With 350 employees covered under his auto dealership's health care plan, Burt Brenner said a government-run insurance plan might be too good to resist.
Brenner, the chief financial officer at Lindsay Automotive in Alexandria, Va., said that private premiums have been increasing for 10 years, even when claims don't warrant it, and a "very attractive" element of the public plan is that it could stop that "rollercoaster."
"We would consider a public plan to reduce premiums if the benefits of the plan were comparable to that of our private plan," he said.
So would millions of others -- according to estimates of the sweeping impact a government-run health plan could have.
Under the plan being pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a government-run plan would provide nearly the same benefits as the other private plans in a new insurance exchange, but at a fraction of the cost.
This would make the public plan an attractive deal. But it could also lead to an exodus of customers from private insurance -- a scenario conservatives fear will be the first step toward a single-payer system where the government is the sole insurance provider. And that, they say, would inflict further damage on the expanding deficit.
There are concerns that such a robust public plan could increase the cost of the overall reform package and follow in the footsteps of other entitlement programs, like Medicare, deep in the deficit hole.
For better or worse, analysts who gauge these plans say the version Pelosi is pushing could draw millions away from private coverage.
"We'd be moving largely to a government-run program," said John Sheils, senior vice president for The Lewin Group, a health care consultant.
The Lewin Group has long predicted that a government-run plan would have a sweeping effect on where Americans get their coverage. But it found a stark difference between the plan offered in the House Energy and Commerce Committee version, which requires a public option to use "negotiated" payment rates just like private plans, and the kind of plan pushed by Pelosi, which would pay providers using Medicare rates.
Though it claims to be editorially independent, The Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group, leading some critics to question the reliability of its studies.
The new insurance exchange would be a standardized and regulated marketplace for public and private insurance plans.
Sheils estimates that, in the new exchange, the public plan premiums would remain about level with private plan premiums if the rates are "negotiated." Because of this, a Lewin study released in September said most of its "price advantage" would be eliminated. It estimated that fewer than 1 million people would leave private coverage and that total public plan enrollment would hit about 21 million.
However, Sheils said, a plan based on Medicare rates would be about 23 percent cheaper than private plans and would attract a surge of clients.
The Lewin Group estimated that 35 million people would leave private coverage and about as many would join the government-run plan if it is open only to individuals and small firms. If it's open to all firms, the projected number of people leaving private coverage leaps to 83 million, with 103 million joining the public program.
Any public plan is likely to be limited to small firms, though according to an Aug. 31 Congressional Research Service report, a commissioner could allow larger employers to participate years down the road.
But even the scaled-back version of a Medicare-based plan could be enormously popular.
The health care legislation requires that a number of benefits be provided in all plans, public and private, in the exchange. This includes hospitalization, maternity care, prescription drugs, preventive care, and other benefits. The exchange would offer a few different tiers of coverage, but all those tiers would provide for the same benefits -- the main difference would be in the out-of-pocket expenses assumed by the patient for different services.
Lewin estimated that starting in 2011 the basic plan would cost $297 per member per month under private coverage. Sheils put that at about $229 for the Medicare-based public plan. Conservatives see this disparity as a warning sign.
"Medicare rates are artificially cheap. ... The public plan will underbid private plans with regard to enrollment," said Robert Moffit, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"No matter what you call it, such a provision will lead to a government takeover of health care, which the American people strongly oppose," Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, wrote in an e-mail to Foxnews.com.
President Obama and congressional Democrats have long rejected this claim and say customers will just have more affordable choices under the overhaul.
"If you like what you have, you can keep it," Pelosi said Thursday.
Pelosi reportedly does not yet have the votes to pass the "robust" version of the public option she wants. Other versions of a government-run plan are also being tossed about, including one that would "trigger" the plan down the road if certain conditions are not met.
Gauging the impact of the competing plans is difficult. The Congressional Budget Office came up with more modest figures over the summer when it examined a plan to pay Medicare rates, plus 5 percent for physicians, under a public option - the exact idea being pushed by Pelosi and congressional allies.
The CBO found that premiums would probably be 10 percent cheaper than private plan premiums. And it estimated that enrollment would hit about 9 or 10 million.
