Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

It’s official. The Hill reports this morning that the Dems have formally agreed to bypass the formal conference committee process to ram the government health care plan through for Barack Obama: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/74...ealthcare-bill

“Aides said the agreement was reached during a Tuesday evening meeting at the White House with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and the top two Democrats from each chamber…After huddling among themselves at 10 a.m. Wednesday morning, House leaders will return to the White House for a 2:30 p.m. meeting with the president and Senate Democratic leaders.”

Behind closed doors.

Tell Washington and blinky Nancy: Let the cameras in. Take action and sign the petition here. http://www.letthecamerasin.com/


Obama and the Vampire Congress

Meet the Beltway bloodsuckers. They convene in the dead of night, when most ordinary mortals have left work, let their guard down, or are lying asleep in bed. Pale-faced and insatiable, the nocturnal thieves do their nefarious business in backrooms and secret chambers. Their primary victims? Taxpayers, the free market, and deliberative democracy.

Democrat leaders have been promising the most ethical, transparent, open, and engaged administration for years. Instead, they have delivered a bleak and creepy legislative environment that could double as a Twilight movie set. House Democrat leaders forbade debate on all but one amendment not authored by themselves. Skulking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed the government health care takeover package through under cover of darkness before Thanksgiving and Christmas. The Senate Finance Committee killed a GOP amendment that would have required Demcare to be available online for 72 hours before the committee voted. Reid and his Volterra–style henchmen cut last minute Cash-for-Cloture deals behind closed doors.

And now House and Senate Democrat leaders are reportedly preparing to cut dissenters out of the reconciliation process by bypassing the formal conference committee.

In Hill parlance, this legislative short-cut is called “ping-ponging.” A better game analogy: Dodgeball. With mounting opposition from both conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats, President Obama’s water-carriers must use every trick in the book to speed the final merging and passage of the bill before the end of the month.

The hypocrisy reeks stronger than rotting garlic. In 2006, House Democrats asserted that “House-Senate conferences are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce the final legislative product that will become the law of the land.” That same year, Harry Reid railed on the Senate floor against informal deal-making that circumvented the conference committee process – and he attacked the use of manager’s amendments to avoid public scrutiny:

“Of course, nobody can see the managers’ amendment. It is composed of over 40 amendments. How could anyone vote for a piece of legislation such as that — a managers’ amendment with 42 separate amendments? Now, these amendments were not put in a conference committee. People complain about that. But at least in a conference committee, you have people working together, sticking things in…Here, you have one person making a decision as to what is going to be in the managers’ amendment. There is no way to know what is in it.”

But four years later, it was Reid who snuck his 383-page manager’s amendment – stuffed with payoffs, special breaks, and concessions on health care – into the Senate hopper on the Saturday before Christmas break. Four years later, it is Reid stifling the open, collaboratively conference committee process he so fiercely championed.

Where’s Barack Obama? As a candidate, he promised repeatedly to broadcast legislative negotiations on C-SPAN “so that the American people can see what the choices are” and “so that the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” But the most transparent presidential administration ever is shrugging its shoulders. On Tuesday, White House spokesmen Robert Gibbs pooh-poohed C-SPAN’s request to allow electronic media coverage of the Demcare negotiations.

Instead, Gibbs thinks Americans should be grateful for what they got last month: “The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning on C-SPAN.And I think if you watched that debate — I don’t know — I wasn’t up at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning for a lot of those votes, but I think if the American public had watched…you’d have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing.” And if you missed the middle-of-the-night broadcasts, tough noogies.

Team Obama’s contempt for meaningful transparency has been on display from Day One. A year ago this month, President Obama broke his vaunted open government pledge with the very first bill he signed into law. On January 29, 2009, the White House boasted that Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had been posted online for review. Except: Obama had already signed it – in violation of his “sunlight before signing” pledge to post legislation for public comment on the White House website five days before he sealed any deal.

From the stimulus to the health care takeover to holiday bailouts for bankrupt financial behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it’s been all backrooms and blackouts ever since. The Prince of Darkness at 1600 Pennsylvania is perfectly happy with his Vampire Congress. Wraiths of a sunshine-evading feather flock together.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/06...pire-congress/

Pelosi tells C-SPAN: 'There has never been a more open process'
By Eric Zimmermann and Michael O'Brien - 01/05/10 03:29 PM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...e-open-process

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress' work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process. "There has never been a more open process for any legislation," Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations--likely without TV cameras--might be the most practical way to push the legislation through. "We will do what is necessary to pass the bill," Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been "subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny."

