A long, long time ago, I can still remember…
She’s railing against what she perceives of as Republican strong-arm tactics in the House and Senate, and she’s got a point. No time to read the bill, lack of transparency—the student has become the master.
And she’s gotten younger looking over the years.
The House of Representatives is sometimes called “the lower chamber”.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the House version of health care reform legislation last week, but most voters are still opposed to the effort.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down from 45% a week ago but unchanged from two weeks ago.
Fifty-four percent (54%) now oppose the legislative effort, up three points since last week.
…
Only 23% of all voters Strongly Support the plan while nearly twice as man (44%) are Strongly Opposed.
Voters finally saw the bill, and swerved away from it—yet the House, in its wisdom, passed it.
If I had to guess, I would say that the honorable members thought they could get away with voting yes, thereby getting Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama off their backs, safe in the knowledge this beast will never pass in the Senate and actually become law. They held up the White House and the House leadership for favors and perks, but won’t have to live with the consequences of their treachery.
I’m trying to decide how low the lower chamber really is: the 8th circle of Hell, reserved for fraudsters; or the 9th, reserved for traitors?
I think if Dante dug a little deeper in the fetid, fiery pits of hell, he might just have scraped the top of the Capitol dome.
Democrats celebrate passage of historic health care bill in the House chamber.
And if that image doesn’t chill your blood to the freezing point, this one might:
Somebody ought to give Betsey McCaughey a Medal of Honor or a Nobel or something.
She read the damn bill, something most congressmen and women have no intention of doing.
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income.
Show of hands, people. How many of you have that kind of money laying around unused?
I didn’t think so.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
Somebody was just having fun because that’s just too funny.
But this isn’t:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what’s called a “medical home.”
…
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
So if a procedure costs only $100 in Idaho, but $250 in NYC, the New York doc is going to be reimbursed as if her were in Boise? That’s cold.
But now the pièce de résistance:
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community “entities” with no required qualifications except having “documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers” to “educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities” aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. “Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program.”
Doctors get shafted, but community organizers get the grease. Now, that’s the Democratic Party I know (and used to vote for).
Even they think this bill is a stinker:
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland says the vote that House Democrats had scheduled for Saturday could slip to Sunday or early next week.
Hoyer acknowledged to reporters Friday that Democratic leaders don’t yet have the 218 votes needed to pass President Barack Obama’s historic health overhaul initiative.
We’re at the edge of the precipice. Let’s push them off.
So sayeth Nancy Pelosi to her caucus:
Byron York and the Washington Post agree on Nancy Pelosi’s plan to vote on her health-care bill this Saturday — she can’t afford to let Democrats go home to their districts before the vote. In fact, as John McCormack notes, she can’t even afford to keep her promise to have the bill on line for 72 hours before the vote so that their constituents can know what they’re doing. If they went home to face their constituents, Pelosi knows that they would never vote for her massive spending:
…
For party leaders, setting a weekend deadline for passage represented a calculated risk, one that could backfire if the vote — now expected late Saturday or Sunday — fails or must be delayed. But they feared that if members were given more time to consider the legislation, new issues could arise, particularly as lawmakers digest the results from Tuesday’s elections. Most ominous for Democrats were their losses in gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, although the party did prevail in House special elections in New York and California.
This is your government in anti-democratic action, straight up. Which is fine, let ‘em try. But there will be unholy hell to pay.
For those not familiar with the quote that provides the title of the post, it’s from A Bronx Tale. Language and violence warning, and definitely NSFW—but once you get to the fight, the best stuff’s done.
And if you find that film analogy unconvincing, picture Nancy Pelosi as Ted Levine in Silence of the Lambs—and if you’ve never seen this scene, don’t start now. Don’t. Do not. It gave me the creeps just perusing it to see if it was the one I wanted.
It was. And don’t.
Oops! Who let the greedy, slimy, shady cat out of the bag?
House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.
…
– Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) about one element of the complex investigation of his personal finances, as well as the lawmaker’s top aide and his son.
…
– The Justice Department has told the ethics panel to suspend a probe of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), whose personal finances federal investigators began reviewing in early 2006 after complaints from a conservative group that he was not fully revealing his real estate holdings. There has been no public action on that inquiry for several years. But the department’s request in early July to the committee suggests that the case continues to draw the attention of federal investigators, who often ask that the House and Senate ethics panels refrain from taking action against members whom the department is already investigating.