Jennifer Tolbert, principal policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said more people would certainly leave private coverage if a public plan based on Medicare rates is passed. But she questioned the suggestion that the plan would have an absolute advantage over private coverage.
"I think people base their coverage decisions not simply on cost," she said.
For one, people choose health insurance plans in part based on the network of providers they supply. And the CBO reported that, because health care providers would have the right to opt out of the public plan, "some" would choose not to participate because of the lower rates attached to the program.
But the CBO said a "substantial number" would join because of the prospect for "substantial enrollment."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From The Hill
Hoyer: House Dems on the verge of bringing healthcare bill to the floor
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64941-house-dems-on-verge-of-bringing-health-bill-to-floor
By Jared Allen - 10/27/09 11:30 AM ET
House Democrats are days, if not hours, away from introducing the healthcare bill that will make it to the floor, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday.The No. 2 Democrat in the House said it was the objective of Democrats to introduce their final bill this week so that it can be voted on next week.
“That would be our objective, because it’s our objective because we want to consider this bill next week, and we pledged to give 72 hours notice, so we need to roll out the bill this week,” Hoyer said.What the bill looks like remains unclear. Unlike Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who on Monday announced that the final Senate bill would include a public option with an opt-out provision for the states — an announcement Reid made before pocketing the 60 votes he would need to pass such a bill — the House’s strategy has been to search for a formula that will generate 218 Democratic votes ahead of time.A whip operation that began in earnest last week to pin members down on their support for a public option tied to current Medicare rates versus one that allows doctors and hospitals to independently negotiate their reimbursement rates continued over the weekend and spilled over into this week.
On Friday Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated an openness to a public option with negotiated rates, especially if the Senate includes some kind of public option in its legislation.
Hoyer said that the “overwhelming majority of Democrats” support a public option, but he again gave no hints as to which version is generating a critical mass of support.Asked how many additional healthcare votes Democrats are likely to win with a negotiated-rates public option, Hoyer replied: "We don’t have that number yet.”Pelosi has stood by her personal preference for a public option tied to “Medicare plus five percent,” saying that the Congressional Budget Office has preliminarily scored it as the biggest cost-saver.But she asked the CBO to produce more complete scores on both versions. House leaders, as well as important blocs of Democrats in the House, continue to wait for those scores.A Hoyer aide said Tuesday that CBO scores would be due before leaders could introduce their final bill.
With the debate on healthcare reform heating up, Democratic leaders are ramping up their floor schedule. House Democratic leaders have conveyed to their caucus that they will keep the House in session as long as necessary to pass healthcare reform legislation.
House members have been advised that the lower chamber is expected to be in session Monday through Friday next week, and there could be weekend votes. On Monday, there will be no votes until 6:30 p.m.
On Tuesday, the House is scheduled to convene with the Senate for an address from German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The House will also be in session from Monday through Friday during the week of Nov. 16 and there could be votes on Nov. 23 and 24.
Mike Soraghan contributed to this article, which was updated at 2:35 p.m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New York Times
Democrats Lose Big Test Vote on Health Legislation
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/policy/22health.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase
Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years.
The Senate majority leader,
Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. ((Surprise - he did anyway....)) A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.
The Medicare bill has become a proxy for larger issues in the debate over legislation to overhaul the health care system.
Mr. Reid said the bill, by averting big cuts in physician fees, guaranteed that doctors would continue accepting Medicare patients. But since none of the costs were offset or paid for, Republicans said it was fiscally irresponsible, and some Democrats said they shared that concern.
By addressing doctors’ fees in a separate bill, Senate Democrats could hold down the cost of the broader health legislation, keeping it within the limits set by
President Obama. House Democrats are considering a similar tactic. Republicans said it was a transparent ploy to hide the cost of a health care overhaul.
Democrats had hoped that by passing the Medicare bill they could appease doctors and secure their support for the broader legislation.
Senate Democratic leaders said the bill to protect doctors’ fees had strong support from the White House, the American Medical Association and AARP.
Among the Democrats who voted against the party leadership were Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida and
Ron Wyden of Oregon.
“I will vote for the doctor fix — when it is funded,” Mr. Nelson said.