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged. "We don't even know if there's going to be a conference committee," he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.




Pelosi on Obama diss: “It was a quip”
January 6, 2010 05:13 PM

A spokesman for Nancy Pelosi tries to pull the knife she thrust into President Obama’s back yesterday (via NYT):
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010...haul.html?_r=1

Asked about Obama’s campaign trail promise [on transparency/C-SPAN], Pelosi remarked, without elaboration,
”There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Wednesday it was not a slap at the president. ”It was a quip,” Daly said.

A quip…with claws.

Gotta love a good ‘Rat fight.

Obama backs high-end health plan tax
By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer
21 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach, while recognizing that they will likely have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and four committee chairmen met with the president Wednesday as they scrambled to resolve differences between sweeping bills passed by the House and Senate. The aim is to finalize legislation revamping the nation's health care system in time for Obama's State of the Union address early next month.

Despite the dispute over the payment approach, Pelosi, D-Calif., emerged from the meeting expressing optimism.

"We've had a very intense couple of days," Pelosi said. "After our leadership meeting this morning, our staff engaged with the Senate and the administration staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we're very close to reconciliation."

Congressional staff members stayed at the White House into the evening to continue work, and a conference call of the full House Democratic caucus was scheduled for Thursday. Obama is taking a more direct role than ever, convening Oval Office meetings Tuesday and Wednesday of House Democratic leaders.

The House and Senate bills are alike in many ways. Both impose first-time requirements for almost all Americans to purchase health insurance, providing subsidies for lower- and middle-income people to help them do so, though the subsidies in the House bill are more generous. Both establish new marketplaces called exchanges where people can go to shop for and compare health insurance plans. Both would ban unpopular insurance company practices including denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

Differences include whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money. The House bill covers about 36 million uninsured Americans over 10 years, costing more than $1 trillion, while the cheaper Senate bill covers about 31 million.

House Democrats are steeling themselves to abandon establishment of a new government insurance plan opposed by moderates in the Senate, but in return hope to get the Senate to rescind insurers' antitrust exemption, make subsidies more affordable and agree to establishment of national rather than state health insurance exchanges, among other things. Obama has signaled his support for the House position on the subsidies and other areas, aides said.

The difference in how the bills are paid for is emerging as among the toughest disputes.

The House wants to increase income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million, which would raise $460 billion over 10 years to pay for the bill. The Senate wants to tax insurance companies on plans valued at over $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples, raising $150 billion. Most analysts say the insurance tax would be passed on to consumers, and organized labor is strongly opposed, as are House Democrats, some of whom contend that the tax would violate Obama's campaign pledge not to tax the middle class.

"We did in our house bill something that protects middle class Americans from having to pay more for health insurance," Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the House leadership, said Wednesday. "So far we want to stay to that principle."

House members "have been very clear on that issue and working with the president to stick to what he said when he was campaigning for president, we're trying to make sure this does not affect middle class Americans," Becerra said.

Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve," the president said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."

In the end the House likely will have to accept the insurance plan tax at some level — say starting with plans valued at $25,000 or more, with carve-outs for certain union professions — but it might not happen without a fight.

A provision in the Senate bill to increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-earners could provide some middle ground, although that measure would raise only $87 billion over a decade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/...overhaul/print

Health bills would shift Medicare money to Mayo and other 'high-value' hospitals
By Alec MacGillis Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 6, 2010

As House and Senate lawmakers start to reconcile their health-care bills with an eye to final passage, a little-noticed provision is already prompting celebration from a small group of influential hospitals that stand to gain millions in Medicare dollars.

Language in both the House and Senate bills would reward hospitals for efficiency in their Medicare spending, a dramatic change in the formula for parceling out the public dollars, which can account for as much as half of a hospital's budget. That could prove to be a windfall for some hospitals but a significant loss of funding for others, mostly those in big cities and the South.

revised Medicare formula represents a major lobbying victory for a coalition of hospitals based in the upper Midwest, led by the Mayo Clinic. Their leaders sent a letter to House members in July demanding Medicare reform, as well as objecting to a government-run insurance plan, or "public option." Even the smallest in the group mobilized lobbyists and sent their leaders to Capitol Hill to press their case.

Mayo leaders met with White House officials several times in recent months, convincing them that "paying for value" was key to slowing the growth in health-care costs. Throughout, President Obama has praised Mayo and "high-value" care.

