Obama outlines health care plan for all

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Wed Mar 17, 11:51 am ET

WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."

And that's not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent in 2016, compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now. However, the budget office estimated that about 4 in 10 customers shopping for an individual policy would not be eligible for tax credits — and would face higher premiums on average than without the legislation.

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama often cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.

But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/...RjaGVja3ByZQ--

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan
John Miller, Associated Press Writer – 2 mins ago

BOISE, Idaho – Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.

"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Herrera, the group's health task force director.

Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.

Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous.

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/...Fob2ZpcnN0dG8-

Quote:

---

Tyranny of the Majority

These words some up the current Democratic party. It is quite obvious to most Americans that this party has turned a deaf ear against the American People they were elected into office to represent. It is the sworn duty, of these people that are elected into public office by the American People, to defend and represent the voice of the American People. The majority voice of the American People spoke up long ago and let the Democrats know that the majority of the American People did not want this health care legislation to even be considered, and for certain not to pass.

I am neither Democrat or Republican - I am American.

This is a major issue for every American who loves their Country and wants to see its liberties preserved. In the conscience of every American citizen, the way OUR GOVERNMENT is currently operating, needs addressed by EACH and EVERY INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN CITIZEN. It not only involves what is right, It involves the duty each American Citizen to insure OUR Government - For The People, By The People, Of The People is preserved and not abolished or usurped.

I am not against health care reform. I am against this current Administration reforming health care in this Country though. I do not need to catch these people in lies, they catch themselves up. I do not need to expose their ulterior motives, they expose themselves. There is something VERY VERY WRONG when the President of this GREAT and FREE COUNTRY constantly turns a deaf ear to the AMERICAN CITIZENS HE has sworn an oath to listen to and lead. There is something VERY VERY WRONG when OUR PRESIDENT /HOUSE/ CONGRESS/ SENATE dismisses the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S VOICE to implement what THEY WANT, AHEAD OF WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT!!!

This issue will go far greater than deciding health care reform. It will more greatly set a new direction in OUR GOVERNMENT evolution. A direction WE do not want at all.
These are not the Leaders WE want deciding the future direction of Our GREAT and FREE COUNTRY. We must wait for smarter, more attuned leaders. Leaders who will wholeheartedly commit their lives and minds to the betterment of this Country and Her People. We have waited this long, We can wait longer, rather to give in to what We all know is not good enough and which will lead US all into more problems and loss.

I am not writing this to put down anyone or any party. I am writing this because I love America. I love being American and I love my Country. This course of action Our Government wants to take has helped me to look into the past, to relearn again what OUR FOREFATHER"S fought and died for, To rediscover the WORDS of the Declaration of Independence - The Constitution - The Bill of Rights - American History, to look into my OWN heart and mind to know what is right for this Country and what is wrong for it.

God Bless America.

---

Late-innings hardball in health care push
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 56 mins ago

WASHINGTON – With time and tempers short, everyone's playing hardball in the drive to pass — or stop — President Barack Obama's massive health care legislation by the weekend.

Business groups are spending $1 million a day to depict the bill as a job killer in television ads in the home districts of 26 wavering House Democrats. A new ad barrage from supporters of the legislation went up Tuesday in 11 districts, some overlapping. And unions are threatening some of those lawmakers to come through for Obama — or pay the price in the fall elections.

Obama has summoned members to the White House one by one for private, face-to-face persuasion, and also met larger groups. White House aides said he plans at least one more public health care event this week, including remarks in Fairfax, Va., on Friday. Diverse administration resources are being employed: Even the Navy secretary is in the game.

"We here in Congress are giving a new meaning to March madness," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, an opponent of the legislation, said Tuesday.

At stake is a bill that would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with a pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide. The comprehensive legislation could affect nearly every American, from those undergoing annual checkups to people facing major surgery.

Activists on both ends of the political spectrum are energized. Tea party volunteers, who rallied Tuesday in Washington, are planning to flood congressional offices with e-mails opposing the legislation as a step toward socialism. And some on the political left have joined in calling for the bill's defeat because it leaves out a federal insurance option.

The sought-after Democrats — mainly moderates, but also a few liberals — are mostly trying to stay out of sight. They include 37 who voted against the bill last year and a smaller number who are having second thoughts after supporting it the first time. Walking briskly, lawmakers duck in and out of the House chamber during votes, avoiding eye contact with reporters.

