Quote: The point is that nobody seems to know what in the hell their health care will cost them if this crap is forced down our throats, or what the level of health care will be. How can anybody be all for this when they have no clue how it is going to effect them and their family?
But we do know the IRS will be the agency charged with making certain we are going to pay for it, years before we'll ever see any benefit from it. If what you call whatever we'll receive a benefit.
Ohio Rep.John Boccieri Announces his Support for Health Care Reform
I thought Rep Boccieri's comment about too many politicians worried about "their future" instead of "the future of the families" standing behind him..constituents who commented about their personal stories dealing with the present health care system.
Also, the Rep. Boccieri's comment below made a point, concerning the priorities of some American politicians...
Ohio Rep John Boccieri is an Iraq war vet...yesterday he explained changing his vote to a "yes" vote on HCR , stemmed from his experiences as a pilot during the war and hearing that HHS secretary Tommy Thompson flew to Iraq to deliver a billion(s) dollar check to the Iraqi government, which would ensure that every Iraqi, "man woman and child" in their country would have health care. He said that he couldn't explain to his constituents in Ohio why they shouldn't have the same thing. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have attempted to make the same point to the opponents of HCR, emphasizing how "some politicians" had no problem using US taxpayer dollars to provide health care for the Iraqi people but the same politicians oppose health care for Americans.
I would hope most Americans agree with the point Rep Boccieri was making... providing health care for the American people should be a higher priority than the health care for foreigners, IMO.
Sadly, some politicians have their priorities upside down and backwards...
Quote: The thing is that something like 95% of companies over 200 employees already offer coverage, so this rule will only really affect a few businesses that don't. So it's really a status quo move; I don't see widespread layoffs to be the result. And also, I don't think businesses are classified as small once they have 200+ employees anyways.
Ya know, that kind of made me think about how a "small business" is defined anyway,...number of employees, or gross income, or some combination of both ? But,.. then again, I guess it doesn't matter, as the goal seems to be, get health care for everyone, regardless of the cost.
Quote: I guess when that's all RWers have left in their hand to play, what's another lie to a GOP politician?...
The president stands before the country and lies one after another, and you want to paint the GOP as liars.. First of all they all lie, second, this whole administration is built upon lies and never ending campaigns of lies.
Administration Actuary Can’t Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote
Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote
Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’
WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the “very tight time frame” and “complexity” of the Democrats’ health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.
The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: “In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.”
Foster and his staff analyzed the Senate-passed bill and determined that it bent the cost curve up, estimating in a January 8 report that national health expenditures would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion, and that the additional demand for health services “could be difficult to meet” and “could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.” Foster, in his letter today, expects the new health spending bill to be “generally similar.”
House Republican Leader John Boehner said: “The House of Representatives should not vote blindly on an issue that is so important to every American. We deserve to have all the facts about how much this bill raise health care costs before we vote. The decision to press ahead and jam this bill down the throats of the American people is just one more example of arrogance and irresponsibility from Washington Democrats.”
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said: “Americans deserve to have a full analysis of this bill, but won’t because of the mad dash forced by the Democrat leaders in the House. We now know that even the Obama administration’s chief actuary predicts more government spending, more price increases for consumers and less care for low-income patients. This debate was supposed about lowering costs for Americans not making things worse.”
The letter to CMS was signed by McConnell, House Republican Leader John Boehner, Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi, House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Dave Camp, House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, and House Education and Labor Committee Ranking Member John Kline.
-----
Full text of the letter to Republican leaders follows:
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Dear Senator McConnell:
This letter is in preliminary response to your inquiry of March 19 requesting an updated analysis by the Office of the Actuary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as passed by the Senate) as it would be modified by the “Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010” (as released by the House Committee on Rules on March 18). The request was made jointly by yourself and 10 other members of the House and Senate Republican Leadership.
In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21,2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation. We will, however, continue working to estimate the financial, coverage, and other impacts of the health reform package and will provide these results to you as quickly as possible.