"We are extremely pleased," said Karl Ulrich, president of the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin, a member of the coalition. He predicted a period of transition "that will be difficult for other providers to adapt to" but added: "We just think it's the way to go."


But those on the losing end are criticizing the provision as a brazen money grab. They predict that, instead of saving taxpayer money, it will simply take funding from areas with more poverty and racial minorities and send it to more homogenous communities that tend to have fewer health problems.

"The people in Minnesota are just going to say, 'We want our money,' " said J. Thomas Rosenthal, chief medical officer of the UCLA Medical System. "It's just 'Give us your money. You people are wasteful and we're not, and we deserve it.' "

Regional differences


Medicare payment rates are based on a mix of factors, including regional differences in the cost of living. Doctors and hospitals across the country have argued that the system underpays them for their services, but those in the Midwest, Mountain West and Northwest have been particularly aggrieved.

Hospitals in those regions perform well in oft-cited rankings by Dartmouth College researchers, which measure per-patient Medicare spending. And many of those hospitals also rank high in the quality of their care, suggesting it is possible to restrain the volume of medical procedures without affecting care.

Meanwhile, Dartmouth's surveys find that hospitals in some areas -- led by Miami, Los Angeles, New York City, and much of Texas and the South -- spend far more per Medicare patient than hospitals elsewhere.

That type of measurement is at the heart of the language in the health-care bills, which would introduce a "value index" or "payment modifier" to reward more efficient providers.

Just how much money is at stake depends on how the index is crafted. But even before the details are ironed out, many health policy experts say the provision may be one of the strongest cost-control tools in the legislation.

Hospitals now have little incentive to be parsimonious, because Medicare revenue is based on the number of procedures performed at a facility. But supporters say a value index -- by rewarding hospitals that spend less per patient -- would provide an incentive to limit procedures.

Proponents acknowledge one problem: Medicare rates will probably be set at a city-wide or regional level, rather than hospital by hospital. That means providers, even if they are efficient, could be punished for being in high-spending areas -- and inefficient hospitals could be rewarded if they are in low-spending areas. But supporters hope the change would encourage providers to better coordinate care, to improve their area's score.

"It's a step forward," said Donald Berwick, head of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a Massachusetts think tank.

Complicating factors


But opponents say Congress has bought a flawed sales pitch. They point out that the Midwestern hospitals spend less in part because they serve fewer low-income patients and racial minorities, who have higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and other costly conditions.

Opponents cite a new report from MedPAC, the Medicare advisory commission, which found that the spending gap between the Midwestern towns and urban cities such as Boston and New York shrinks when other factors are taken into account, including patients' health status and the fact that teaching hospitals get higher payments and thus appear to be spending more per patient.


Other data suggest that the rankings look much different when all hospital spending -- not just Medicare -- is taken into consideration. In some cases, for example, hospitals that spend little on Medicare charge very high rates to private insurers. "Just because you end up with lower Medicare spending doesn't mean you're efficient," said Len Nichols of the New America Foundation.

While lawmakers from losing states complained about the provision, they were less effective than a well-organized group of Democrats from states likely to gain, including Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Reps. Betty McCollum (Minn.), Ron Kind (Wis.) and Bruce Braley (Iowa.).

Now, the focus in Congress is on the precise language that will be included when the House and Senate bills are merged. Both sides agree that the House bill is most favorable to the "high-value" hospitals, because it kicks into gear faster and assigns the task of crafting the value index to the Institute of Medicine, a newcomer to the process, instead of the Department of Health and Human Services, which may be less inclined to radically depart from the system it has administered for years.

Lawmakers in the House who support the use of a value index recently wrote to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) demanding that their language prevail But whatever the final language, they feel as if they have won.

"The quality-care coalition made clear we weren't going to vote for a bill that continued these disparities," McCollum said. House leaders, she said, "knew they needed our votes to pass this."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=nl_pmpolitics

“If we pay for something and it’s the public’s business,
we ought to be able to see how it’s done”
By Michelle Malkin
January 7, 2010 11:56 AM

Amen, Brian Lamb.

In addition to pointing out how Barack Obama used C-SPAN as a political football during the presidential campaign and how the White House has only allowed one hour of dog-and-pony coverage of health care debate on the public affairs channel, Lamb sums up the simple, non-partisan principle behind the push for open, televised coverage of the backroom wheeling and dealing: http://www.nakedemperornews.com/

“If we pay for something and it’s the public’s business,
we ought to be able to see how it’s done.”