Moderate Rep. Mike McMahon, D-N.Y., is feeling the push and pull. Elected with strong labor support two years ago, he voted against the bill in November, pleasing constituents in his Republican-leaning district on Staten Island who saw it as a government power grab.

Last week, McMahon received a visit from Mike Fishman, president of the Service Employees International Union's local 32BJ. The blunt message: If you can't support health care reform, we can't support you.

The union is threatening to switch its allegiance if he votes against the bill. "Everyone will be looking very, very closely at this vote," Fishman's spokesman, Matthew Nerzig, said with understatement.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who voted against the House bill last year because he wants a larger government role in health care, has been lobbied hard by Obama to vote "yes" this time. Kucinich scheduled a news conference for Wednesday to announce how he will vote.

At the White House on Tuesday, Obama met with health care executives, including Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association. In a break with other abortion opponents, the Catholic hospitals are advocating for the bill.

"We think the bill as written now meets the test of no federal funding for abortion," Keehan said in an interview. She's letting anti-abortion Democrats know her position announced over the weekend.

White House aides said Obama and senior advisers are making clear to lawmakers that they will not be left standing alone in a difficult election year if they cast a tough vote for health care overhaul. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meetings.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is trying to keep wavering lawmakers in line, meeting with them individually and in groups. She has summoned female Democrats to her office for a meeting Wednesday morning.

An estimated $200 million has been spent for political advertising on health care since the beginning of last year, with groups favoring Obama's overhaul holding a slight edge. In the final stretch, however, opponents have gotten the upper hand and supporters are rushing to catch up.

A coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce went up with ads last week. The group is now spending an estimated $1 million a day, enough for 25 to 40 television ads, said Evan Tracey, president of Kantar Media-CMAG, which tracks political advertising. The ads frame the health care bill as a drag on the economy, raising taxes and saddling companies with expensive new mandates.

Liberal groups are hoping they won't be too late. Health Care for America Now and several labor unions have announced a $1.7 million ad buy focusing on the districts of 17 undecided Democrats. Their ads portray the health insurance industry as a profit-hungry predator.

"The ads are designed to get people fired up, so that members feel it coming back from their districts," said Tracey. "Members are on notice that they may be voting on this now, but their constituents will be voting on it in November."

House Democratic leaders are still short of the 216 votes they need. While broad outlines of the $1 trillion, 10-year measure are well known, critical final details are still being ironed out. Lawmakers are awaiting a cost report from the Congressional Budget Office on compromises worked out with Obama to reconcile versions passed earlier by the House and Senate.

Democratic leaders are considering using a legislative procedure that would allow them to pass fixes to the Senate bill without taking a direct vote on the underlying legislation. The maneuver is a kind of legislative fig leaf to spare House Democrats from directly voting to approve a Senate bill many of them had bitterly criticized. While Republicans also used the tactic when they controlled the House, they are indignant that Democrats would employ it on legislation of such significance.

The crucial group of some three-dozen House Democrats is split roughly into two camps: those who possibly could switch their earlier "yes" votes to "no," sinking the legislation, and those who might switch from "no" to "yes," salvaging it.

Then there's Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who says he has a dozen lawmakers ready to vote against the bill unless it incorporates a tougher firewall against taxpayer-subsidized abortion coverage, although his numbers seem to be dwindling. Stupak said Tuesday he has received only gentle overtures from the White House so far.

Democratic leaders have assigned House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California liberal, to negotiate with Stupak, and the two men talk daily. Stupak said a few of his anti-abortion colleagues have been called by high-ranking administration officials. Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who backed the bill in November but is undecided now, said she has heard from several Cabinet secretaries.

Another one, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was surprised to hear from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, said Stupak, who declined to identify the lawmaker.

Stupak said the members of his group have politely told administration officials they need to negotiate through



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/...RlLWlubmluZ3M-

Honorable David Kithil‏

Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."


JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272.! section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas

Thursday, March 18, 2010
They Lied! (To Their Own Supporters)

Firedoglake has a great list ( http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/201...ly-vindicated/ ) of Democratic Congressmen who pledged -- in writing -- not to vote for any health care bill which did not include a public option but who are voting for Obamacare which does not have a public option.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A24UZctD--...mises+Pg+1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A24UZctD--...mises+Pg+1.jpg


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A24UZctD--...mises+pg+2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A24UZctD--...mises+pg+2.jpg

These Congressmen lied to their supporters. Think what they would do to their opponents. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...upporters.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackpack

This doesn't surprise me. The end always justifies the means. I am baffled at how clueless all these politicians are and I mean Republicans as well. There are very simple and very obvious ways to control the spiraling health costs.

1. You have to be an American citizen to have access to our hospitals and emergency rooms. I own a small business in Minneapolis and any one who has been to the Hennepin County Medical Center in downtown Minneapolis can tell you very little english is spoken there.

2. Protect the drug companies from lawsuits. Way too often a drug that has been approved by the FDA and has helped thousands of individuals will have an adverse affect on a very small number of people. That is bound to happen in the law of averages when dealing with the human body. Unfortunatly class action lawsuits arise from this and only the John Edwards types of lawyers benefit. It hurts the public and makes the drugs more expensive.
3. allow across border competition for health insurance. Free market competition garuantees the consumer the best product for the best price.
The only thing our government does well is our military. Anything else they touch they ruin and make the costs much hire.
4. Tort reform. Loser pays. If you ever get a chance to watch television during the week it is non stop advertising for lawyers( ambulance chasers) who tell you that the drug companies and insurance companies stink and that they are the only ones with your best interest at heart so call us 7 days a week 24 hours a day.

We have the best health insurance companies, the best drug companies, and the best doctors and nurses in the world. How do I know? Easy. The greatest measure of a country is how many people trying to get in versus how many are trying to get out. The last time I checked our problem eas 11,000,000 plus illegal aliens not states losing their population and work force to other countries

---

Healthcare reform vote: Which Democrats are most vulnerable?
Linda Feldmann – Wed Mar 17, 6:51 pm ET
Washington – Remember Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky?

Anyone over a certain age who follows politics does. She was the first-term Democratic congresswoman from Pennsylvania who cast the decisive 218th House vote for President Clinton’s budget reconciliation bill in 1993 – and then went on to lose reelection in 1994.

Today, as the Democrats work to lock down just enough votes to pass an unpopular healthcare reform bill, “MMM” isn’t far from thought. No one wants to be the MMM of 2010. But there are several who could suffer that fate.

One obvious place to look is the 49 Democrats elected in 2008 from districts that voted for Republican John McCain for president. Most of them, in fact, are fine; either they don’t face tough opponents in the fall or they are otherwise secure in their seats.

Ultimately, “we’re talking about a relative handful of members whose careers could be ended by the healthcare vote,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

What's happened in the pastBut even a “no” vote on healthcare by a Democrat in a Republican-leaning district isn't a guarantee of reelection. Maybe he or she is likely to lose anyway, in a midterm cycle that typically punishes the president’s party.

In 1994, six incumbent Democrats lost their seats anyway after voting "no" on the deficit reduction bill, recalls Amy Walter, editor-in-chief of the Hotline political website, who worked for MMM at the time. And there were six incumbent Democrats from swing districts who voted “yes” on deficit reduction and survived.

In fact, most Democrats survived reelection. But “those who lost office in ’94 were disproportionately those who had supported Clinton on some tough votes and represented Republican-leaning districts,” says Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.

Virginia alone has three Democratic House members currently in tough reelection fights – Tom Perriello (one of the biggest upset winners of 2008), Glenn Nye (another freshman upset winner), and Rick Boucher (a 14-term member who represents a very conservative part of the state).

Any of them could think, “Well, I’m going to lose anyway, so why not take one for the team, and vote for healthcare reform?”

But it’s not so simple. No individual is guaranteed to lose, no matter how tough the odds. For example, in Congressman Perriello's race, there could be a “tea party” candidate or two in the mix, splitting the opposition and allowing Perriello to win reelection with 45 percent of the vote.

Charges of flip-flopping may accompany a changed voteAnother potential problem is the flip-flop charge: Some say that if a member voted “no” on health reform the first time around, it’s safer to stick with “no.”

“Is it better to take a hit and vote the same way, or take a different kind of hit by having to explain why you flip-flopped?” asks Mr. Sabato. “You’re better going with your instincts, whatever they are.”