Mr. Wyden said, “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Reid said the Republicans had suddenly “gotten religion” and were being very frugal. In the past, he said, they did not worry about paying for tax cuts or for the drug benefit added to Medicare in 2003.
Under current law, doctors face a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare fees in 2010 and then annual 5 percent cuts for several years. Since 2003, Congress has stepped in to postpone such cuts, but it has usually found ways to offset the cost to the government.
The bill this year, by Senator
Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, had no offset and would have repealed the current cost-cutting formula, known as the sustainable growth rate.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he felt vindicated by the vote.
“In the Senate’s first vote on health care spending this year,” Mr. McConnell said, “a bipartisan majority rejected the Democrat leadership’s attempt to add another quarter-trillion dollars to the national credit card without any plan to pay for it. With a record deficit and a ballooning national debt, the American people are saying enough is enough.”
Despite the Senate vote, proponents of sweeping health care legislation moved ahead on other fronts.
At a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, Speaker
Nancy Pelosi indicated that she would push for a “robust” liberal version of a government-run health insurance plan, to compete with private insurers, if she could get the 218 votes needed to win approval in the full House.
An aide to the House Democratic leadership said Ms. Pelosi had told the caucus that she had 200 votes, “or a little over 200,” for this option, which would use Medicare rates as a basis for paying
hospitals and doctors. Under another option, the government plan would negotiate rates with providers, as private insurers do.
Ms. Pelosi said the first alternative saved more money and would give the House leverage in negotiations with the Senate. But Representative Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota, said he could not vote for this proposal because it would be damaging to his district and was likely to be dropped in negotiations with the Senate.
In North Dakota, as in many other rural areas, Mr. Pomeroy said, Medicare rates are far below those paid by private insurers.
Democrats in both chambers agreed Wednesday on one point: they want to revoke the exemption from federal antitrust law that health insurance companies have long enjoyed.
By a vote of 20 to 9, the House Judiciary Committee approved the antitrust change, which is likely to be included in the broader health care legislation. It would outlaw price-fixing, bid rigging and “market allocations” by companies that sell health insurance or medical malpractice insurance.
Mr. Reid and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said they would offer a similar plan as an amendment to health legislation in the Senate.
“Criminal conduct that would land people in jail in other industries is legal when insurers do it,” Mr. Leahy said.
The insurance business has been largely exempt from federal antitrust law since 1945. The
Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that insurance was interstate commerce subject to federal antitrust law. But the insurance industry won a reprieve nine months later, when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
States regulate health insurance and have sued insurers for anticompetitive conduct. But state officials said they had received little help from the federal government.
Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, said: “I feel strongly that the exemption should be repealed. It is a legal and historical anomaly that there is such a sweeping and all-encompassing exemption for an entire industry. It makes no sense as a matter of logic or law.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the AMA Website
AMA deeply disappointed Senate has failed seniors, baby boomers and military families by blocking S. 1776
Permanent repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula is essential to comprehensive health system reform
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/senate-blocks-s1776.shtml President, American Medical Association
“The AMA is deeply disappointed that the Senate today blocked consideration of S. 1776, legislation to preserve access to health care for America’s seniors, baby boomers and military families. Senator Stabenow is a long-time champion for patients and physicians, and the AMA, AARP and MOAA strongly supported her bill that would have laid the foundation to permanently fix the Medicare physician payment formula and keep Medicare strong as millions of baby boomers enter the program in just two years.
“As we work to improve the health system, permanent repeal of the payment formula is essential to ensuring the security and stability of Medicare. On January first, Medicare physician payments are scheduled to be cut by 21 percent, with more cuts in years to come. Nearly 90 percent of people age 50 and older are concerned that the current Medicare physician payment formula threatens their access to care.
“While short-term fixes have temporarily averted widespread access problems, they have also grown the size of the problem – and the cost of reform. The AMA is committed to fixing the Medicare payment problem once and for all for seniors, baby boomers and the physicians who care for them.