No wonder the Vampire Congress and the Prince of Darkness in the White House have responded to a simple request for transparency with near-violent apoplexy.

***

In related news, Fla. GOP Rep. Vern Buchanan has filed a congressional resolution demanding transparency in the negotiations process. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...y/1411315.html

One more time: Let the cameras in. http://www.letthecamerasin.com/


Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak acknowledges the Darkness: “They said it would be transparent. Why isn’t it? At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren’t transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members.” http://www.gop.gov/media/wtas/10/01/...rat-rep-sestak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajhIw...layer_embedded
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/07...-how-its-done/

I could be wrong, but I believe the uproar includes the fact that they are bypassing the Conference committee all together and meeting behind closed doors.
Congress is not even in session.



This is stunning. The tipping point with the media may have been reached. Maybe? Could it be?

Check out Jack Rafferty’comments on CNN about Obama and Pelosi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I


Fox: Cavuto Congressman Joe Knollenberg: "its not your (our) money" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZyAd_rJAx4

Government health insurance option appears doomed
By David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent
1 hr 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Senior House Democrats have largely abandoned hopes of including a government-run insurance option in the final compromise health care bill taking shape, according to several officials, and are pushing for other measures to rein in private insurers.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior Democrats told President Barack Obama in recent meetings they want the legislation to strip the insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws, officials said. That provision is in the House-passed measure, but was omitted from the bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.

They also want the final measure to include a House-passed proposal for a nationwide insurance exchange, to be regulated by the federal government, where consumers could shop for private coverage. The Senate bill calls for a state-based system of exchanges.

Additionally, House Democrats want to require insurers to spend a minimum amount of premium income on benefits, thereby limiting what is available for salaries, bonuses, advertising and other items. The House bill sets the floor at 85 percent; the Senate-passed measure lowers it to 80 percent for policies sold to small groups and individuals.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations are private.

The maneuvering comes as the White House and majority Democrats intensify efforts to agree on a final measure, possibly before Obama delivers his State of the Union address late this month or early in February.

Government intervention into the insurance market is one of the most contentious issues to be settled. Others include the fate of a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans, bitterly opposed by some labor unions; the extent to which abortions could be covered by insurance to be sold in the new exchanges; and the amount of money available to help lower-income families purchase coverage.

Liberals long have pressed to include a government-run insurance option in the legislation, arguing it would create competition for private companies and place a brake on costs.

House Democrats included it in their legislation. In the Senate, it drew opposition from Democratic moderates whose votes are essential to the bill's fate. Even attempts to include an expansion of Medicare for uninsured individuals as young as age 55 — widely viewed as a face-saving proposal for liberals — had to be jettisoned.

Given the opposition in the Senate, Pelosi, D-Calif., signaled late last year she did not view a public option as a requirement for a final compromise. Asked in an interview Dec. 16 whether she could support legislation without it, she said, "It depends what else is in the bill."

More recently, she listed her goals for a House-Senate compromise without mentioning the provision she long has backed.

"We are optimistic that there is much that we have in common in both of our bills and that we will resolve or reconcile this legislation in a way that is a triple A rating: affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, and accessibility to many more people in our country to quality, affordable health care," she said.

While Obama favors a government option, he has said repeatedly it is only a small part of his overall effort to remake the health care system, and is not essential.

Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have expressed optimism about chances for a swift agreement, but there appears to be relatively little maneuvering room. That is particularly true in the Senate, where 60 votes will be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, and any change carries the risk of alienating a Democrat whose vote is crucial.

The bill's future is further complicated by a scheduled Jan. 19 election in Massachusetts. Some polls show Democrat Martha Coakley in a closer-than-expected race against Republican Scott Brown and an independent contender. The winner will replace Sen. Paul Kirk, who became the 60th member of the Democratic caucus when he was named to his seat as successor to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

A Republican upset would deprive Democrats of their 60th vote.

Some House Democrats say the proposed government insurance option remains alive, although they speak publicly of its possible demise as long as insurance companies aren't let off the hook.

California Rep. Xavier Becerra, who's on the leadership team, said House members would only be willing to abandon the public plan if they were certain the final bill achieves the goals they want, as Pelosi described.

"We're willing to give up what's good for America as long as we get something good back," he said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, also a member of the leadership, agreed.

"I think the House is very much of a view that before they'd consider dropping the public option" they have to be assured of a bill that achieves the goals they wanted the public option to meet.

