, "the effect on employment is probably zero or close to it," said Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University.</blockquote> As McClatchy reported, the "job-killing" claim creatively used the "lie of omission" -- relying on "out of date" data or omitting "offsetting information that would weaken the argument." The Congressional Budget Office, playing it straight, deemed it essentially too premature to measure what the effect the bill would have on the labor market. At the time, Speaker John Boehner dismissed the CBO, saying, "CBO is entitled to their opinion." Perhaps, but lately, job growth in the health care industry has <a href="https://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/03/07/Jobs-report-preview" target="_hplink">bucked the economic downturn and health care has remained a robust sector of employment</a>. And it stands to reason that enrolling another 30 million Americans into health insurance will increase the demand for health care services and products, which in turn should trigger the creation of more jobs. Is there a downside? Sure. More demand, and greater labor costs, could push health care prices upward even as other effects of health reform push them down. But it's more likely that repealing the bill will have a negative impact on jobs than retaining it.

• The Affordable Care Act Would Add To The Deficit

  The only thing more important than painting the Affordable Care Act as a certain killer of jobs was to paint it as a certain murderer of America's fiscal future. Surely this big government program was going to push indebtedness to such a height that our servitude to our future Chinese overlords was a <i>fait accompli</i>. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/cbo-score-on-health-care_n_502543.html">As Ryan Grim reported in May of 2010</a>, the CBO disagreed: <blockquote>Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in the federal deficit over the same period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period. The source said it also extends Medicare's solvency by at least nine years and reduces the rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while closing the doughnut hole for seniors, meaning there will no longer be a gap in coverage of medication.</blockquote> Recently, the CBO updated its ten-year estimate by dropping off the first two years of the law (where there was little to no implementation) and adding two years at the back end (during which time there would be full implementation). As you might imagine, replacing two years of low numbers with two years of higher numbers increased the ten-year estimate. But opponents of the bill immediately freaked out and declared the costs to have skyrocketed. <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/obamacare-haters-angered-by-facts.html">As Jonathan Chait reported</a>: <blockquote>The outcry was so widespread that the CBO took the unusual step of releasing a second update to explain to outraged conservatives that they were completely misreading the whole thing: "Some of the commentary on those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That's not our perspective. ... Although the latest projections extend the original ones by three years (corresponding to the shift in the regular ten-year projection period since the ACA was first being developed), the projections for each given year have changed little, on net, since March 2010." That is CBO-speak for: "Go home. You people are all crazy."</blockquote> As Chait goes on to note, the CBO now projects that "the law would reduce the deficit by slightly more than it had originally forecast."

• The Affordable Care Act $500 Billion Cut From Medicare

  Normally, if you tell Republicans that you're going to cut $500 billion from Medicare, they will respond by saying, "Hooray, but could we make it <i>$700 billion</i>?" But the moment they got it into their heads that the Affordable Care Act would make that cut from Medicare, suddenly everyone from the party of ending Medicare As We Know It, Forever got all hot with concern about what would happen to these longstanding recipients of government health care. In fairness, <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/">as Factcheck pointed out</a>, the GOP opponents of Obama's plan were simply picking up a cudgel that had recently been wielded by the president himself: <blockquote>Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/">Nevertheless</a>! <blockquote>Whatever you want to call them, it's a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It's true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage's private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare.</blockquote> The <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1005588">concurred</a>: <blockquote>A phased elimination of the substantial overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which now enroll nearly 25% of Medicare beneficiaries, will produce an estimated $132 billion in savings over 10 years. [...] The ACA also produces nearly $200 billion in savings by assuming that providers can improve their productivity as firms in other industries have done. On the basis of this presumed improvement, the law reduces Medicare's annual "market basket" updates for most types of providers - a provision that has generated controversy.</blockquote> The law doesn't cut any customer benefits, just the amount that providers get paid. Hospitals and drug companies agreed to these cuts based on the calculation that more people with insurance meant more people consuming what they sell and, more importantly for the hospitals, fewer people getting treated and simply not paying for it.