“There is widespread agreement among Republicans and Democrats that the formula is broken and needs to be repealed. Congress created the Medicare physician payment system, and Congress needs to fix this problem once and for all to fulfill its obligation to seniors, baby boomers and military families. Permanent repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula is essential to comprehensive health system reform.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From The Hill
'Doc fix' collapses, Reid tells colleagues AMA led him astray
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/64117-reid-tells-colleagues-he-was-led-astray-by-the-ama
By Alexander Bolton - 10/21/09 01:36 PM ET
A group of Democrats joined all Republicans in blocking a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments, legislation that was considered important to getting a broader healthcare bill through later this year.
Prior to the 47-53 procedural vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blamed the American Medical Association (AMA) for giving him bad information on the number of Republicans expected to support the measure.
Reid had offered the doctors group a deal to pass the "doctors' fix" in return for support from the doctors on President Barack Obama's broader healthcare initiative, which is slated for the Senate floor later this year.
Reid told colleagues that the AMA said it could deliver 27 Republican votes for the legislation, according to two Senate Democratic lawmakers, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ((AMA leadership denies this.)) Reid needs the GOP votes because at least five members of his party have vowed to vote against the doctors' fix.
Reid said at a news conference Wednesday that he would bring up the 10-year freeze after the healthcare reform legislation is passed and will settle for a one-year fix in the meantime.
"We'll take this up again when we finish healthcare," Reid said Wednesday, "and we'll have a multiple-year fix for this. Right now, we'll only have a one-year fix."
The doctor payment cuts are mandated by a 1997 law.
“The reference to 27 votes was made well before S. 1776 was introduced and in the context of bipartisan health reform legislation," said J. James Rohack, AMA president. "The majority of Democrats and Republicans support SGR repeal for seniors and baby boomers, but today’s vote appears to be becoming the victim of Senate politics. Congress needs to fulfill its obligation to seniors, baby boomers and military families, and repeal of the SGR is an essential element for health reform to succeed.”
Though many Republicans say they want to save doctors from Medicare cuts, they have balked at the quarter-trillion-dollar bill, citing a lack of spending cuts or tax increases to pay for its cost.
Twelve Democrats and one independent joined all 40 Senate Republicans in defeating a motion by Reid to begin debate on the doctors fix bill on Wednesday. Reid brought the $247 billion bill to the Senate floor this week as part of a deal to secure the support of doctors groups such as the AMA for passage of a separate, broader healthcare reform bill later this year. But the strategy has backfired. Reid knew that he needed Republican votes because several centrist Democrats made it clear to him before this week that they would not vote for the measure if its cost was not offset. Reid though he could count on a few Republican crossover votes.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said in a brief hallway interview that he didn’t think the motion to proceed to the bill would pass.
Reid told reporters on Wednesday that he was led to believe that more than two dozen Republicans would vote for the bill, though he did not mention the AMA by name. “I was told by various people that we would have 27 Republican votes, which was pretty reasonable to assume since one of the co-sponsors of this legislation was [Sen.] Jon Kyl [Ariz.], the assistant Republican leader.
“I was stunned when I was told by his cosponsor Sen. Stabenow after we introduced this legislation that [Kyl] couldn’t support it. Even though he is a cosponsor he couldn’t support the legislation,” Reid said, making reference to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the lead sponsor of the 10-year doctor payment fix.
Kyl did not cosponsor the 10-year fix. Last year and in 2005 he cosponsored a measure that would have implemented a two-year freeze on the cuts to Medicare payments to doctors. An aide to Kyl said that those measures would have indexed future payments to inflation and rising healthcare costs. The aide said that Stabenow’s bill would freeze payment levels and make no provision for rising costs. Another factor is that the nation’s fiscal picture is much different than it was last year. The Obama administration recently estimated the federal deficit at $1.4 trillion.
Democratic senators are not certain whether the AMA told Reid directly that it could deliver 27 Republicans or made its estimate known through intermediaries. Reid, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) met with doctors’ groups last week to discuss strategy. Two participants in the meeting said Reid and the groups did not talk about a specific number of Republicans that could be persuaded to support the doctors-fix bill. “No numbers were thrown around,” said the representative of one group. “Twenty-seven is a little ambitious.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Heritage Foundation
Morning Bell: A Whole New Health Care Ball Game
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/22/morning-bell-a-whole-new-health-care-ball-game/#more-17685
Posted October 22nd, 2009 at 9.20am in Health Care.