But officials said little if any time has been spent in White House meetings on the issue, and there was scant discussion of it during a conference call for members of the Democratic rank and file earlier this week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Schwarzenegger says health care bill a 'rip-off'
Sat Jan 9, 7:57 pm ET

WASHINGTON – California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says concessions made to Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson to win his vote on the health care overhaul bill were a "rip-off" for his state and is urging California lawmakers to vote against it.

In an interview airing Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Schwarzenegger says giving extra Medicaid benefits to Nebraska to secure Nelson's vote, critical to Senate passage of the measure, was "like buying a vote." In Sacramento, he says, "it is illegal to do that, to buy votes."

Schwarzenegger was one of the few Republicans to express support for health care reform, but last week protested the deal that gave Nebraska more Medicaid money but not other states.

Nelson said he is asking the Democratic leadership to extend to all states the extra Medicaid money Nebraska would receive under the bill. The House and Senate are now negotiating the final version.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/...NsawNwcmludA--

Report: Health costs up slightly under Senate bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/...Vwb3J0aGVhbHRo

WASHINGTON – Americans would see only a modest rise in health care costs under the Senate's plan to extend coverage to 34 million people who currently go without health insurance, government economic experts say in a new report.

The study found that health spending, which accounts for about one-sixth of the economy, would increase by less than 1 percent than it otherwise would over the coming decade even with so many more people receiving coverage.

Over time, cost-cutting measures could start to reduce the annual increases in health care spending, offering the possibility of substantial savings in the long run. At the same time, however, some of the Senate's Medicare savings could be unrealistic and cause lawmakers to roll them back, according to Medicare's top number crunchers.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the report released Saturday shows the Senate bill would slow the rate of health care costs, strengthen Medicare and provide millions more people with insurance coverage.

President Barack Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to play up the brighter side of the overhaul he hopes to sign in time for his first State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in a matter of weeks.

He said it would ban "the worst practices of the insurance industry" even as he acknowledged it would take several years — until 2014 in some instances — for some of the changes to be fully in place. That has disappointed consumers and their advocates.

"Now, it'll take a few years to fully implement these reforms in a responsible way," the president said. "But what every American should know is that once I sign health insurance reform into law, there are dozens of protections and benefits that will take effect this year."

Among them, Obama said:

_People with illnesses or medical conditions will be able to buy affordable health insurance.

_Children with such conditions will no longer be denied coverage.

_Small-business owners who can't afford to cover their employees will get tax credits to help them do so.

_Insurance companies will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers and will be prohibited from dropping coverage when someone becomes ill.

"In short, once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions and insurance company bureaucrats will have less," Obama said.

House and Senate versions of the overhaul would require nearly all Americans to get coverage and provide subsidies for many who can't afford the cost, but they differ on the details. Among the remaining sticking points are whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to use their own money to buy coverage in new insurance markets.

Obama had several meetings with Democratic lawmakers at the White House this week to help resolve those differences. In one instance, he signaled to House Democratic leaders that they must drop their opposition to taxing high-end insurance plans to pay to extend coverage to millions of uninsured people. The tax, which is in the Senate bill, is largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor.

HaHaHa! I'm sure the costs won't take 4yrs to kick in!
MoMoney! MoMoney! MoMoney!
How many people voted for him because the promises of "free health care"?
.......Now only to have to pay MORE... HaHaHa!

Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax
By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Labor leaders are pushing hard on President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to drop a proposed new tax on high-value health insurance plans, warning of political consequences.

The White House has indicated the tax may change so it hits fewer workers — but it's not going away.

A Monday evening meeting at the White House between Obama and about a dozen heads of the country's biggest labor unions capped a day when two union leaders fired broadsides at Obama and Senate Democrats over their plans to pay for overhauling the nation's health care system with a tax union leaders fear could hurt their workers.

The 40 percent tax would fall on employer health plans worth more than $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family. Although Obama terms them "Cadillac" plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who've negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt.

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes.

"A bad bill could have that kind of effect — a place where people sit at home" — as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters.

The head of the International Association of Firefighters, Harold A. Schaitberger, made similarly threatening remarks in a statement Monday. "The president's support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored. If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that includes the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable," said Schaitberger, who was not among the attendees at the White House meeting.

The AFL-CIO's Trumka made his remarks before delivering a speech in which he bashed the tax proposal in the Senate's health overhaul bill, contending that it "drives a wedge between the middle class and the poor."