• The Affordable Care Act Provides Free Health Care For Undocumented Immigrants

  This lie was launched to prominence with the help of a false accuser, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, who famously heckled President Barack Obama during an address to a Joint Session of Congress by yelling "You lie!" after the president had mentioned that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the credits for the bill's proposed health care exchanges. As Time's Michael Scherer pointed out, this was not much of a challenge for factcheckers: <blockquote>In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS."</blockquote> In fact, <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/why_immigrants_get_short_shrif.html">as Ezra Klein pointed out</a>, the Affordable Care Act "goes out of its way to exclude" undocumented immigrants: <blockquote>As the AP points out...there are about 7 million unauthorized immigrants who will be prohibited from buying insurance on the newly created exchanges, even if they pay out of their own pocket. And the exclusion of this group from health reform -- along with other restrictions that affect fully legal immigrants as well -- could create a massive coverage gap that puts a strain on the rest of the health system as well.</blockquote> Klein goes on to add that "immigrants-rights advocates tried to prevent this scenario from happening," but they ended up losing to the politics of the day. The concession they won was a promise from the president that he would shepherd a comprehensive immigration reform package through the legislature. They lost that round, too.

• Republicans, And Their Ideas, Were Left Out Of The Bill And The Process

  Were health care policies dear to Republicans left out of the health care reform bill? Totally! <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2009/10/29/171026/top-10-reasons-why-republicans-should-support-the-house-health-bill/">Unless we're counting the following</a>: --Deficit-neutral bill --Longterm cost reduction --Interstate competition that allows consumers to purchase insurance across state lines --Medical malpractice reform --High-risk pools --An extension of the time young people were allowed to remain on their parents' policies --No public money for abortion --Small business exemptions/tax credits --Job wellness programs --Delivery system reform In fact, the Democrats were eager to get GOP input and enthusiastic about including many of their desired components in the bill. Oh, and did we mention that the Affordable Care Act was modeled on a reform designed and implemented by a former Republican governor and presidential candidate, whose innovation was widely celebrated by the GOP while said former governor was running for president? And did we mention that the individual mandate that was used in Romneycare to ensure "no free riders" was originally dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation? And did we add that additional DNA of the Affordable Care Act was borrowed from the Senate GOP alternative to the Clinton plan in the 1990s and the <a href="http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2009/08/bipartisan-policy-center-releases-report-improving-health-care-quality-a" target="_hplink">2009 Bipartisan Policy Committee plan</a>, which was endorsed by Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole? As for the process, you might recall that the White House very patiently waited for the bipartisan Gang Of Six to weigh in with its own solution, and openly courted one Republican gang member, Sen. Chuck Grassley, long after it was clear to every reporter inside the Beltway that Grassley was intentionally acting in bad faith. And perhaps you don't recall the bipartisan health care summit that was held in March of 2009? if so, don't feel bad about it -- RNC Chairman Michael Steele couldn't remember it either, <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201002250005">when he yelled at the president for not having one</a>.

• The Demonization Of 'Deem And Pass'

  So, here's a fun little story about obscure parliamentary procedures. In May of 2010, as the health care reform michegas was steaming toward its endgame, it looked like the measure might fall. The Senate had passed a bill, but the House was stuck in a bit of a jam. It had no other choice but to take a vote on the Senate's bill, because if the House bill ended up in a conference committee to be reconciled with the Senate's, the whole resulting she-bang was assured of a filibuster, as the Democrats had, in the intervening period, lost their Senate supermajority. But the House had a problem. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/health-care-opponents-dem_n_501353.html">As I wrote at the time</a>: <blockquote>House members are averse to doing anything that looks like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation package of fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads. Enter "deem and pass." Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it this way, the Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out against the unpopular features of the same.</blockquote> "Deem and pass" is the aforementioned obscure parliamentary procedure. And here's the thing about obscure parliamentary procedures -- everyone <i>loves</i> them when their side is doing them, but when they're being <i>done to you</i>, then they are basically evil schemes from the blasted plains of Hell. So if you're guessing that the Republicans declared the Democrats' use of "deem and pass" -- which also carried the moniker "the Slaughter Rule," after Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed its use in this instance -- to be a monstrous and unprecedented abuse of power, then give yourself a prize! And give yourself a bonus if you guessed that in reality, the GOP had used "deem and pass" <i>lots of times</i>. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/house-has-long-history-of_n_500623.html">As Ryan Grim reported</a>, "deeming resolutions" had been in use dating back to 1933, and in 2005 and 2006, Republicans employed them 36 times. Other Republicans complained that Slaughter was supporting a tactic that she once vigorously opposed. <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_arms_race_of_rules.html">That's true</a>! She fought the "deem and pass" during the Bush administration and lost. Which is precisely when she learned how effective it could be!