As you know, the Office of the Actuary has assisted Congressional Administration policy makers on health legislative and policy initiatives for many years, including the original Medicare legislation in 1965, all subsequent amendments to this program, Medicaid amendments since 1976, and the Clinton Administration’s proposed Health Security Act in 1993-94. Our goal has always been to provide independent, objective technical information for use by policy makers as they deliberate Medicare, Medicaid, and national health reform proposals.
We issued an analysis of the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a memorandum dated January 8, 2010. While it is reasonable to expect that our updated analysis of this legislation, as modified by the reconciliation amendments, would be generally similar to the results in the January 8 memorandum, I cannot confirm this expectation without a full evaluation of the amendments and re-estimation of the provisions.
I am sending a similar letter to House Republican Leader Boehner, and, for expediency, will email copies to the other cosigners of your request. I am sorry that we cannot respond more quickly. Please let us know if you have any other questions we can assist with.
From CNN Congressional Producers Ted Barrett, Evan Glass and Lesa Jansen web page
Washington (CNN) - Civil rights icon and veteran Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, said anti-health care bill protesters Saturday repeatedly yelled the "N" word at him as he left a heath care meeting and walked to the Capitol.
"I haven't seen heard anything like this in more than 40 years, maybe 45." Lewis said. "Since the march from Selma to Montgomery really."
"Yeah, but it's okay," Lewis added. "I've faced this before. So, it reminded me of the 60's. There's a lot of downright hate and anger and people are just being downright mean."
The incident was confirmed by Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indiana, who was walking with Lewis at the time. Protesters were yelling, "'kill the bill, kill the bill' and the 'N' word several times," Carson said.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, released a statement late Saturday saying he too was called the "N" word as he walked to the Capitol for a vote and that he was spat on by one protestor who was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police. Cleaver declined to press charges against the man, the statement said.
Protesters also hurled anti-gay comments at Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, as he left the same health care meeting that Lewis attended in a House office building.
A CNN producer overheard the word "..." yelled at Frank several times in the lobby of the Longworth building. Frank said he heard someone yell "homo" at him.
"I'm disappointed," Frank said. "There's an unwillingness to be civil."
Frank, who said he rarely hears such slurs anymore, said the health care issue has become "the proxy for a lot of other sentiments. A lot of which are perfectly reasonable but some of which are kind of ugly."
The Democrats are trying to pass a bill that could very well cripple the American Government and the Republicans are acting...well, how they usually act.
Is there anyway we can just get rid of them all and re-vote? Unfortunately, people usually only vote in the Presidential elections and only vote on who they "like" and not who they think will do the best job.
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum web page
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
Quote: That's the second blog he's posted today. Mac's so giddy he forgot the rules of the pound!
I don't know why he is happy. He has good insurance.
He is a retired auto worker who's big benefits package for producing inferior product for 30 years is what helped bury the American auto industry.
I know from his perspective it was engineering and management that was the problem, but from most sane people's views, it was paying people 2-3 times what they were worth that buried the industry..
I guess I can't blame him. If I could vote for others to do my work and pay my bills, I might as well. It's kind of like slavery really. Get others to do the work and pay the way.
I don't worry about it for me...it won't impact me all that much. I do worry about how it will impact my kids and their children.
At least I will be able to look them in the eye and tell them I was against this legislation once the bills come due....
Oh well....the meek shall inherit the earth....I just never figured it would be the meek of mind.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: You just added 32 million people to health care, how easy do you think it's going to be to get a doctor's appointment, let alone into an ER.
Well, I happen to think that it's a good thing that someone can see a doctor if they need to. I've been holding off on doctors visits for awhile cuz I can't afford GOOD insurance in my current position.
Quote: You just added 32 million people to health care, how easy do you think it's going to be to get a doctor's appointment, let alone into an ER.
Well, I happen to think that it's a good thing that someone can see a doctor if they need to. I've been holding off on doctors visits for awhile cuz I can't afford GOOD insurance in my current position.
Well, I'm happy I can pay for your visit. Hope you can find a spot in the waiting room.
Quote: You just added 32 million people to health care, how easy do you think it's going to be to get a doctor's appointment, let alone into an ER.
Well, I happen to think that it's a good thing that someone can see a doctor if they need to. I've been holding off on doctors visits for awhile cuz I can't afford GOOD insurance in my current position.