…
– The committee on June 9 authorized issuance of subpoenas to the Justice Department, the National Security Agency and the FBI for “certain intercepted communications” regarding Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). As was reported earlier this year, Harman was heard in a 2005 conversation agreeing to an Israeli operative’s request to try to obtain leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists in exchange for the agent’s help in lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to name her chairman of the intelligence committee. The department, a former U.S. official said, declined to respond to the subpoena. [Okay, so they’re not all corrupt. Ed.]
…
Because of the secretive nature of the ethics committee, it was difficult to assess the current status of the investigations cited in the July document. The panel said Thursday, however, that it is ending a probe of Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) after finding no ethical violations, and that it is investigating the financial connections of two California Democrats.
The committee did not detail the two newly disclosed investigations. However, according to the July document, Rep. Maxine Waters, a high-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, came under scrutiny because of activities involving OneUnited Bank of Massachusetts, in which her husband owns at least $250,000 in stock.
Waters arranged a September 2008 meeting at the Treasury Department where OneUnited executives asked for government money. In December, Treasury selected OneUnited as an early participant in the bank bailout program, injecting $12.1 million.
The other, Rep. Laura Richardson, may have failed to mention property, income and liabilities on financial disclosure forms.
Of all the bad luck! How did so many Democrats get nabbed?
So Democrats are to Obama:
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said today that he has “serious reservations” about a major global warming bill and warned fellow Democrats to water down the measure in hopes of getting it through the Senate.
Speaking at the start of an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing where he is the second highest-ranking member, the Montana Democrat said he wanted to weaken the bill’s 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions — now 20 percent below 2005 levels. He did not name a specific midterm target for the heat-trapping gases, instead telling reporters he hoped for “some modification.”
The six-term senator also said he hoped to attach pre-emption language to the Senate climate bill, S. 1733 (pdf), that stops U.S. EPA from implementing a 2007 Supreme Court opinion that opens the door to new greenhouse gas emission standards on industry.
“We cannot avoid a first step that takes us further away from an achievable consensus from common-sense climate change legislation,” Baucus said. “We could build that consensus here in this committee. If we don’t, we risk wasting another month, another year, another Congress, without taking a step forward to our future.”
…
Specter, who faces a tough Democratic primary race next year, pushed back against committee Republicans who warned about the dire economic consequences that would come from passing the Senate climate bill.
“We’re all concerned about job loss,” Specter said, adding that he hopes to work on legislation that can win the backing of industry, environmentalists and labor groups like the United Mine Workers of America.
Like Baucus, Specter said he is looking to change the Senate bill’s 2020 emission targets, but he refused to go far in sizing up what is needed to win his vote.
Cap-and-trade is crapped-out and dead. Latest head-counts show both the House and Senate short of votes for a public option in health care reform. I know it’s too early, and I know the Obama administration fights dirty, but it’s feeling like fourth-and-goal—and a goal line stand would change momentum, perhaps for good.
Be interesting to see how Hillary reacts to any possible defeats of key Obama initiatives. She’s one rat too smart to go down with the ship.
I’ve sold the Democrats short. I thought their whole “Celebrate Diversity” nonsense was just a bunch of hooey. Turns out, they are a “big tent” party (as in circus-comma-freak show)
Plumline’s Greg Sargent has posted the results of a highly confidential House Democratic Party Whip Count which shows 47 Democrats at No on a public option, with another 8 leaning No for a total of 56. A dozen Democratic House members are still undecided. The hard No votes, alone, are enough to kill the bill. The leaked document was produced by the U.S. House Majority Whip’s office.
In a major violation of whipping protocol, the document was shared with Progressive House members who refuse to vote for health reform unless it contains a robust public option. Plumline reports that the Progressive Members of Congress (hard core left-wingers) blamed everyone: the White House and the Democratic leadership for not putting enough pressure on members to vote for the public option, from Plumline:
“House progressives argue that the document should light a fire under Dem leaders. One House progressive tells me he’s convinced that most of the undecideds, and a number of the No votes, can be won over with the right mix of pressure and incentives — which only the House leadership and the White House can provide.”
“Only leadership and the White House can get this done,” this progressive says.
I don’t think even this president can promise enough rounds of golf to satisfy the old boy network.
That’s 68 Democratic congressmen less than enthused with the “robust” public option (though who has anything to say against an enfeebled one?), more than a quarter of the party. And as the excerpt above makes clear, the 47 hard nos alone are enough to defeat the bill if they are joined by all 177 Republicans.
And Reid in the Senate is no more secure.
I’ll believe this thing is dead when I see it buried and can piss on its grave. Not until. But at least I can crack a smile.
The absurdly frantic (and frantically absurd) effort to rewrite the entire health care industry is beginning to resemble the weather in New England: if you don’t like it, wait a few minutes and it will change:
Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.