Aside from wanting sweeping reform of the healthcare system, Democrats are eager for a major legislative victory to run on in November. But for Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, the best option may be to run on the Republican argument: “I could not support this expensive, big-government program.”

In that case, a Republican challenger won’t be able to use healthcare to beat up the Democratic incumbent as effectively as if the member had voted “yes.”

But there’s no guarantee that this Democrat would gain support by voting “no,” says Mr. Jacobson.

On Wednesday, one of the big news flashes of the day came from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) of Ohio, who switched his “no” vote on healthcare to “yes.” But Congressman Kucinich can afford to flip-flop. He occupies a safe Democratic seat. And his reason for changing his vote was atypical: He had opposed the Democratic reform plan because he prefers the more liberal government-run “single payer” healthcare system.

Most of the Democrats voting “no” on healthcare are in conservative-leaning districts.

And on a lighter note, former Congresswoman Margolies-Mezvinsky remains in the news for an entirely different reason: Her son Marc Mezvinsky is set to marry former first daughter Chelsea Clinton this summer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100317...FsdGhjYXJlcmU-

Thursday, March 18, 2010
CBO - The Spin Starts Before The Report Released
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...-released.html

Clever Democratic tactic.

Leak the supposedly positive, but contrived, aspects of the latest CBO report to favored bloggers ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...m_bill_cu.html ) so that the news cycle is favorable: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_502543.html

CBO Score On Health Care Bill Released: Boosts Democrats' Hopes Of Passing Reform, even though the report is not actually available as of this writing (emphasis mine):

Quote:

---

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 $130 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 next ten years.

---

Hard for me to criticize the headline when the actual report is not yet posted at the CBO website, so I can't point out the phony assumptions CBO was forced to follow in their calculations.

Just another sign that this CBO score will be like the others, a contrived end result where it is critical to dig into the details to get the real story.

More evidence of the corrupt nature of this process.

Update 10:54 a.m. - CBO report still not posted on its website, yet the spinning is going full steam ahead.

Update 11:02 a.m. - Are we dealing with outright f-ing liars? (I know, rhetorical question.) Via HotAir, CBO apparently is denying it has completed its official cost estimate.

Update 11:30 a.m. - The report apparently has been released, but the CBO website is jammed. HotAir has it and quotes the usual "we really don't know what these numbers mean but we'll guesstimate them anyway" language (not a quote, my synopsis).

Here is a link to the report. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf

my review, Inconvenient Words In CBO Report http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...bo-report.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

How does it "leading to a reduction of $130 billion in the federal deficit" as well as "It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years."? So which is it?

How much does it cost, on average, to provide health care to the average person per year? Just multiply that by the number of people being covered and that's how much it's going to cost. Like the federal government is actually going to decrease some other expenditures to actually offset these costs. Please.

How can these people vote for this when they all know, deep down, that it's a pack of lies? How can they screw us and our children and our future generations over so much, for short term political gain? It's appalling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sid

I know its a simple oversight, but CNN forgot to mention this when they were tripping over themselves to report on the wonderful findings.

From the CBO report:

Quote:

---

“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.”

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pagan Temple

They probably are assuming that it will lead to a reduction in Medicare and Medicaid expenditures by controlling costs. Of course, what they don't take into account is the potential long-term impact on the quality of care, which would be beyond anybody's control. The New England Journal of Medicine made it pretty clear that it would probably lead to a mass exodus of doctors, to the tune of as many as a third. If a public option were included, it could lead to as many as forty percent leaving the profession, or more.

Here's a link to the story if anyone is interested.

New England Journal Of Medicine http://www.red-alerts.com/homeland-s...reform-passes/

---

Quote:

---

Does anyone know if the Student Loan program was included in the most recent CBO estimate? If so, this would account for 10's of billions in savings that would completely make the CBO numbers closer to fraud than to misleading. It would, however, explain why Pelosi wanted it in the bill to begin with.

---

Dems defeat GOP effort to force separate vote on Senate health bill
By Michael O'Brien - 03/18/10 02:28 PM ET

Democrats shot down a Republican effort to force an up-or-down vote on the Senate healthcare bill on Thursday afternoon.

In a 222-203 vote, Democrats beat back a GOP resolution offered by Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) that would have forced lawmakers to vote on the Senate healthcare bill separately from the series of fixes they hope to make to that legislation.