• The Affordable Care Act Would Create A Mad Army of IRS Agents

  Lots of people wouldn't mind having better access to more affordable health care. But what if it came with thousands of IRS agents, picking through your stool sample? That sounds pretty bad. It also sounds pretty implausible! But that was no impediment to multiple health care reform opponents making claims that the tax man was COMMINAGETCHA! In this case, the individual mandate -- which requires people to purchase insurance or incur a tax penalty -- provided the fertile soil for this deception to spread. A March 2010 floor speech from a panicked Sen. John Ensign was typical of the genre: <blockquote>My amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems with this bill. There is an individual mandate that puts fines on people that can also attach civil penalties. And 16,500 new IRS agents are going to be required to be hired because of the health care reform bill.</blockquote> March of 2010 was a pretty great time for this particular lie. In one five day period, Ensign was joined by Reps. Paul Ryan ("There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to police and enforce this mandate."), Pete Sessions ("16,000 new IRS agents will be hired simply to make sure that this health care bill is enforced.") and Cliff Stearns ("There is $10 billion to hire about 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce the individual mandate on every American"). All wrong! <a href="http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/">Per Factcheck</a>: <blockquote>This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true. The IRS' main job under the new law isn't to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them -- starting this year -- which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer's contribution toward their workers' health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies -- in the form of refundable tax credits -- to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance. The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won't be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance.</blockquote> As Factcheck goes on to note, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf">on page 131 of the bill that was passed</a>, the IRS is explicitly prohibited from "from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don't obtain coverage."

• Affordable Care Act Bill Is Way Too Long And Impossible To Read!

  Oh, Congresscritters, the poor dears! So many bills to read and so little time -- between raising campaign cash at lush fundraisers and receiving marching orders from powerful corporate interests -- to actually read them all. <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019629.php">And this Affordable Care Act was a real humdinger of a long bill</a>. And long bills are bad because length implies complication and complication requires study and study implies some form of "work." So the proper thing to do is to mulch the entire print run of the bill and use it to power the boiler that heats the "sex dungeon" in the Longworth Office Building, the end! Actually, reading the bill is not that hard, despite the complaints. As the folks at <a href="http://computationallegalstudies.com/2009/11/08/facts-about-the-length-of-h-r-3962/">Computational Legal Studies were able to divine</a>: <blockquote>Those versed in the typesetting practices of the United States Congress know that the printed version of a bill contains a significant amount of whitespace including non-trivial space between lines, large headers and margins, an embedded table of contents, and large font. For example, consider page 12 of the printed version of H.R. 3962. This page contains fewer than 150 substantive words. We believe a simple page count vastly overstates the actual length of bill. Rather than use page counts, we counted the number of words contained in the bill and compared these counts to the number of words in the existing United States Code. In addition, we consider the number of text blocks in the bill -- where a text block is a unit of text under a section, subsection, clause, or sub-clause.</blockquote> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/house-health-care-bill-ac_n_350810.html">As HuffPost noted in March of 2010</a>, "the total number of words in the House Health Reform Bill are 363,086," and when you throw out the words in the titles and tables of contents and whatnot, leaving only words that "impact substantive law," the word count drops to 234,812. "Harry Potter And the Order Of The Phoenix," a popular book read by small children, is 257,000 words long. (Although in fairness to Congress, the Affordable Care Act contains very few exciting accounts of Quidditch matches.)

• The 2012ers Join The Fun

  We couldn't have a list of Affordable Care Act distortions without noting the ways some of your 2012ers have added to the canon. Herman Cain said that if the ACA had been implemented, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/177511-video-cain-if-obamacare-had-been-implemented-already-id-be-dead-">he'd be dead</a>. Not likely! The new law expands coverage so that uninsured individuals who face what Cain faced (cancer) have a better chance of getting coverage, and it restricts insurers from tossing cancer patients off the rolls based on their "pre-existing condition." But more to the point, Cain would have always been the wealthy guy who could afford to choose his doctor and pick the care he wanted. The Affordable Care Act doesn't prohibit wealthy people from spending money. Rick Santorum says that his daughter, who is diagnosed with a genetic disorder called trisomy 18 and who required special needs care, <a href="http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/04/25/santorum-more-disabled-people-will-be-denied-care-under-obamacare/">would be "denied care" under the Affordable Care Act</a>. Nope! Again, the law restricts insurers from throwing people with pre-existing conditions off their rolls. And for individuals under 19, that went into effect in September of 2010. Michele Bachmann believes that the Affordable Care Act would open "sex clinics" in public schools. This is Michele Bachmann we're talking about. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/bachmann-sex-clinics-will_n_306292.html">Do you even need to ask</a>? And finally, Mitt Romney has said, as recently as March 5, that he never intended his CommonwealthCare reform to serve as a "model for the nation." "Very early on," he insisted, "we were asked -- is what you've done in Massachusetts something you would have the entire government do, the federal government do? I said no, from the very beginning." Unless "very early on" and "from the very beginning" mean something different from the conventional definition of those phrases, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/05/438044/romney-mandate-model-video/">Romney should augment his daily pharmaceutical intake with some memory-enhancing gingko biloba</a>.

