Some state lawmakers committed to striking down the federal takeover of health care – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) – have moved forward with establishing PPACA insurance exchanges at the same time the United States Supreme Court will be deciding the law’s fate.

Why? The answer we have heard over and over again is that they are establishing PPACA exchanges in their states in order to preserve state control and flexibility over the exchange. However, this answer is refuted by a review of the law.

The President’s health care law says it all: “An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this subtitle.” The very language of PPACA makes clear that any so-called state control or flexibility the states think they have is at the mercy of the federal government.

It’s sort of like a retractable leash. You can walk your dog on such a leash and give them some slack to run around, but ultimately, you can pull your dog in at any moment.

Likewise, with PPACA exchanges, as long as the president and his officials are holding the exchange leash, Arizona and other states establishing state exchanges will leave their sovereignty and the liberty of their citizens at the mercy of the federal government.

It makes no sense for a state that is part of the multi-state lawsuit challenging PPACA that is currently before the Supreme Court to both oppose the statute and enforce it at the same time. But beyond being contradictory, PPACA exchanges are detrimental to the fight against the law enabling them. Over the last several weeks court briefs supporting PPACA specifically cite the fact that states are moving forward with exchanges as evidence that exchanges can survive with or without the law’s mandate that all Americans buy insurance.

With oral arguments scheduled in the Supreme Court in late March and a decision expected in June, it is not too late for states like Arizona to reverse course, as Wisconsin did last month, by sending back the federal exchange grant money they have received and stop exchange implementation activities.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: States must protect the health care freedom of their citizens by saying no to federal health insurance exchanges

Goldwater Institute: States damaging their own case with insurance exchange moves

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE

A Panel Discussion: OBAMACARE

Phoenix, AZ – On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, Arizona Mainstream Project (AMP) will bring to the public a panel discussion on Obamacare.  Speaking on this panel will be Goldwater Institute’s Senior Attorney Diane Cohen and Director – Center for Economic Prosperity Byron Schlomach, Dr. Jeff Singer, and former AZ Congressman John Shadegg.  550 KFYI Talk Host Terry Gilberg will be the moderator for the discussion.

Each panel member will share their personal expertise and direct involvement with uncovering the facts about The Affordable Care Act and how it has begun and will continue to negatively impact the lives of ALL Americans.  You will gain a better understanding of this law and how it applies to your access to health care, the current legal battles, and how you can help stop this anti-American and socialistic agenda.

Diane Cohen:

The Affordable Care Act mandated states to establish insurance exchanges by 2014 or have exchanges set up by HHS. These exchanges are nothing more than invitation-only clubs where only government sanctioned insurers can play. They must meet all the federally mandated medical coverages/benefits specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In an effort to preserve some sovereignty, states, even some who opposed the federal healthcare law, including Arizona, are rushing to get federal money to set up these exchanges. Diane Cohen, Senior Attorney, of the Goldwater Institute will refute this notion.  Ms. Cohen has testified before Congress on the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). She will explain what effect this fifteen-member board of political appointees will have in our future.

Dr. Byron Schlomach:

Byron will discuss how government is at the root of our problems in health care, making it the problem, not the solution. He will show you how our income tax system plays a major role in determining what our health care system looks like and how it operates.

Dr. Jeff Singer:

Dr. Singer will discuss the ways in which “Obamacare” will affect the patient doctor relationship, the relationship of the doctor with the state, the relationship of the patient with the state, the loss of personal autonomy, and the ultimate decrease in quality and rationing of heath care that will inevitably result from “Obamacare.”

John Shadegg:

President Obama promised that the cost of health care would go down and it hasn’t. A recent HHS press release acknowledged that premiums have gone up by as much as 12.8% in the last year after the rates were reviewed by state bureaucrats under the provisions of Obamacare. Obama has also promised that if you liked your health care plan, you could keep it. Yet, we now know that Obamacare mandates will not allow anyone to keep the plan they had. As the nation’s economy struggles, Obamacare increases taxes by 800 billion dollars and crushes jobs. Learn how free market solutions will reform health care in ways that promotes quality and reduces costs for all Americans.

Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Location:  Goldwater Institute Auditorium
Address: 500 E. Coronado Road, Phoenix,  AZ

Time: 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm (doors open at 5:30)

Light snacks and beverages will be served

Cost:  $10.00 per person

To reserve your seat we encourage you to RSVP and purchase tickets in advance

Go to: http://www.arizonamainstreamproject.org/#q=Seminars-18

or send payment to:

Arizona Mainstream Project
15029 N. Thompson Peak Parkway
Suite B-111 Box 589
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

This panel discussion will be STREAMED LIVE from AMP’s website.

A “Live Stream” button will be available on our homepage www.ArizonaMainstreamProject.org on the day of the event.  Follow the instructions to access the live video stream.

Contact: Honey Marques, Executive Director, at 808-283-3661 or honey@arizonamainstreamproject.org

Arizona Mainstream Project is a 501 (c) 3 non-profit charitable grassroots organization whose mission is to attract, educate, and mobilize the people of Arizona around America’s founding principles and leadership. AMP believes in the principles of a constitutionally limited government, free markets, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty to promote the common good and prosperity for the people of Arizona.

The year – 2004.  The players notorious RINO Arlen Specter vs. conservative Pat Toomey.

“Conservative” (RINO, in fact) Rick Santorum closed ranks behind Specter, resulting in Specter’s win v. conservative Pat Toomey.

Right after Obama won in 2008, particularly when facing a House becoming more conservative in light of the Teaparty and the fight against Obamacare and with the senate lacking a filibuster proof majority, Specter changes parties from R to D, giving the Dems their filibuster 60 seat majority in the Senate. - Thanks to RINO Rick Santorum.

In 2010, Toomey beat Specter after the damage (and bailouts and Obamacare) was done. -      ******No thanks to RINO Rick.

If you like the quality of pharmacy service and choices that TRICARE provides to veterans, don’t get too comfortable with it. It’s beginning to look like that will all change at the start of the year – and not for the better.

Through the end of 2011, Walgreens will provide pharmacy services as part of DOD’s TRICARE pharmacy program. But come January 1st, that will disappear because Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI), the company that manages the service, has a contract dispute with Walgreens and will not negotiate a settlement.

Actually, they will negotiate: my-way-or-the-highway is basically their position.

Walgreens is the largest pharmacy chain in the country. They serve 40 million consumers every week through nearly 8,000 stores nationwide. They have more stores that are open 24 – 7 than any other pharmacy network. And 70% of the U.S. population lives within five miles of a Walgreens.

However, after the first of the year, we won’t have access to that network or services.

Because ESI manages the Defense Department’s TRICARE pharmacy benefit, Walgreens offered a separate contract guaranteeing its prices would match or beat the average costs per prescription with all other retail pharmacies. The company has also committed to keeping the cost per Medicare prescription flat for the next four years. Such cost containment measures could be a real boon to the Federal government, as well as control the prices consumers pay.

Unfortunately, not only has ESI ignored or rejected these proposals, but it has also demanded unacceptable rates and terms from Walgreens. For example, they have demanded rates that are below the average industry cost to fill prescriptions. They also want to dictate which drugs are generic and which are not.

ESI has claimed Walgreens wants to increase prescription reimbursement costs by 20 percent. That is pure malarkey. Walgreens has offered ESI a number of cost-savings that would, in effect, hold the average prescription reimbursement cost increases to less than two percent annually over the course of the three year contract.

In an open letter to vets and active duty military, Walgreens’ CEO said, “We do not wish for military beneficiaries to be ‘in the middle’ of this issue.” Well, we are. Meanwhile, Express Scripts has rejected all efforts to reach an agreement that would keep Walgreens in the TRICARE network of pharmacies.

What can we do about this? Make noise. Register an opinion. Let DOD and Express Scripts know how you feel. Here’s a link to a page where you can sign a petition to do just that:

http://www.ichoosewalgreens.com/tricare-plans/

You can also send a letter to your Senator and Member of Congress, letting them know you value the convenience of having a Walgreens nearby. Another point to make is that Walgreens is working to keep prices as low as possible. With Walgreens gone, Express Scripts will be much freer to set prices that benefit them, not us.

Walgreens is doing all it can to keep serving us as customers. It only seems right that we return the favor.

On November 14, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the 26-state lawsuit against the President’s healthcare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Court granted 5 ½ hours for oral argument, including two hours of argument on the individual mandate and 1 ½ hours on severability, which addresses whether, in the event the mandate is found unconstitutional, the entire Act must be stricken as well.