All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP's effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

222 Democrats supported the measure, though, meaning enough to proceed. Three members of both parties did not vote.

Republicans had hoped for the separate vote to get Democratic lawmakers on record on the Senate bill, which includes some provisions on abortion, excise taxes, and other issues that House lawmakers find distasteful.

As this stand, Democrats plan a vote on a rule on Sunday that would make changes to the Senate-passed bill while deeming the original legislation to have passed the House.

Republicans have decried the measure as extra-parliamentary and possibly unconstitutional. Democrats have defended the process as well within the scope of regular congressional action, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that President Barack Obama would sign a bill passed through such a process.


Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...te-health-bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kim

Can you smell that? It's the sound of The Constitution burning…

---

Here’s the roll call vote. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll129.xml

Those who didn’t vote:

Dem Ackerman
GOP Hastings (WA)
GOP Hoekstra
Dem Lofgren, Zoe
Dem Stark
GOP Westmoreland (Update: Was on his way to ICU for grandson, according to a constituent who contacted his office)

The 28 Dems who joined Republicans in opposing deem-and-pass cramdown:

Adler (NJ)
Arcuri
Boren
Bright
Carney
Childers
Cooper
Costello
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Giffords
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lipinski
McIntyre
McNerney
Melancon
Michaud
Minnick
Mitchell
Nye
Perriello
Shuler
Stupak
Taylor
Teague

Question: Why did Democrats Jason Altmire and Stephen Lynch, who both have voiced public opposition to Deem-and-Pass tactics, support the Slaughter House resolution?


Ace of Spades: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/299531.php “I am getting really worried, because if 222 Democrats voted for this unconstitutional, very-unpopular maneuver, doesn’t that mean that all 222 will also vote for the bill itself? Why vote for this if you’re not going to vote for that?”



From the GOP leader’s office…

Quote:

---

Boehner: House Democrats Endorse “Slaughter Solution,” Vote to Protect Themselves Instead of Their Constituents

GOP Leader: “The ‘Slaughter Solution’ is nothing more than an incumbent protection program for Democrats afraid to stick their necks out because they know how much the American people oppose this bill.”

WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after House Democrats voted to authorize the use of the controversial “Slaughter Solution” to force a massive government takeover of health care through the House without voting on it:

“Today, House Democrats voted to protect themselves instead of their constituents, who are fed up with the lack of accountability and transparency in Washington. The ‘Slaughter Solution’ is nothing more than an incumbent protection program for Democrats afraid to stick their necks out because they know how much the American people oppose this bill. Speaker Pelosi, who promised to lead the ‘most honest, most open, and most ethical’ Congress in history, gave rank-and-file Democrats a chance to pass this job-killing monstrosity without actually voting on it and they jumped at the opportunity.

“This legislative trick has been around for a long time, but it’s never been used for a bill so controversial and so massive in scope. Republicans will continue to stand up for taxpayers and fight to ensure they get a clean, up-or-down vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. The American people won’t let House Democrats hide from this vote.”

NOTE: This “deem and enact” maneuver has been in existence since 1933, but used just six times in the history of the House of Representatives and never in this manner.

---

I saw on yahoo this morning where some Republicans are not falling for this crap because it will make a huge payoff in the defiecit! Who effing cares if the lower and middle class are forced to pay for something they can't afford! Not to mention say our insurance goes up 200% because of all the new stipulations put on them by the goverment! I get that they want to make ins. make it so they can't deny people or use the pre-exiting thing quit. But forcing people to pay for something and paying a fine when you can't? Does anyone else see how twisted the irony is?

A Southern-style taste of health care politics
Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 48 mins ago

COLUMBUS, Miss. – It may not bode well for Rep. Travis Childers that many voters in his rural Mississippi district have stronger opinions about President Barack Obama's health care plan than they do about the Democratic congressman.

Regardless of how Childers votes, the legislation is threatening to swamp the carefully crafted bipartisan brand he's been building with his Republican-leaning electorate for the past two years. "I think it's probably going to bankrupt the United States of America," said Diane Wall, who manages a pool and spa store in Columbus, home to about 25,000 people and one of the largest cities in the district. Wall, who mostly votes Republican but often splits her ballot, said she isn't sure whether she'll support Childers in November. But "he might as well retire" if he votes for "Obamacare," she said.

