Before the recent changes in the student loan program, students were paying 6.8% for their loans. They will now be paying 6.8%. According to South Carolina Senator Lyndsey Graham that change from 6.8% to 6.8% will mean that students will be spending $1,700 to $1,800 more over their lifetime for their student loans. You see 6.8% - 6.8%=0.0% change which can make a huge difference according to Senator Graham. Now, that’s real South Carolina math.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
NEWS FLASH: Health insurance companies agree to obey the law.
A spokesperson for the health insurance industry said today that health insurance companies in the United States will obey the law when it comes to providing coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans said: “Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition [and] will fully comply with the rules under the new health reform law.” This is an enormous breakthrough for the Obama administration since previous administrations have generally considered health insurance companies above the law and therefore exempt legal constraints as have the insurance companies themselves. The new rules require that children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child but exclude treatments for that child’s pre-existing condition. The insurance industry complained that the law saying they could not “deny” coverage to children with pre-exisiting conditions nor “exclude” treatments for a child’s pre-existing conditions was overly vague. William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include health insurance companies expressed the opinion of at least some or perhaps many in the health insurance industry and The Attack Democrat suspects many Republicans that the provisions of the law dealing with coverage for children with pre-existing conditions should be repealed and replaced, after extensive study to get the language right of course. “The real solution here is a legislative fix so all players in the industry can act according to a clear set of rules,” said Lawyer Schiffbauer. The Attack Democrat understands. After all what does it truly mean to not be allowed to “deny” coverage or “exclude” treatments? Inquiring Glen Beck minds want to know.
How to get answers to your questions about health reform
The Obama administration has set up a website where you can view answers to frequently asked questions about health reform. Go here:
http://www.healthreform.gov/about/answers.html
Also, you can ask your own question and get an answer. Just email your question to:
Sunday, March 28, 2010
New analysis debunks misleading and false Repub claims about health reform
You have probably heard the argument voiced by some Repubs that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will reduce the budget deficit are false. Among other things, they maintain that:
- Health reform covers up long-term deficit increases by front-loading revenues and back-loading spending.
- The legislation uses revenues from Social Security and premiums from long-term care insurance to offset the cost of health reform
- Medicare savings are double-counted.
- Congress doesn’t allow Medicare savings to go into effect.
- The estimate for health reform should include the cost of fixing the sustainable growth rate (SGR) payment formula for physicians.
- Health reform doesn’t “bend the cost curve” because it extends health coverage to 32 million uninsured, which increases health care costs.
- The CBO cost estimate is misleading because it does not include discretionary spending that may be provided in future annual appropriation bills.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3134
Friday, March 26, 2010
Exposed: The real Tea Baggers
Who are the real Tea Baggers? This is just in from the Washington Post
In the days that followed, glass windows and doors were shattered at local Democratic Party offices and the district offices of House Democrats from Arizona to Kansas to New York. At least 10 Democratic lawmakers reported death threats, incidents of harassment or vandalism at their offices over the past week, and the FBI and Capitol Police are offering lawmakers increased protection.
Oh, by the way, Vanderboegh says he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. In other words, this guy who hates government is perfectly willing to take government money. So much for the “get government out of my life” tea baggers.
Check it out at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722_pf.html
The argument against the individual mandate is bogus
There are times when people come forward with arguments that on their face appear to make some sense but on reflection are found to be totally without merit. That’s the case of the argument against the individual mandate to purchase health insurance in the health reform Act. We are told that it is unconstitutional and another example of government overstepping the bounds of decency. In truth, it is purely rational. First, very very few people in this country go without health insurance by choice. They would be crazy to do so. They go without insurance because they are unable to obtain insurance at all or at a cost they can afford. The few people who voluntarily go without health insurance do so because they are betting that they will never be sick enough to need health insurance or that if they do become seriously ill due to accident or unanticipated circumstances, the rest of us will somehow take care of them. It is hardly an attitude that most of us condone or want to support. The health reform legislation we have just passed says two things. First, it says if you can’t get insurance you can afford we will help you do so, not just because it is the right thing to do but also because in the long run it is cheaper for us to do so. Second, it says if you refuse to purchase insurance even when you can afford to do so, then we will impose a small tax or fine on you for your irresponsible behavior which will cover a small part of our costs of covering your medical expenses in the case of an accident or unexpected illness which very likely will occur at some point in your life. This isn’t a radical or socialist or communist or anythingist idea, it is just common sense. Those who are making a big deal out of the individual mandate are not doing so because they really believe it is such a bad idea. They are doing so for purely political reasons. It is one of those arguments that on their face sound good and they are betting that few of us will ever stop to question whether their argument makes any sense. We should. We must.
Good news on jobs
The Labor Department reported today that state unemployment rates have stabilized. Sixteen states reported that their jobless rate was unchanged in February, seven reported declines and 27 reported increases. That compares to 30 states that reported increases in January and 43 reporting increases in December.
Additionally, in a new survey of economists from Thomson Reuters, economists are projecting that the economy will create more than 150,000 new jobs this month.