• So Many More To Choose From!

  Obviously, we did what we could to include as many of these lies and distortions as possible, but there's no way to include them all. If you're a completist, however, be sure to check out the <a href="http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-03-14/fact-or-fiction-obamacare%E2%80%99s-1-dollar-abortions/">Impossible Tale Of The One-Dollar Abortion</a>, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR2011020905682.html">Story of the State-Based Inflexibility That Wasn't</a>, <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201101210006">The Curious Case of the Politically Connected Waivers</a> and <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2011/03/michele-bachmanns-health-care-cover-charges-hard-fathom">Nancy Drew And The Hidden $105 Billion Expenditure</a>.

Comments

[judypiano]

05:54 PM on 05/14/2012

Which country has better health care than us? Name one!!!

It is probably one of the countries going bankrupt.

[JJenius]

01:18 AM on 05/16/2012

Which modern country has the most people without health care? Name one!

[judypiano]

09:06 AM on 05/16/2012

U forgot to tell me which country has better healthcare than us. Then I will consider ur question. I asked first .

[senatortruth]

10:58 AM on 05/13/2012

Remember under the Buuhuhs administration,

when they were asked about handling the costs

of Health Care?

Their response was:

"We're working on getting a card where

people will get a 10% discount on prescriptions".

That was IT.

President Obama did the RIGHT thing, even though

it was weakened by the Republics and the insurance cos.

Single payer for ALL, a la Medicare,

and you eliminate a 30%-of-gross layer of unnecessary costs

to companies that provide NO HEALTH CARE,

just push paper and make MORE by DENYING care....

God Bless America and President Obama!

[dencuddy]

01:04 PM on 05/12/2012

Sorry New Jersey, no cheaper insurance options for you. The insurance industry told Christie to veto the bill because they aren't done gouging you yet.

[mac2jr]

12:45 PM on 05/12/2012

Before accepting anything from Christ Christie one needs to do their homework.

He stole $285,000,000 or more millions of the USA Federal Tax money by diverting it from the Tunnel project to his pet projects.

He screwed up and cost the state taxpayers $400,000,000 in Federal Educational funds.

He use Federal Stimulus funds to fix roads and bridges that were State Responsibility, rather than on the most of the Federal Road projects to which the money was destined, then claimed to his 'taxpayers' that he 'balanced' the state's budget.

He did away with NJN the voice of government that informed the citizens of what the Governor's office and legislature were up to.

He laid off nearly 25% of the Public workers during a Republican Created Depression, therefore creating even more of a burden on the state's limited UE, Food Stamp, and Welfare systems.

He is using money that should be used elsewhere for starting a 'Parallel' public School system, all in an effort to 'break the Unions'.

The list is endless, the man is a bully and should never have been elected to the post .

[jerseyrambo]

02:53 PM on 05/12/2012

Seems that you didnt do your homework. That tunnel money was spent under corzine, cristie halted the project because nj taxpayers were on the hook for all cost overruns (possibly 13 billion) . The race to tge top education money was botched by the education secretary and he was fired. Cristie not only balanced the budget he got a much needed 2% property tax cap through.

[mac2jr]

11:45 AM on 05/13/2012

Christie inherited the Tunnel Funds and if he wanted to STOP the construction he was obligated by Federal Law to return the BALANCE of the FUNDS to the USA Taxpayers, he DID NOT DO THAT, which is thievery... and JAIL TIME.

The Education money was lost under his leadership, and as we know, there are people out there that do not care who or what caused the losses, if the loss happened under the leader, then he or she is responsible.. Just ask a Republican about who is getting all the blame for all the BUSH JR screw ups..