Perhaps more than any other Democrat, Childers represents the political risks his party is taking by forging ahead on a party-line vote with one of the most sweeping legislative proposals in a generation. While the bill may boost Democratic credentials in some parts of the country, the party is having a hard time selling it in moderate and conservative areas like northern Mississippi's 1st Congressional District.

Voters in a few dozen swing districts will probably determine whether Democrats maintain control of the House in November, and even party moderates who vote against the health care package could get caught in a backlash.

Democrats already lost one such member in December, when freshman Rep. Parker Griffith, whose Alabama district sits just across the state line from Childers', cited the health care fight as the reason for his defection to the GOP. The former state senator not only opposed the bill but viewed it as so politically toxic that he was compelled to quit the Democratic Party.

It's no coincidence that many of the other 37 House Democrats who opposed the initial bill are relative newcomers facing difficult re-election prospects in November, including Reps. Glenn Nye of Virginia, Walt Minnick of Idaho and Frank Kratovil of Maryland.

Childers, 51, a rare Democrat in a conservative Southern stronghold, is near the top of the Republican target list.

The former chancery court clerk and nursing home owner from rural Booneville is serving his first full term after initially winning the seat in a special election amid an anti-Republican wave two years ago. His relatively poor district, which has no urban areas aside from small cities like Columbus, Grenada and Tupelo, had been in Republican hands for 12 years before his victory. It gave Obama just 37 percent of the vote.

The health care proposal appears to be playing into the same line of criticism here that has become something of a stereotype in conservative areas around the South: Democrats spend too much money on inefficient government programs and handouts.

While many conservatives and independents say they're not thrilled with the current health care system, they complain of what they see as costly, big-government solutions.

Shopping at a home improvement store on the outskirts of Columbus, Terry Williamson said he's gotten frustrated with trying to get his private insurance to approve an MRI scan to find out what's causing health problems that have forced him to use a cane. But he doesn't think the Democratic bill will help him, and he suspects it will cut into the Medicare benefits he's earned over the years. "I think they're going to take the money out of Medicare and use it to cover young people who don't want to buy insurance or people who are too lazy to work," he said. "They're just slinging money left and right."

Air Force retiree Howard Jenkins said getting the government more involved in health care will only create a "big mess."

"I don't know of anyone who's really for it," he said after lunch in the city's historic downtown.

Both men said Childers, who has frequently bucked his party, still could be in jeopardy over his party's direction. "As far as a Democrat, he's done fairly well, but what's going on in general, he might be in trouble," Williamson said.

Childers has worked for months to make it known that he voted against the initial House bill, which passed in November with a slim five-vote margin. With Democrats scrambling for votes on final passage this week, he announced Thursday he intends to vote "no" again.

While he said he wishes Democratic leaders had moved more slowly to sell the package in bite-sized chunks, he doesn't concede that a "yes" vote could have cost him his job or that passage of the bill even without him could complicate his re-election.

His party is betting his political future — and the congressional majorities it worked so hard to build in 2006 and 2008 — on it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/...91dGhlcm4tc3Q-

Quote:

---

If you want to find the crooks - see who has the money. What has hurt my small business is the cost of insurance.

Medicare which is underfunded takes 2.9% of total FICA and provides about 17% of America with the (double per capita required) health care that 65-95 year olds need. I realize that they should have about 3.5% withheld to be solvent - no pol has the B*lls to do it.

But to pay for my employees I pay just as much as Medicare gets and my employees average age is 36 (28-64) and we pay more than Medicare for not-so-good coverage. When my oldest (and very healthy) worker turns 65 I am asking him to stay on indefinitely as I can take him off the plan by working a "temporary" 40 hour position have him use medicare and pay him $5.50 an hour more($11,000/yr).

As a business man I know insuring America with Medicare from Age 45 up would only cost about twice as much (5.8 vs present 2.9% on FICA) medicare and would make medicare solvent and it would save me almost $200,000 per year - 90% of which I would pass on to a hard-working team. You too can do the numbers - but this also pre-supposes they put back the auditors that the Bush years took away. See the Steve Kroft 60 Minutes piece on Miami mob medicare fraud...