The severability issue is a critical consideration for states like Arizona, which are suing over the law’s constitutionality while at the same time moving forward with implementing other parts of the law, specifically the law’s health insurance exchanges. This undermines the idea that if the mandate is found unconstitutional the whole law must be thrown out.

The federal district court that first heard the lawsuit brought by the states found the mandate unconstitutional and not severable from the remainder of the statute, and thus struck down the entire Act as unconstitutional. The judge explained that to sever the mandate from the remainder of the Act would require “reconfiguring an exceedingly lengthy and comprehensive legislative scheme,” including “going through a 2,700 page Act line-by-line, invalidating dozens (or hundreds) of some sections while retaining dozens (or hundreds) of others.”

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal court’s decision on the mandate, but disagreed on severability. The Circuit court held that the “stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Act’s provisions” and their “lack of connection to the Mandate” cut against non-severability. The Supreme Court will now decide the issue.

For its part, the Obama Administration has maintained that the mandate is closely linked to the guaranteed issue and community ratings provisions, and that they must also go if the mandate is found unconstitutional. The Goldwater Institute argued in its lawsuit challenging the Act that the establishment of health insurance exchanges and increases in Medicaid eligibility are also linked to the Act’s overall reform scheme and that the entire Act must be stricken.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the severability issue, states like Arizona must return federal exchange money they have received and cease from establishing health insurance exchanges. Efforts to stop the federal takeover of healthcare must not be placed in jeopardy by the states voluntarily complying with a law that they are at the same time challenging as unconstitutional.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Ten Resons Why Arizona Must Reject Health Insurance Exchanges

Arizona Republic: A welcome mat for ‘Obamacare’ in Ariz.

U.S. Supreme Court: Granting of Cert

A thick volcanic plume is flowing over the 2010 healthcare law. Rumbles are heard from the U.S. Supreme Court which, in 2012, will issue a fourfold constitutional judgment. To one centrist scholar, the law’s constitutional frailty suggests chambers of operational dysfunction beneath the surface. An NFIB study estimates how that dysfunction will waft over small business and the rest of the economy. And a Treasury Inspector General’s report indicates that the law’s overhyped tax credit provides little shelter. As the law sags beneath the ash, NFIB suggests twelve ways that Congress could begin to replace the law with real reform that improves healthcare and cuts costs.

The constitutional challenge: The U.S. Supreme Court announced on November 14 that in 2012, it will decide the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). From the many cases wending their way through the federal courts, the Supreme Court selected NFIB v Sebelius as the centerpiece of its deliberations. In March, the Court will hear arguments on four questions: (1) Is the unprecedented individual mandate constitutional? (2) If the Court strikes down the individual mandate, must it also strike down the entire law? (3) Does the Anti-Injunction Act require courts to wait until 2014 to consider constitutional challenges, since no penalties will be paid on the mandate until then? (4) Does PPACA’s massive increase in Medicaid unlawfully coerce the states into participating? A ruling is likely to come in June.

In 2010, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) joined with 26 of the 50 states to challenge the healthcare law’s constitutionality. A Florida federal court ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and ordered the entire law struck down, since it lacked a severability clause. The Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional but allowed the rest of the law to stand. NFIB appealed the second part of that ruling, arguing that without a severability clause, the entire law must fall. More information on NFIB’s lawsuit is available at www.nfib.com/lawsuit.

Operational dysfunction: In a penetrating column, Walter Russell Mead (Bard College) explored the deeper significance of the lawsuit: “Writing a bill that passes constitutional muster should be easy in a Congress so rich in lawyers and legislation writers.  Writing a bill that successfully improves American healthcare delivery while controlling costs, on the other hand, is hard.  Very, very hard.  If they did so poorly at the easy part of their task, the part where we can actually measure and monitor their success, what kind of mess have they made of the hard and murky parts that nobody, including the authors of the bill, really understands?”