Christie had a budget to fix secondary roads and bridges from STATE TAX money, and was to use the Obama Stimulus for the Federal Highways, of which the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) is one, but he DIVERTED the Stimulus money to the State projects, thus creating a 'balanced' budget, and then nearly doubled the Toll Fees on I-95 to pay for the 'improvements and fixes' that were needed, this act is near criminal as it cheated the USA taxpayers, again....

The 2% property tax cap has already been challenged by many communities as it is a violation of the state to seek control of LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S collection and use of THEIR taxpayer's funds, and it limits the revenue needed for local improvements and advancements, which is a state constitutional problem, thus the Bully is wrong again...

[anitaportrichey]

12:01 PM on 05/12/2012

"Romney said he would repeal the health care law if elected."

Is Mr Romney that clueless that the President of the United States does NOT have the authority to repeal a previously passed law? Or is this just another one of his false promises?

Obama 2012!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[hertamania]

11:11 AM on 05/12/2012

The veto seemed like a prudent thing to do under the circumstances.

[rt1027]

03:55 AM on 05/12/2012

too funny...........and this is great........

[ProgressivPatriot]

02:37 AM on 05/12/2012

Christie, like Romney is on the wrong side of most issues. These men do not represent the American people. Vote out ALL republicans. The Enemy Within is the GOP.

[cstankard]

03:27 AM on 05/12/2012

chistie and romney are right were they belong and they do represent the majority of the people and it it you libs be voted out one by one. the liberals are the true enemy of the taxpayers. vote romney in 2012

[nbj5215]

07:31 AM on 05/12/2012

If you believe in what we have in the White House then you believe government must control your life cradle to grave. Government needs to be cut in half asap the more money they get the more control they have

[Billy Chrystal]

11:50 AM on 05/12/2012

How can you then say that Republicans are not trying to control your life when you impede on the right of all women to decide what to do with their bodies. You are a hypocrite. You deny those who are not like you , you will not allow those who wish to end their lives to do so, so tell me is that not controlling your life. The next thing right wing loons will do is have all women wear Burkas. Oh and by the way it is obvious you voted for W Bush the dumbest President in our history.

[mac2jr]

12:01 PM on 05/12/2012

The very first thing that needs to be eliminated from Government, and by the words of the US Constitution is the Military, National Guard, and Homeland Security, three organizations that are NOT currently permitted by the US Constitution, and that are costing the American Taxpayers trillions of dollars for protection of Corporate Businesses and International Corporate Oil Companies, not the average citizen of the USA.

This is a FACT that is finally coming out in the News Media, the Educational Systems, the Economic Systems, and now the Political Systems.

The cost overruns, the illegal wars, the invasion of privacy and the tons and tons of wasted by the MIC are putting the American Enterprise into Bankruptcy and although we need a certain amount of protection, the current participants are doing nothing but 'ripping' off the American Public, and there are literally millions of on-line references to this wasted effort, this is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of thousands of experts.

[Cleverboots]

02:00 AM on 05/12/2012

Christie & Romney deserve each other. Two vicious bullies.

[cstankard]

03:28 AM on 05/12/2012

obama is the real bully here and the people see it

[Cleverboots]

12:50 PM on 05/12/2012

I've seen Christie in action. Romney sure bullied that kid in school and once a bully..
Obama isn't my ideal choice either. No really good choices this year.

[jh61]

10:12 AM on 05/15/2012

Maybe you should take a look at the current electoral balance sheet and tell me how Romney will make up the deficit. Romney is going down in Nov, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[mac2jr]

12:04 PM on 05/12/2012

All you have to do is listen to CC on the New Jersey Network to understand that he is a loud mouth bully that 'demands' that everything is done 'his' way...

He has done much harm to the people of New Jersey, and should retire from all politics until he can act like a civilized human that is trying to understand and cooperate with those that he represents...

[Cleverboots]

12:51 PM on 05/12/2012

The man has no self control. Just look at his weight.

[DrMaxChartrand]

12:38 AM on 05/12/2012

Ii cannot believe how many gullible people out there think ObamaCare is about health. It is about government power, It is about crony capitalism, and institutionalizes everything that is wrong with medicine today. It pushes unnecessary surgeries, over medication, useless tests that enrich only the ones giving the tests, and crowds out health and healing. It rewards those who make bad choices and punishes those make good choices. We can do better, if we will.

[17ladyslippers]

01:30 AM on 05/12/2012

horse pucky!