I know most of you don't look at it this way - but I say again if you want to find the crooks -look at who has the money. Google William McGuire UHC to see an example (wikipedia is OK on this one) and you will get my point.

---

Quote:

---

Is there a way out for doubters?

If I were congressman Childers or any of the other Democrats who are being pressured for an "up or down" last minute vote on this bill, I sould say:

"Madame Speaker, I have not been given sufficient time or information to digest all the manifestations and ramifications of this proposed legislation. Therefore, I DECLINE to vote at this time".

Then, I would go home for Easter, read the bill and listen to my constituents. It is passed anyway, I would say I DID NOT vote for it and avoid the political backlash that is sure to come.

---

Quote:

---

Obamacare besides being unconstitutional, will bankrupt the country beyond repair. We are bankrupt now because of all the spending not because of not paying enough taxes as the politicians in Washington would have you believe. Simply put, apply what you have to do for your own budget to what the government should be doing. You cannot spend more than you bring in or you come to a point that you can not pay for anything because you have to spend everything on the interest of the debt.

---

State of health care debate: Pundits attack 11-year-old
Les Blumenthal, Mcclatchy Newspapers
Thu Mar 18, 5:19 pm ET

WASHINGTON — Conservative talk show hosts and columnists have ridiculed an 11-year-old Washington state boy's account of his mother's death as a "sob story" exploited by the White House and congressional Democrats like a "kiddie shield" to defend their health care legislation.

Marcelas Owens , whose mother got sick, lost her job, lost her health insurance and died, said Thursday he's taking the attacks from Rush Limbaugh , Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin in stride. "My mother always taught me they can have their own opinion but that doesn't mean they are right," Owens, who lives in Seattle , said in an interview.

Owens' grandmother, Gina, who watched her daughter die, isn't quite so generous. "These are adults, and he is an 11-year-old boy who lost his mother," Gina Owens said. "They should be ashamed."

Sen. Patty Murray , D- Wash. , told Marcelas Owens' story to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House health care summit last month. Murray also has spoken about it on the Senate floor. Last week, Owens was in the nation's capital to speak at a health care rally and to meet with Senate Democratic leadership.

Limbaugh, Beck and Malkin are skeptical about the story, saying there were other forms of medical help available after Owens' mother, Tifanny, lost her health insurance. They lambasted Democrats for using the story. "Now this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old boy being forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama ," Limbaugh said on March 12 , according to a transcript his show. "And, I would say this to Marcelas Owens : 'Well, your mom would still have died, because Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014.'"

Beck, according to a transcript of his March 15 show, pointed out that Owens' recent trip to Washington was paid for by Healthcare of America, a group that has been lobbying for a health care overhaul. "That's the George Soros-funded Obama-approved group fighting for health care," Beck said. "Since all of the groups are so concerned and involved now, may I ask where were you when Marcelas' mother was vomiting blood?"

Beck, who's from Mount Vernon, Wash. , said there were plenty of programs in Washington state that could have helped Tifanny Owens .

Malkin dismissed Marcelas Owens as "one of Obama's youngest lobbyists" who has been "goaded by a left-wing activist grandmother," promoted by Murray and has become a regular on the "pro-Obamacare circuit."

Malkin also suggested there were other programs that could have helped Tifanny Owens , adding, "It's not clear that additional doctors' visits in the subsequent months would have prevented her death."

Tifanny Owens died in June 2007 of pulmonary hypertension, which is described as high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs that can lead to heart failure. The disease is considered rare. While there's no cure, it can be treated.

The treatments can cost as much as $100,000 a year and must be "consistent and constant," said Katie Kroner , the director of advocacy and awareness for the Pulmonary Hypertension Association . "It's extremely important to have health coverage," she said.

Owens was an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant when she became sick in September 2006 . As she became sicker, she missed work and was eventually fired, leaving her without health insurance. She was treated twice in an emergency room and died at age 27 after a week of unconsciousness. Gina Owens has custody of Marcelas and his two younger sisters.

Gina Owens said her daughter didn't qualify for Medicaid . State officials said that without knowing the details, it was impossible to speculate on whether Tifanny Owens would have qualified. Tifanny Owens might have been eligible for Washington state's basic health care plan, which is aimed at the working poor. The plan has had a long waiting list for some time, said Sharon Michael of the Washington state Health Care Authority . "Right now, we have 100,000 people on the wait list," Michael said.