Job losses: NFIB has supported healthcare reform for decades but strongly opposed PPACA because it failed to do what Professor Mead suggested was important: improving healthcare delivery while controlling costs. As an example, the NFIB Research Foundation has just released a job-loss study enumerating the damage that PPACA’s higher costs will do to small business. “Effects of the PPACA Health Insurance Premium Tax on Small Businesses and Their Employees,” by Michael J. Chow, estimates the job losses that will result from just one provision of the law – PPACA’s health insurance premium tax. Chow estimates that this tax “will reduce private sector employment by 125,000 to 249,000 jobs in 2021, with 59 percent of those losses falling on small business.” This tax falls heavily on small business while bypassing big business, labor unions, and governments; and it is only one of a constellation of cost-increasers that small business faces in PPACA. NFIB is spearheading a repeal coalition aimed at dropping this tax; toward this end, H.R. 1370 and S. 1880 have been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Credit oversold: At the same time, the most heavily-touted cost-decreasing measure in the law turns out to be a dud. PPACA supporters have argued that over 4 million businesses would benefit from a tax credit of up to 35% of the businesses’ health insurance costs (50% beginning in 2014). NFIB consistently said that the credit is fine for those who can make use of it, but that relatively few businesses would get much out of it. The preliminary figures are in now, and they are worse than NFIB’s pessimistic estimates were. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported that as of mid-October, only 309,000 businesses had claimed the credit for 2010 and that the average credit per business was around $1,346 – not much of inducement to offer insurance.

Twelve doable reforms: Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, the country will need real healthcare reform that improves healthcare delivery and moderates costs. Toward this end, NFIB has posted a set of twelve NFIB Healthcare Solutions that could begin the task of replacing PPACA. The proposals include (1) Tax parity between the group and individual markets; (2) Tax parity between insurance purchased by the self-employed and groups insurance; (3) Defined contribution health insurance; (4) More transparent measures of cost, options, and quality; (5) Public and/or private exchanges; (6) Interstate insurance purchasing. (7) More risk-pooling options for small businesses and individuals; (8) Mechanisms to get insurance for those with pre-existing conditions; (9) Greater insurance portability; (10) Greater latitude for consumer-driven health insurance products; (11) Wellness incentives; and (12) Malpractice reform. These reforms are just a start and did not touch on two big areas where reform is needed: healthcare delivery systems and entitlements.

Conclusion

Those who wrote this law ought to go to bed each night fearing two things. Their lesser fear should be that the Supreme Court overturns PPACA, leaving their vision of healthcare reform as dead as Pompeii. Their greater fear should be that the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law, for then they will spend the next generation explaining the destruction they brought upon American healthcare and the American economy.

Meet Dr. Kelli Ward who is seeking a Senate seat in western Arizona. Here is some video from a recent speech she made in Lake Havasu City:

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can read more about Dr. Ward at DrKelliWard.com.

Small Businesses Closer to Final Resolution on Constitutionality of Burdensome New Law

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 14, 2011 — The Supreme Court of the United States today announced that it has chosen, among numerous cases on the same topic, the challenge brought by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) as the case the Court will rule on to determine the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner and Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB’s Small-Business Legal Center, issued the following statements in response to the news:

“Only 18 months after its passage, the new health-care law has been brought to the steps of the Supreme Court by America’s small-business owners. For the small-business community, this comes not a day too soon,” said Dan Danner. “The health-care law has not lived up to its promises of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees, alike. The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation’s highest court.”

“This law not only failed the self-employed and small-business employees in practice, it has failed them in principle, forcing upon them an unprecedented mandate that infringes upon the individual rights that, truly, all Americans hold so dear,” added Karen Harned. “After months of uncertainty and frustration, small-business owners are finally within the reach of some clarity on how this law will ultimately impact their lives and their livelihoods. We are confident in the strength of our case and hopeful that we will ultimately prevail. Our nation’s job-creators depend on a decision being reached before the harmful effects of this new law become irreversible.”

More information about NFIB’s lawsuit is available at http://nfib.com/lawsuit.

NFIB/Arizona Comment: NFIB v. Sebelius “a crossroads for the nation”

PHOENIX, Ariz., Nov. 14, 2011 — From Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business:

“It is nearly impossible to understate the importance of this case. The stakes are enormous. The Supreme Court decision in NFIB v. Sebelius will represent a crossroads for the nation. Do we go the route of European social democracy and overweening government intervention in our lives or do we return to the path of free markets and limited government?”

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C,. and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 9, 2011
CONTACT: Farrell Quinlan

Justices will decide whether to hear leading lawsuit against Obamacare

PHOENIX, Ariz., Nov. 9, 2011—The U.S. Supreme Court is expected Thursday, November 10, to accept the landmark case against the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

The burden and expense of the healthcare law is a concern for all Americans, but especially for small businesses which pay substantially more for health coverage than large corporations. NFIB is the only business group in America to have challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the federal health care law. Its case has been upheld by two federal courts so far and now awaits action by the Supreme Court.