You have to read all the way to
page A-25 in today’s New York Times to learn about it, but the Senate took its first floor vote on Obamacare yesterday and the White House lost. Big. The NYT reports: “Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.”
As we reported on
Monday and Tuesday, yesterday’s “doc fix” vote was part of a White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel strategy to smooth passage of President Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This transparently dishonest shell game was too much for honest Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden told the NYT: “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility.
Yesterday’s vote marks a significant failure of the Left’s special interest approach to passing Obamacare. From the beginning, the White House thought that if it bought off all of the business interests involved (the American Medical Association, the drug industry, health insurers, hospitals, etc.) opposition to the plan would whither. In one sense, the plan worked. USA Today reports PhRMA, Pfizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare.
But all these special interest television ads failed to rid Americans of their
common sense objections to Obamacare’s government takeover of health care. Gallup reports today that Americans now more than ever believe the costs their family pays for health care will get worse if Obamacare passes. And more Americans now believe that Obamacare will lower the quality of care they receive, reduce their health care coverage, and complicate the insurance company requirements they have to meet to get certain treatments covered.
Instead of the massive overhaul being pursued by the White House, a solid majority of Americans tell Gallup they want to see Congress move in the opposite direction.
By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with health care reform “on a gradual basis over several years” rather than “try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year.” Bipartisan, fiscally responsible, reform such as equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance purchases, freeing customers to purchase health insurance across state lines, and allowing states more flexibility on Medicaid spending are readily doable. And that is what the people want.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Patients First - Get involved NOW
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com
Dear Patients First supporters,
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the White House are behaving like the American people are meaningless obstacles in their push for government-run and government-forced health care programs. It is clearer than ever that they are more interested in putting politics first instead of patients. That is why your energy and intensity has never been more needed than right now.
The Washington politicians need to know that you are paying attention, and that Leader Reid's idea of health care reform is bad for your family and bad for our country. Yesterday, Leader Reid emerged from his back-room dealing to announce that he has written a government-run insurance plan, or so-called 'public option,' back into the bill.
A government-run plan was rejected by the American people and the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month. But this is about politics not patients. Leader Reid needs to appease the extremist far left wing of his party. In a deft political move Leader Reid and his advisors have found what they think will make government-run health care more acceptable - an "opt-out."
Under Reid's opt-out states will be given the choice to opt-out of the federal government-run program. It's a false choice and a cynical political maneuver. Every state will continue to pay taxes into the federal system regardless of their choice to participate in the program. States that opt-out will end up funding the health care of the more populous states, like New York, who stay in the government program.
Health care reform needs to be done right, not fast. The quality and cost of our health care is on the line. In the coming days and weeks you're going to see a flurry of activity in Washington as Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi finally unveil and ram their health care legislation through Congress. You're going to hear all kinds of neat new terms like, public option, competitive option, trigger-option and many more.
No matter how it's packaged it amounts to the Federal government inserting itself into your health care decisions. This will increase your taxes, create unfunded entitlements and add new layers of regulations and bureaucracy limiting your health care choices. You must act today.
Contact your Senator and Congressman and tell them no government-run health plan of any kind!
Sincerely, Patients First Team
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
((Please consider making a "House Call" on November 5!))
From Patients First
President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid - think you and I are tired and losing interest. The New York Times and other media outlets are writing that the grassroots fire burned out in August and September.
Talking to so many of you in recent weeks, I know that's not true. But with the health care battle at a decisive juncture, I'm asking you to take a crucial step.
We're asking you to make a "Congressional House Call" at noon on November 5 to tell your Senator or Congressman to vote NO on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid health care takeover.
As I travel the country on our Patients First bus tour and other events, folks ask me, "Tim, I've emailed and called my representatives, but what more can I do to get their attention?" This is a big way for you to get their attention. Join fellow freedom fighters in standing up one more time by going to their in-state offices on November 5 with a simple message -- "Keep your hands off my health care. Vote NO."
Please take 3 steps:
1. CLICK here to let us know you're willing to stand up for your freedom by walking in to the district office of your Senator or Congressman on November 5. You can also CLICK HERE to go directly to a page that lists all of the local offices within your state.