The good thing is you won't have to hold off anymore, go ahead and make an appointment. I'm sure they'll get to you in a month or so...
This bill is a giant subsidy to the insurance companies.
It doesn't resemble socialism in the slightest. Not even close.
Fascism, yes. Very much so.
This bill will basically force people to buy bad insurance plans. It does absolutely nothing to address the problems of health care.
Both sides are in for a surprise -- the 'left' will find themselves duped, and the 'right' will end up looking foolish for all of their socialism nonsense (but in the end will be able to say they fought this horrible bill).
This bill is a giant subsidy to the insurance companies.
It doesn't resemble socialism in the slightest. Not even close.
Fascism, yes. Very much so.
This bill will basically force people to buy bad insurance plans. It does absolutely nothing to address the problems of health care.
Both sides are in for a surprise -- the 'left' will find themselves duped, and the 'right' will end up looking foolish for all of their socialism nonsense (but in the end will be able to say they fought this horrible bill).
There is a fine line between Fascism and Socialism when it comes to economics.
I work my tail off so that my family and I can have health care. My wife works her tail off also.
Out of pocket, I pay 340.00/month for health insurance for my wife, child, and I. Tack on another 60.00/month for dental. - 400.00/month total.
Then take into account that my employer pays about 700.00/month in medical for my family and I.
That means that my health insurance company pockets 1,100/month just from me.
Recently, I had a 550.00 claim denied because my insurance company said that the treatement was not necessary. - Mind you, I am one of the people that works, and does everything by the book. -Yet I am getting taken advantage of by my health insurance company.
Personally, I don't like the thought of people getting something for nothing (free healthcare,welfare,etc) however, the current system is broke. - Insurance companies should have nothing to do with healthcare simply because business should not mix with health. - The state of somebody's health should not hinge on corporate business prospects. - It makes no sense.
Now, if the current system worked so that no claims could be arbitrarily denied by insurance companies who are looking out for their bottom line, then we would be on to something. - However, if it worked like that, then the insurance companies would not profit and would have no reason to exist - so where does that leave us?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bye bye, Cornhusker Kickback. Hello, special treatment for Tennessee and North Dakota.
Democrats unveiling revisions Thursday to their health care overhaul bill decided to kill the extra $100 million in Medicaid funds for Nebraska that has become a symbol of backdoor deal making.
But the 153 pages of changes to the massive health care package include extra money for hospitals in Tennessee that serve large numbers of low-income patients. And though the bill would revamp the nation's student loan system to make the government the only lender, one bank – the state-owned Bank of North Dakota – would be allowed to continue making student loans.
That provision ended up rubbing Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the wrong way. Fearing it would become a target by Republicans in what he said is "an overly heated partisan environment," he asked the House late Thursday to remove it from the legislation.
Still alive is special spending for Louisiana, Connecticut, Montana and other states that was included in the health care bill that the Senate approved in December. The House may give it final approval this weekend.
Senior White House officials have sent mixed signals about the special deals. They initially demanded that they be eliminated, but by Sunday senior White House adviser David Axelrod said they only objected to provisions affecting just one state.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs last week singled out projects from Montana and Connecticut as items President Barack Obama wanted removed. There was resistance, however, from two influential committee chairmen, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and their projects have survived.
To help win the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., the massive measure the Senate passed on Christmas Eve had included $100 million that only Nebraska would get in added federal Medicaid assistance.
Immediately mocked as the Cornhusker Kickback, critics called it the epitome of special Washington dealing, and even Nelson advocated ending his state's special treatment. Under the changes announced Thursday, the Nebraska provision would be deleted and all states would get additional Medicaid help from Washington.
As democrats prepare for the health care vote, the government says the final bill will cost $940 billion over 10 years, but will reduce the budget deficit by $138 billion. Nancy Cordes reports.