Complete information about the lawsuit can be read by clicking here.

###

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C., and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Obamacare gives states an option: Either establish insurance exchanges by January 1, 2014, or the Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish one for them. An “exchange” is essentially a bureaucracy where federally-mandated and regulated health insurance may be bought and sold. Amazingly, some states that otherwise oppose Obamacare, including some who have joined the Florida lawsuit that is on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, are choosing to implement these exchanges.

These states may be under the mistaken belief that if they set up an exchange, they will preserve a modicum of state sovereignty – a belief perpetuated by the supporters of Obamacare as well as by some insurance companies. But these exchanges will be governed by federal regulations and mandates, leaving no flexibility – exactly the situation that has put many states in a bind with runaway Medicaid costs. The State of Arizona has already received a $1 million planning grant from the federal government and just last week Governor Brewer’s office submitted a request for an additional nearly $30 million to establish Arizona’s exchange.

States that establish exchanges are doing nothing short of the federal government’s dirty work. Worse still, they are being complicit in enforcing and entrenching this unconstitutional law.

In its legal briefs filed around the country in defense of the health care law, the federal government has argued that the exchanges are critical to enforcing the law’s individual mandate. That is because the exchanges will be used to determine whether an individual is exempt from the mandate and will report to the federal government, by name and Social Security number, those individuals who are exempt, as well as those who are not in compliance with the mandate.

By 2015, while the federal mandates on exchanges will remain, federal funding for them will be gone. All that states get by establishing exchanges are more federal mandates. What they will give away will be much greater – state sovereignty and the liberty of their citizens.

The choice is very simple: states that oppose Obamacare should just say no to the exchanges. And for those states like Arizona that have already received money, they should follow the lead of Florida, Oklahoma, and Kansas and send it back.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Coons v. Geithner (federal health care lawsuit)

Heritage Foundation: States should return Obamacare Grants

Mackinac Center: Michigan Creeps Closer to Obamacare Exchange

Cato Institute: Should Missouri Create a Health Insurance Exchange?

The Federal Health Care Blog: Preparing for the Exchanges

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 28, 2011 — The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) today filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hear its case challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The petition for certiorari, filed by the NFIB and its co-plaintiffs, seeks an expeditious resolution, during the Supreme Court’s upcoming term, to the outstanding question of whether the entire new health-care law should be invalidated because the individual mandate exceeds the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

“The 11th Circuit ruling confirmed NFIB’s view that the individual mandate in the health-care law is unconstitutional. It is now imperative that the Supreme Court rule on whether the entire law can stand without the mandate,” said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “The sooner the Court takes up this case, the sooner small businesses and individuals will know whether they will have to bear the full weight, financially and economically, of this bad law.”

“While the survival of the new health-care law remains an open question, small businesses and individuals will continue to face uncertainty and trepidation, hesitant to hire or expand,” Harned said. “In filing our petition today, we are attempting to impress upon the Court the urgency of this issue.”

According to NFIB’s petition, the economic impact resulting from the current uncertainty in the health-insurance market is already taking a heavy toll on both big and small businesses. Many businesses are currently in the process of making irreversible fiscal planning for the upcoming years; the unknown potential costs of PPACA are preventing many firms from growing or expanding.

Currently, two federal courts of appeals have ruled on the constitutionality of the individual mandate; one has upheld the mandate, and another has struck it down.  The lower courts are also divided on the question whether the rest of the PPACA can survive if the mandate is unconstitutional. In the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, NFIB successfully argued that the mandate is unconstitutional, and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision makes Supreme Court review extremely likely.

NFIB is the nation’s leading small-business advocacy organization, representing 350,000 small businesses around the country.  It is also the only business organization in the lawsuit brought by 26 states against the health-care law.

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C., and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 14, 2011 — The National Federation of Independent Business is again pushing to repeal the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on the heels of President Obama’s ask for bipartisan job creation. There is currently legislation in Congress to repeal the employer mandate, and the NFIB has long-supported and championed this important initiative.