[Cleverboots]

02:01 AM on 05/12/2012

Yes, it is.

[jebroo]

10:12 AM on 05/12/2012

Wow what a clever response to a considered post.

[jayuucee]

01:33 AM on 05/12/2012

Let's see if you can come up with examples instead of more GOP BS!

[Stewart Goss]

12:27 AM on 05/12/2012

Obamacare is destroying what we have left of health care.

Medicare doesn't pay enough to doctors so the private sector has to pick up the difference and now that is breaking too.

I just got a letter from a new specialist I had to use, they are dropping all Medicare recipients and soon won't take any insurance whatsoever.

I don't have a primary physician at the moment and everyone I contact says they aren't taking new patients.

Precisely the shortage I predicted 2 years ago.

[Cleverboots]

02:05 AM on 05/12/2012

And your solution to the problem is?

[mac2jr]

12:11 PM on 05/12/2012

Have not experienced any of what you say, so where are you (location, town, city), and what do you propose for a solution?

[DrMaxChartrand]

12:20 AM on 05/12/2012

Good for Governor Christie! ObamaCare is a cruel hoax designed to increase the reach and power of government over our lives, reduce freedom and health choices, and corral us into an economic corner from which we will never emerge. Everything that was wrong with the old system--tons of unneeded surgeries, overmedication, opiate addiction, useless tests and defensive medicine, and personal irresponsibility just got bigger and deeper and more expensive under ObamaCare. We can do much better.

[rt1027]

03:58 AM on 05/12/2012

agreed

[richj45]

06:28 AM on 05/12/2012

Christie the perfect icon for the GOP healthcare system.. indulge until you explode..

[maryannto]

10:28 AM on 05/12/2012

Yup. Cory Booker for Governor!

[TAKEITBAK]

11:30 PM on 05/11/2012

Smart move Christie.. Antichristcare will be thrown out along with the fraud that is trying to force it upon the American people., ! President Romney will veto that garbage anyway..!

[DrMaxChartrand]

12:21 AM on 05/12/2012

You are right on the button!

[Cleverboots]

02:08 AM on 05/12/2012

A President Romney would push a voucher plan. You think that's better?

[TAKEITBAK]

02:19 AM on 05/12/2012

NO he wouldnt, and no its not.

[richj45]

06:31 AM on 05/12/2012

A vote for Romney is a vote for the current corporatocracy, a vote Obama is a vote for the people....

[Mig15]

09:46 PM on 05/11/2012

He should have vetoed it. The Supreme court will rule against Obama's sub-prime health care bill anyhow. Mitt and the GOP controlled Senate and House will fix it all come January. emm emm emm

[Cleverboots]

02:08 AM on 05/12/2012

Fix it how?

[rt1027]

04:03 AM on 05/12/2012

by casting out what is remaining after the SC gets done with it

[mac2jr]

12:22 PM on 05/12/2012

And you are so against the PP&ACA for what reasons?

Oh, yes, it may actually give the USA a decent health care system..

[17ladyslippers]

09:40 PM on 05/11/2012

And he deep-sixed a project, out of spite, that would have employed thousands of people and created new, entrepreneurial businesses in NY and NJ.

Par for the course for a Guv that surprised even himself when he was elected.

People here better wake up and show him the door next election.

[tepeko]

10:27 PM on 05/11/2012

Why pass a bill supporting a healthcare bill that is soon top be knocked down by the Supreme Court? It would be a waste of tax dollars to prepare for something that is still in the courts and probably will not be okayed!

[DrMaxChartrand]

12:22 AM on 05/12/2012

It will bury us, not help us...it perpetuates all that is wrong in medicine today and designed only to increase the power and reach of government while depriving us of our freedoms. It has little to do with health and lots to do with totalitarianism.

[17ladyslippers]

01:28 AM on 05/12/2012

Bologna

[mac2jr]

12:27 PM on 05/12/2012

What freedoms are being deprived, the freedom of doing poor medicine, the freedom of defrauding Medicare and Medicaid and the American Taxpayer, the freedom to make mistakes and hide each with reams of paper, the freedom to deny a person health care due to some Cold he or she had 40-years ago, the freedom to deny children needed health care, the freedom to deny a college student affordable health care, the freedom to allow 17,000,000 to use our medical facilities without paying a dime, the freedom to take off the left arm when the operation was to on the right arm, the freedom... the freedom....

Wake up people, Wake up, this Dr is not on your side...