Limbaugh has gone after young people before. In 2007, he told listeners that Democrats were exploiting an 18-year-old Yup'ik Eskimo and that her congressional testimony of global warming made him want to "puke."

Murray said she was appalled at how vicious the health care debate has become. "The mom in me is getting really mad," she said. "You don't tear apart an 11-year-old because his mom died."

Marcelas Owens said he'll never know if his mother might have lived if she had health insurance. "At least if she had it she would've had a fighting chance," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3455226


I don't see the "pundits" as going after the kids so much as being critical of the Dems who are clearly using the child and his grief for their own ends.

Final health bill omits some of Obama's promises
Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – It was a bold response to skyrocketing health insurance premiums. President Barack Obama would give federal authorities the power to block unreasonable rate hikes.

Yet when Democrats unveiled the final, incarnation of their health care bill this week, the proposal was nowhere to be found.

Ditto with several Republican ideas that Obama had said he wanted to include after a televised bipartisan summit last month, including a plan by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to send investigators disguised as patients to hospitals in search of waste, fraud and abuse.

And those "special deals" that Obama railed against and said he wanted to eliminate? With the exception of two of the most notorious — extra Medicaid money for Nebraska and a carve-out for Florida seniors faced with losing certain extra Medicare benefits — they are all still there.

For the White House, these were the latest unfulfilled commitments related to Obama's health care proposal, starting with his campaign promise to let C-SPAN cameras film negotiations over the bill. Obama also backed down with little apparent regret on his support for a new government-run insurance plan as part of the legislation, a liberal priority.

But was it all the president's doing?

In the cases of the insurance rate authority, the Republican ideas and the special deals, it came down to Obama making promises that Congress didn't keep. He can propose whatever he wants, but it's up to Congress to enshrine it into law.

Arguably, the president could have foreseen that outcome, and was making a low-risk p.r. move by floating proposals — dismissed by critics as insubstantial anyway — whose demise he couldn't be blamed for.

While the White House worked hard to trumpet Obama's plans for the rate authority, his embrace of bipartisanship and his opposition to special deals, the administration hardly advertised the lack of follow-through. Understandable, certainly, but perhaps not the new way of doing business that Obama promised to bring to Washington.

Removing the special deals ran into opposition from powerful lawmakers including Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. The rate-limiting authority and the Republican ideas were left out of the legislation because the bill is going to be considered under special filibuster-proof Senate rules that prohibit provisions that don't have a budgetary impact, and those ideas don't fit in.

"There are a number of proposals that the president wanted to incorporate into the legislation including additional Republican proposals, but the parliamentarian ruled against allowing those proposals to be included," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. "We would like to enact those proposals in separate legislation in the coming months. In the meantime, some important Republican measures remain."

Of the four main Republican ideas Obama endorsed, only one made it into the final bill — a proposal embraced by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa to bump up payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid. A proposal to expand the use of health savings accounts was rejected out of hand by congressional Democrats, while a plan to increase funding for medical malpractice reform projects was also determined to be undoable under fast-track Senate rules.

Coburn's spokesman, John Hart, complained that Democrats "found time to buy votes with earmarks but couldn't include bipartisan ideas endorsed by President Obama." House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, had dismissed the GOP ideas Obama endorsed as "bread crumbs" sprinkled atop the health bill — and now even most of those bread crumbs are blown away.

At the same time, Baucus got to keep a provision to give Medicare benefits to asbestos-sickened residents of Libby, Mont., and Dodd still has one that could result in a new hospital being built at the University of Connecticut. Both senators argue their special deals aren't really special deals, because the Medicare provision could apply to other places where public health emergencies are declared, and other sites outside of Connecticut could be eligible for the hospital.

Most of the provisions of the health care bill don't kick in until 2014, so Obama still has time to make good on everything he promised — or try to get Congress to do so.

"To hold the president accountable for every single provision he advocates for is simply unreasonable," said Alec Vachon, a health policy consultant and former Republican Capitol Hill aide. "Some things aren't in there because the members of Congress who have the votes don't want it. Some things aren't in there because congressional rules which Republicans will be enforcing won't allow it. But Democrats will have three years to tinker with health reform before universal coverage goes live."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100320/...5hbGhlYWx0aGI-