“At the same time that President Obama is asking small-business owners to create jobs, his very health care law is preventing them from doing so,” said Susan Eckerly, Senior Vice President of Federal Public Policy at NFIB.  “In fact, small-business owners will tell you that they are suffering a crisis of confidence right now that prevents them from expanding and hiring; how do they move forward with job creation when the unknown costs stemming from the policies of the past few years continue to stand in their way?

“Instead of advocating for more Washington spending bills that do little to help the situation that small-business owners are currently drowning under, Congress should immediately review and repeal some of the policies of the past few years that stand between an employer and an employee. Simply put, the repeal of the employer mandate is an important step toward sound, long-term job creation.”

Provisions of the health care law, such as the employer mandate, have left many small-business owners unable to expand operations as they brace for new costs and taxes coming out of Washington. The health care law requires that employees with 50 or more full-time equivalent employers offer “affordable, minimum essential [healthcare] coverage” beginning in 2014.

###

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Arizona’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, announced today that they would not appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court the Court of Appeals ruling which upheld the 2009 Abortion Consent Act.

This is yet another victory for those who care for women and preborn children. Lives will be spared now that these common sense health and safety standards will be going into effect.

The new provisions include:

• The state will require a notarized parental signature before an abortion can be performed on a minor child.
• Women will be provided with full and accurate information by a doctor in person at least 24 hours before an abortion.
• Medical professionals cannot be forced to perform abortions if it contradicts their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.
• Non-doctors will not be permitted by law to perform surgical abortions.

Planned Parenthood said they will continue to challenge parts of the Arizona’s abortion clinic regulations as applied to the distribution of the dangerous and deadly abortion pill.

Arizona’s women deserve better than Planned Parenthood’s “quantity over quality” standard of care for women considering abortion. Center for Arizona Policy remains committed to seeing all aspects of the Abortion Consent Act and Abortion Clinic Regulations fully enacted.

For more information on the Abortion Consent Act visit CAP’s information page: http://bit.ly/qDCDpv

To read the decision from the Court of Appeals click here: http://bit.ly/r2m5QU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 29, 2011
CONTACT: Adam Deguire

Supports Salmon’s vision and experience in creating jobs and growth for Arizona citizens 

EAST VALLEY – Former Congressman and candidate for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District Matt Salmon announced today that his campaign has received the endorsement from the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association (AzHHA). Salmon released the following statement regarding his most recent campaign endorsement:

“I’m grateful to receive the support from one of our state’s most vitally important and respected organizations. The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association aims to improve the health status of Arizona citizens and plays an integral in creating jobs and growth in the healthcare industry. I look forwarding to returning to Washington and partnering with AzHHA once again to put forth policies that will curb rising healthcare costs, protect affordable healthcare access and increase economic growth for the Arizona healthcare industry.”

“The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association enthusiastically endorses Matt Salmon and his plans to bring economic prosperity back to Arizona,” said Laurie Liles, President and CEO of AzHAA. “Matt recognizes that Arizonans need and deserve high-quality healthcare. And he understands that hospitals and the 80,000 plus men and women they employ are vital to Arizona’s economy.”

About The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association (AzHAA)
The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association (AzHHA) serves as a powerful advocate for issues that impact the quality and accessibility of healthcare in Arizona. AzHHA’s membership includes health systems, hospitals and affiliated healthcare organizations that have united with the goal of improving healthcare delivery in Arizona. AzHHA is an organization of hospitals and health systems dedicated to providing leadership on issues affecting the delivery, quality, accessibility and cost effectiveness of healthcare. The Association accepts and shares in the responsibility for improving the health status of the people of Arizona. AzHHA members represent more than 95 percent of all hospital beds in the state, from Page to Nogales and Yuma to Springerville.

About Matt Salmon
Matt Salmon was first elected to the United States Congress in 1994 and served until 2000, honoring his term limit pledge. A proud fiscal conservative, Salmon was rated in the top five among all 535 members of the House and Senate by Citizen’s Against Government Waste for all six years he was in office. He is a lifetime member of the NRA with an A+ rating and also earned a 100% rating by the National Right to Life. He was also the proud recipient of the American Cancer Society’s “Top National Elected Official” award.

Matt Salmon has received endorsements from Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, former Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, South Dakota Senator John Thune, East Valley mayors Gail Barney (Queen Creek), Hugh Hallman (Tempe) and John Insalaco (Apache Junction).

-30-