2. Please forward this information to at least 5 of your family and friends by CLICKING here. We need as many Americans as possible to take a stand, and you are the best recruiter because they know and trust you.
We see the hypocrisy and deal-cutting coming out of Washington. You know there's $345 billion in brand new welfare spending via Medicaid expansion in the Senate health care takeover bill. And the fact that Majority Leader Harry Reid is exempting his own state from having to pay the state share of the new welfare program.
Just yesterday, Speaker Pelosi and her friends in the House came up with a new way to try and sell the so-called "public option," which in reality is the government destroying private health insurance. They called it just another form of Medicare!
We've got to show Team Obama/Pelosi/Reid that Americans like you are still in the fight, still focused, still willing to stand up and be counted.
Our goal is simple: on November 5 have activists like you show up at key Senate and Congressional offices in your state with your own message telling them to keep their "hands off your health care." Patients First, our health care project, will provide a great resource for you to take on your "House Call."
November 5 is two weeks from today. I need to know if you're willing to be a part of the Congressional House Call so please CLICK here if you are willing to consider being a part of this crucial project.
To answer your questions about our Congressional House Call project, I will be hosting a live video chat on Ustream.com this Friday at 12 Noon ET. Please email questions you have about the Congressional House Call project or about our other efforts to mailbag@afp-mail.com. You can also message me on Facebook with your questions by going here and clicking the "Send me a Message" tab.
You've sacrificed a lot already -- emailing and calling your members of Congress, attending tea parties and bus tour rallies, contacting your friends and family to get involved.
Now, I'm asking you to take another crucial step on November 5 to protect your freedoms.
Tim Phillips
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Heritage Foundation
Harry Reid and the Chamber of Secrets
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/14/harry-reid-and-the-chamber-of-secrets/
Posted October 14th, 2009 at 5.30pm in Health Care.
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government…Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”
Or so President Obama says on the White House website. But does he mean it? Of course not.
President Obama is leading the most secretive and least transparent administration in legislative history. And today, we have more proof. The video above was taken as Senate and White House leadership met behind closed doors to cobble together a bill that will make yesterday’s Finance Committee vote irrelevant. There around the cozy table are White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, OMB Director Peter Orzag, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Max Baucus (D-MT), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and a few other liberal Senators. They will negotiate the final bill that the Senate will vote on. And they’re doing it all behind closed doors, so you can’t see it. Is this an “unprecedented level of openness?”
Would you like to know what they are saying? Of course, and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama agreed with you when he said in August 2008: “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” Too bad, President Obama is getting so good at breaking Candidate Obama’s promises.
Watch as Fox’s Trace Gallagher narrates the action saying: “…they’ll shuffle everyone outside, close the door…” and photographers, journalists and cameras are pushed from the room. They are persona non grata in these chambers of the Senate. Barack Obama promised America these negotiations would be on C-SPAN, and he promised we would see who is making what arguments on behalf of whom. But President Obama, Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel know that the more you learn about their plans for your health care, the less you’ll like it.
On Friday the 13th this past February, President Obama and Democrats in Congress rammed through a trillion dollar stimulus bill without any Members of Congress reading it. It was supposed to create jobs. It didn’t. It was supposed to be online for days before a final vote. It wasn’t.
On June 26th of this year, the House of Representatives passed a massive Energy Tax called Cap and Trade, by adding 300 pages of amendments to the already unread bill only hours before the vote, which was delayed an hour by House Minority Leader John Boehner attempting to read the bill aloud before he was forced to stop. It was supposed to help the environment. It won’t. They said it wouldn’t raise your taxes or kill the economy. It will.
And now, we have another chamber of secrets. A few liberals will get together to craft a hyper partisan bill, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Remember, what was voted on yesterday in the Finance Committee wasn’t a bill, it was the framework of a bill. What they are writing behind closed doors this week will be the ultimate legislation that still leaves millions uninsured while lowering the quality of care and raising the costs for those already covered. This legislation will get quickly shuffled to the floor and voted on through their secret plan which has been exposed by Heritage’s own Brian Darling.