For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.
These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement.
My head hurts, but I think that’s the point. (Anyway, popsicle headaches aren’t covered.) I think they’re trying to bore us, confuse us, wear us down.
Mission accomplished. I hate the whole debate—but my response is not to let the do as they wish, but to let them to do nothing. I was willing to consider minor fixes—tweaks, if you will—but now I’m done. I wouldn’t trust Congress to change a light bulb, much less one-sixth of the economy. Put down the bill(s) and back away from the legislation. Don’t touch anything. Do no harm.
I will add one postscript: it may be the best of a bad lot, but I’ve never understood the slavish devotion to employer-supplied health care. As it adds to the cost of each worker, employers are discouraged from hiring. Sever the connection, and firms could hire more people and pay them more. That and open competition among health insurance providers—and allowing individuals to choose costs and coverage right for them—would make insurance more affordable for everyone. I think.
Ow… my head.
Well, sorta.
Krauthammer’s Take
From last night’s Fox News All-Stars. … On the CBO scoring of the Baucus health-care bill:
Look, the CBO scoring, the numbers that came in, the blessing it gave — is because of smoke and mirrors in the bill. For the people of Wichita, somebody has to wade into the weeds. I did it at great health risk.
Two items here. One of them is the $120 billion assumed of income from what are called “fees” of the big players in health care — the health insurers, the drug companies, the guys who do diagnostics and who produce the medical equipment.
The fee is a tax, and the tax, $120 billion, is going to end up out of your pocket and mine, because every penny of it will be in higher insurance, higher costs for drugs, for stents — any kind of medical devices — and for diagnostics. Everybody will pay.
But it’s hidden. It is a cowardly way to do a tax. You do it on the industry and it is passed on.
Secondly, there are individual mandates. People are going to be shelling out a huge amount every year on insurance, and those who don’t are going to have to pay a fine, also a tax, but under another name.
There are huge costs in here, which are all hidden, and that’s why it looks OK.
And secondly, there is a $400 billion assumption of cuts in Medicare. That is not going to happen. It is an illusion. It is a fantasy. And that’s why the numbers end up OK.
So if you really look behind all of these numbers, [the Baucus bill ] is a disaster.
Besides, the bill is just a draft—with a lot crap still to be stuffed in:
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) today expressed outrage after learning that Senate Democratic leaders made more than 70 substantive changes to the text of a health care bill after the legislation was voted on and passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee.
In a statement, Boehner condemned the practice of adding such “phantom amendments” to bills, and announced that Republicans will introduce a resolution that would change House rules to require committees to post the actual text of adopted bills and amendments online within 24 hours to prevent similar acts of deception.
“The American people are fed up with the way in which Congress does business. Whether it’s passing massive spending bills no one in America has read, or making secret changes to bills after they’ve already been passed by committees, ‘business as usual’ in Congress needs to end,” Boehner said. “The American people deserve a Congress that is transparent and accountable to the people it serves. The practice of secretly adding ‘phantom amendments’ to major bills after they pass committee is outrageous, and it should be banned. Americans should be allowed to read the text of all bills online within 24 hours after they are approved by congressional committees.”
The whole health care debate is giving me a headache, but I guess that’s the point. When in doubt obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. This whole process reminds me of the octopus (or is it the squid?) who escapes a predator by squirting black ink in its face. Isn’t that a perfect metaphor?
How could President Obama have lied to Congress when he hadn’t put his name to a bill, but only his windy rhetoric to a few vague assertions?
In the wee hours of Friday night, at the end of a long Friday, the rememberence of September 11th, and going into a weekend of protests – from which Obama did his best Holy Grail impersonation – the White House made a very quiet hush hush admission
The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president’s health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.
The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson “You lie” outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the “exchange,” as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants — which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans — bill language or no bill language.
Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.
Wish him luck. His fellow Democrats in Congress have shot down previous requests for just such a provision in the bill(s) so far.
Of course, this whole thing could mean nothing in the long run, since what Joe Wilson was referring to was HR 3200, which does allow illegals to be part of the system beyond emergency rooms. Obama can come up with all the plans he wants, but, the legislation is already there. Obama might want to pay attention to what is actually flowing through the halls of Congress in the future.
Exactly. Obama can say anything he wants, but bills are written and laws are made in Congress. To keep his word, he’ll have to be willing to veto a bill that violates his principles (if he has any).
BTW, is he for or against the public option today? The date is odd today—I think that means he’s agai—fo—ag—for—for it. Definitely for it. Today.