"The bill rightly seeks to ensure that most Americans have health insurance. But instead of taxing the rich, the Senate bill taxes the middle class by taxing workers' health plans — not just union members' health care; most of the 31 million insured employees who would be hit by the excise tax are not union members," Trumka said hours before going to the White House. "This is a policy designed to benefit the elites."

Despite the criticism, Trumka stopped short of saying labor would actively oppose the bill if it included the tax. Trumka said bringing Americans health care reform "is too important for us to get this close and then say we quit."

Obama argues the high-value insurance plan tax is a way to control spending on health care services, one of his goals for his health care overhaul. Trumka and other labor leaders strongly prefer the approach taken in the House health care bill — an income tax increase on individuals earning over $500,000 a year and households earning over $1 million.

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said Monday night's meeting included an exchange of views and a productive discussion, but did not suggest any agreement had been reached. Earlier in the day White House spokesman Robert Gibbs indicated Obama was open to adjusting the tax so it would affect fewer people and said that would be discussed at the meeting.

That dispute over the tax is one of the sticking points between House and Senate Democrats as they work to reconcile health legislation passed by each chamber. They're looking for a product that Obama could embrace and sign into law in time for his State of the Union address sometime next month. With Obama behind the Senate tax approach, the final bill is likely to include it in some form.

There's been discussion of raising the threshold for the tax from $23,000 to $25,000 or higher. The threshold has already been raised for first responders and workers in certain high-risk fields and the levy could be softened for more union professions.

Trumka warned Democrats Monday, as he has in the past, that they can no longer take union voters for granted.

"Politicians who think that working people have it too good — too much health care, too much Social Security and Medicare, too much power on the job — are inviting a repeat of 1994," Trumka said. "Our country cannot afford such a repeat."

But organized labor must walk a tightrope in its criticism of the bill. Unions are among Obama's strongest supporters and have spent millions in grass-roots lobbying to garner support for his health overhaul plans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/...lth_care_labor

I think there’s going to be a wave of religious conversions this year. The Watertown Daily News reported this weekend that Amish families can claim an exemption from the Demcare’s planned government health care insurance mandate as a matter of faith: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/a...WS02/301099964

HEALTH REFORM: People with religious objections can opt out
Amish families exempt from insurance mandate
By MARC HELLER TIMES WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT
SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal health care reform will require most Northern New Yorkers — but not all, it turns out — to carry health insurance or risk a fine.

Hundreds of Amish families in the region are likely to be free from that requirement.

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a "religious conscience" exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.


The Amish population has been growing in the north country, as well as in New York generally. The state ranks sixth nationally in Amish population and posted the biggest net increase in Amish households — 307 — from 2002 to 2007, according to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania.

Lawmakers reportedly included the provision at the urging of Amish constituents, although the legislation does not specify that community and the provision could apply to other groups as well, including Old Order Mennonites and perhaps Christian Scientists.

A professor and lawyer at Yeshiva University in New York complained last summer that exempting groups for religious reasons could run afoul of the Constitution. Marci A. Hamilton, who teaches at the University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote at Findlaw.com in August, "If the government can tolerate a religious exemption, then it must do so evenhandedly among religious believers with the same beliefs. This is sheer favoritism for a certain class of religions, or even for one religion."

In her column, Ms. Hamilton speculated that lobbyists for the Christian Science Church were responsible for the provision, given their public stance that health care reform bills around the country should include religious exemptions. In an e-mail message Friday, she said she was unaware of the Amish interest in the bill and that their objections to the mandate surprised her because the Amish do buy vehicle insurance, for instance.

Ms. Hamilton said the exemption could harm the health of children whose families avoid medical care for religious reasons, although the Amish objections relate more to insurance than to medical care itself.

Congressional aides said the exemption is based on a carve-out the Amish have had from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the 1960s. Whether Amish businesses, however, would fall under the bill's mandates is still an open question.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was a key negotiator on the Senate bill, supports the religious exemption, said a spokesman, Maxwell Young, who called the provision a "no brainer."

Don Surber beat me to the punchline: “We are all Amish now.”
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/7472

This is really getting more ridiculous.
First they are going to FORCE people to pay for this crappy heathcare plan, what if I don't pay, are they gonna put me in jail? Well, then I'll get all the free health care I want.. Woo-Hoo! Win-Win!
Second, if I say I'm Amish I don't have to pay because of "religious conscience"?!? What about Scientologists., or Jehovah's Witness? I thought this country was based on religious freedom, so now if your Chrisitan or Jewish, they are MAKING you join?
It just keeps getting better & better!