It’s time for President Obama to keep a promise. Open up the doors. Debate the bill in public. Let seniors, families, students and state governors know the consequences of this legislation. Let them see the sausage get made. Harry Potter couldn’t pull off a magic trick this good. Only Harry Reid can make transparency…disappear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOXNews.com
House Panel Paves Way for 'Nuclear Option' in Health Care Reform Bill
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/15/house-panel-paves-way-nuclear-option-health-care-reform/
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.
The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.
The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate.
Under the normal process, senators can filibuster almost anything and the debate would only be cut off if at least 60 lawmakers vote to do so. For that reason, 60 is considered the magic number in the quest to pass health care reform out of the Senate.
But under reconciliation, typically used in the budget process, no filibusters are permitted and a bill can pass with just a simple majority.
Structuring the health care bill in this way allows it to be scooped up in the reconciliation process, which could torpedo the Republicans' trump card.
"The secret of the week is that Democrats pulled the trigger on the nuclear option," warned Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., top Republican on the House budget committee and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. "They built their vehicle today."
But Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., said the committee's maneuver "is strictly procedural."
He noted, however, that the "action was necessary because there is a possibility that a handful of Senate Republicans could choose to engage in partisan tactics to stall this important health reform bill."
Rangel added that this move was to "simply preserve the option of advancing health reform legislation." ((And ignore the way the Senate does business.....think how much Rangel would have screamed if the Republicans had tried to pass medical liability reform using reconciliation....))
There are questions of how much of the health reform bill supporters could pass under reconciliation rules, since they are generally reserved for budgetary measures.
But Ryan believes the change in posture means that using reconciliation to pass health care reform could be a fait accompli.
"Why create the option if you don't intend to use it," he said. "And the fact that you created it enhances the chances that you will use it."
Many Senate Democrats, including Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., remain skeptical of using the budget reconciliation process to approve health care reform.
Earlier this year, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., dismissed the idea but conceded that "it is more than theoretically possible."
House and Senate leaders hope to start debate on their respective health care reform bills later this month or in early November.
Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From National Review
Paul Ryan on Reconciliation [Robert Costa]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTliMjBmN2I5YzQwMTI2YzA4MDBmNDlkOWQ0MDZiMjY=
Friday, October 16, 2009
As we head into the weekend, congressional Democrats are hoping that playoff baseball or college football is on your mind — anything to keep your eyes off the House Ways and Means Committee, where on Thursday Chairman Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.) held a hearing to approve a “procedural measure” to send H.R. 3200, the Democrats’ prime health-care package, to the Budget Committee with “reconciliation instructions.”
In other words, the Democrats quietly tinkered with Obamacare legislation in the House in order to give Senate Democrats the ability to pass a health-care bill with just a simple majority of 51 votes. By marking up H.R. 3200 as legislation open to the “reconciliation” process, Rangel and company mischievously used a budgetary loophole to make their final legislative amalgam filibuster-proof.
Sound complicated? It is. To explain it all, NRO caught up with Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. Rangel’s legislative maneuvers “initiated the process to jam their bill through via reconciliation,” says Ryan.
“Procedurally, you have to start in the House,” he continues. “The Ways and Means Committee is the Democrats’ first step in attempting to enable their bill to pass in the Senate without 60 votes. What’s important for the American people to understand is that Chairman Rangel used his prerogative to shut down debate.”
“Here’s how the system works. In the House, we have a complete majority-rule system,” says Ryan. “The chairmen control their committees. For reconciliation to be possible in the Senate, the House committee chairmen have to create a vehicle. The bill now moves from the Ways and Means Committee to the Budget Committee. Then from Budget, it will head to the Rules Committee. Rangel opened up another alley for the Democrats that they may use if they can’t get 60 votes in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid now has this ‘nuclear option’ in his back pocket.”
“This is a massive abuse of power,” says Ryan. “The reconciliation process was designed for the budget and to help reduce deficits and debt. Now it’s being used to create new entitlement programs. The Democrats hijacked the rules in order to exploit a procedure.”
“Senator Reid, if he can’t reach 60 votes, will probably use this,” predicts Ryan. “Then both sides will have an argument with the Senate parliamentarian about the Byrd rule, which says that parts of a bill can be eliminated if they do not directly reduce the deficit. It also says that you can’t bring incidental things into the bill. It’s like going to court.”