Following a bipartisan health care summit last month, Mr. Obama announced he was open to incorporating several Republican ideas into his legislation. (AP)
Special Report
Health Care
The latest news and analysis on the continuing battle over Barack Obama's health care reform plans. Stories Dems Sweeten Health Bill in Final Push Temperature Rising for Health Care Votes (AP) Congressional Democrats have released a final version of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul bill in advance of a House vote planned for Sunday. Some features of the legislation, which makes changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve:
COST: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
HOW MANY COVERED: 32 million uninsured. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 95 percent of eligible Americans would have coverage, compared with 83 percent today.
INSURANCE MANDATE: Almost everyone is required to be insured or else pay a fine. There is an exemption for low-income people. Mandate takes effect in 2014.
INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS: Major consumer safeguards take effect in 2014. Insurers prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. Higher premiums for women would be banned. Starting this year, insurers would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies and from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing medical problems. Parents would be able to keep older kids on their policies up to age 26. A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion goes into high gear.
MEDICAID: Expands the federal-state Medicaid insurance program for the poor to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014. The federal government would pay 100 percent of the tab for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. A special deal that would have given Nebraska 100 percent federal financing for newly eligible Medicaid recipients in perpetuity is eliminated. A different, one-time deal negotiated by Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu for her state, Louisiana, worth as much as $300 million, remains.
The Hunt for Health Care Votes: Democrats to Watch Obama Deploys Personal Presidential Touch What's in Health Care Bill? Take a Dose Special Report: Health Care Reform
TAXES: Dramatically scales back a Senate-passed tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labor unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018, and the thresholds at which it is imposed would be $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. To make up for the lost revenue, the bill applies an increased Medicare payroll tax to investment income as well as wages for individuals making more than $200,000, or married couples above $250,000. The tax on investment income would be 3.8 percent.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Gradually closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit that seniors fall into once they have spent $2,830. Seniors who hit the gap this year will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap receive a discount on brand name drugs, initially 50 percent off. When the gap is completely eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in.
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.
SUBSIDIES: The proposal provides more generous tax credits for purchasing insurance than the original Senate bill did. The aid is available on a sliding scale for households making up to four times the federal poverty level, $88,200 for a family of four. Premiums for a family of four making $44,000 would be capped at around 6 percent of income.
HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Small businesses, the self-employed and the uninsured could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools called exchanges, opening for business in 2014. The exchanges would offer the same kind of purchasing power that employees of big companies benefit from. People working for medium-to-large firms would not see major changes. But if they lose their jobs or strike out on their own, they may be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange.
GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No government-run insurance plan. People purchasing coverage through the new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the health plans available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit.
ABORTION: The proposal keeps the abortion provision in the Senate bill. Abortion opponents disagree on whether restrictions on taxpayer funding go far enough. The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer dollars and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for abortion. In plans that do cover abortion, policyholders would have to pay for it separately, and that money would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money. States could ban abortion coverage in plans offered through the exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.
GOP HEALTH CARE SUMMIT IDEAS: Following a bipartisan health care summit last month, Mr. Obama announced he was open to incorporating several Republican ideas into his legislation. But two of the principle ones - hiring investigators to pose as patients and search for fraud at hospitals and increasing spending for medical malpractice reform initiatives - did not make it into the legislation released Thursday. The legislation incorporates only one, an increase in payments to primary care physicians under Medicaid, an idea mentioned by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Muni, the problem isn't reforming health care. It needs reformed.
The problem is what is in this bill. This is from yahoo.com as to what is in the bill.
-An "individual mandate" will require all Americans to purchase some form of health care coverage, with government subsidies provided to those needing financial assistance to do so. People who don't obtain coverage of some sort will be subject to federal fines, which would begin to take effect in 2015.
-All employers with 50 or more employees will be legally obliged to offer coverage - or else they will be assessed a stiff fine of $2,000 per uninsured employee.
-Insurance exchanges - that is, purchasing pools for individuals not covered by employer-provided or federal plans such as Medicare - will be able to obtain coverage.
-Private insurers will no longer be permitted to deny coverage or raise premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions or illness.
-Cost controls will be phased in via expanded coverage plans, resulting in a $1.3 trillion reduction in the federal deficit during the next 20 years, against $940 billion in costs associated with the bill, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
I sense a barrage of cut&pasted left wing articles in yellow print coming.