“Then the Democratic-appointed parliamentarian comes down with a ruling, saying whether this provision is in or out of the bill. It will look at subsidies, too,” says Ryan. “The question will be whether community rating — where health-insurance companies are mandated to provide coverage — is a direct-spending policy. The argument will revolve around these policies, and their need to go into effect, or not, and their fiscal outcomes.”
“A few years ago, we tried to pass medical-liability reform, which is always filibustered in the Senate,” recalls Ryan. “We said that if we stick it in reconciliation, we can pass it, since tort reform, according to the CBO, will reduce the federal government’s health-care costs. The parliamentarian said no, saying it was not a money-saving policy. We lost that one. We’ve also tried to stick ANWR [drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] in reconciliation before, arguing that it was a revenue-raising provision. We got it in there, but it didn’t work.”
“Using reconciliation is an art form, not a science,” says Ryan. Republicans “will have a lot of room to fight.”
“Using the tort-reform precedent from our own experience a few years ago, Republicans will be able to argue that a lot of the junk the Democrats want can’t go in the bill,” says Ryan. “That’s where Republican leaders like Senator Jon Kyl will be able to make some major arguments against the use of reconciliation.”
10/16 05:49 PMShare
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Heritage Foundation
Congress’ Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare by Thanksgiving – Update
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/10/congress%e2%80%99-secret-plan-to-pass-obamacare-by-thanksgiving-%e2%80%93-update/
Posted October 10th, 2009 at 1.34pm in Health Care.
Last night, Chris Frates of the Politico posted on Live Pulse a post “Unconventional Wisdom” where a “former House and Senate leadership aid” communicate to Frates that it is possible that Reid’s plan could be to “insert the merged health care reform language into a revenue raising House bill already languishing in conference committee.
The Senate would pass it and send it to the House whereupon passage, it would go straight to the president’s desk – completely bypassing conference. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.” This would allow them to pass Obamacare by Thanksgiving.
The are a few House tax bills on the Senate calendar so all Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would have to do is to gut a House passed tax bill, insert the Senate version of Obamacare and send the tax shell bill containing the health care language back to the House.
For this plan to work, the House would have to take up and pass the Senate bill intact, with no Amendments. Reid’s language, therefore, would heave to be pre-conferenced to address all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) concerns.
Think this is a crazy scenario? Frates reports that the Thanksgiving deadline has been part of leadership talking points all week long. More Frates: “but deadline or signpost, Democrats sound serious about trying to get it done by then. Vice President Biden, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, budget director Peter Orszag and, just this week, Speaker Pelosi have all said so.”
What will this bill look like? Will it have the public option? Will it have the necessary safeguards to make sure illegal immigrants don’t get free or subsidized health care? Will it force taxpayers to pay for abortions? How much will it cost? Nobody knows because this Vapor Bill does not even exist yet.
This should lead all Americans who want to participate in this process to ask – Where’s the Healthcare Bill?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From National Review
Obamacare DissectedTen things that probably will be in the health-care bill (but shouldn’t).
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGVmMjNjNmExMzUyMGZiY2ZiNDgzM2RjMGMxNDgzNmI=&w=MAOctober 13, 2009, 0:00 a.m
By Stephen Spruiell
Rummaging through the stacks here at National Review world headquarters, I discovered in our Dec. 13, 1993, special supplement on Hillarycare a curious little ad that read “Just say NO to socialized health care.” The ad implored me to call 1-800-5RESIST, so just for fun, I dialed the number, hoping that maybe, just maybe, the brave soul who set up this hotline back in the ’90s was still manning the post, dispensing advice on the best way to oppose Obamacare. Wrong. A male voice offered me an invitation to “talk to ladies all over the country,” and I don’t think he meant Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe.
I hung up and returned to the health-care debate, 2009. The Republicans are in disarray. The Democrats are cutting deals. The Congressional Budget Office is acting like Burger King, telling Max Baucus, “Have it your way.” Of course 1-800-5RESIST is now a phone-sex line: We’re screwed. Or are we?
Posts