There are still few signs of widespread and consistent job growth but we appear to be turning the corner to slowly begin to add jobs rather than cut them.
Read more at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iG41E9cl-hj1iLR6_ln6q-z8FY4QD9EMH9380
What the health act does and when
The Individual Mandate: You probably heard about the individual mandate to buy coverage. It begins in 2014. Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter. For those under the age of 18, the applicable penalty will be one-half of the amounts listed above. Exceptions to the individual responsibility requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage are made for religious objectors, individuals not lawfully present, and incarcerated individuals. Exemptions from the penalty will be made for those who cannot afford coverage, taxpayers with income under 100 percent of poverty, members of Indian tribes, those who have received a hardship waiver and those who were not covered for a period of less than three months during the year. You will have to report coverage on your income tax.
Summary of the health reform Act:
You can read a good summary of the entire health reform act by going to
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf
Key provisions to take effect in the next 12 months:
Click here for a summary of provisions of the act that will take effect in the first 12 monts:
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill64.pdf
Also, the Kaiser Foundation provides a very good year-by-year summary of what will take effect at this site http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8060.cfm plus you can download a printable pdf version at this location http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8060.pdf
Here are some things that will happen this year:
- People who can’t get coverage because of a pre-existing condition will be eligible to get coverage through a high risk pool that will be set up 90 days following enactment. Thus, if you or someone you know has not been able to get coverage because they have cancer or diabetes or some other condition, now they will have the ability to get coverage.
- You will be able to keep your child on your policy until he/she reaches age 26 whether you have a group or individual policy. In other words, if you son or daughter graduates from college and can’t find a job or can’t find a job with a company that offers health insurance, you can keep him on your policy at least for a few more years.
- Insurance companies will not longer be able to place dollar value limits on lifetime coverage. You or a member of your family will not have to worry that they might reach some cap where the insurance company would stop paying because they came down with an illness that was very expensive to treat. You won’t have to worry about being driven into bankruptcy because of health bills.
- Your insurance company will not be allowed to find an excuse not to pay your medical bills simply because of some innocent mistake on your application unless you committed fraud. For example, your insurance company won't be able to deny payment for your cancer treatment because you failed to include the right code number on your application form or you failed to disclose that you had allergies when you six years old.
- Insurers will be prevented from excluding your child from dependent coverage because of a pre-existing condition. If you child is diagnosed with diabetes, cancer or something else, they want be denied coverage.
- Beginning this year, small businesses (up to 25 employees and average wages of less than $50,000) will receive tax credits to provide health insurance for their employees. If you run a small business, you’ll get help in providing coverage for yourself and your employees.
- Beginning this year, insurers will be required to report the proportion of premium dollars they spend on clinical services, quality and other costs and beginning January 1, 2011, they will be required to provide rebates to consumers it they don’t spend a required % of the premiums they collect (80% in the individual and small group markets and 85% in the large group markets). In other words, insurers will be required to show that premium increases are justified by increased their costs of clinical services and/or quality.
- A process will be put in place in 2010 to review rate increases. States will report on trends in premium increases and recommend whether some insurers should be excluded from the Exchanges when they are set up in 2014 because of unjustifiable rate increases. In other words, if your insurance company is jacking up rates for no justifiable reason that company might not be able to sell through the exchanges and thereby gain additional customers.
- Beginning this year, the Act provides for increased money for scholarships and loans to expand the health care workforce to meet the expected increase in demand. There will be more money available for people who want to train to become doctors, nurses, etc.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How bad will the rich be hit to pay for health reform?
The Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2013 tax increases associated with health reform will result in a 1.9% increase in the tax paid by the top 1% of earners ( people making more than $231,179 per year) and a 2.7% increase in the tax paid by the top 0.1 % of earners (people making more than $2,875,812 per year.) The average tax rate of the top 1% in 2013 would be 33.6% and 36.9% for the top 0.1%. Now, that sounds like a lot but how does it compare to what the top 1% were paying in previous years? Here is some history.
In 1979, the average tax rate for the top 1% was 37.0%. It was 34.6% in 1980. During the boom years of the late 1990s, it was 1995 35.8%, 1996 36.1%, 1997 36.0%, 1998 34.9% and 1999 33.4%.
So, don’t feel so sorry for the super rich. They won’t be as well off as they were during the GW years when they got a lot of tax breaks but they will still be better off than they were in the late 1970s and late 1990s and so will the country.
How bad will the rich be hit to pay for health reform?
Here are some sources. Check the numbers out for yourself.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2698&DocTypeID=2
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf
Health reform and the “severability clause”—Will the entire Act be declared unconstitutional because of the individual mandate?
Frequently when Congress passes a major law such as health reform it will include what is called a “Severability Clause” such as: “If any particular provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.” The purpose of the clause is to provide guidance to the courts in deciding whether the whole Act should be deemed unconstitutional because one piece of the Act is unconstitutional.
So, how big a problem is the lack of a severability clause? Maybe not as much as it would appear. In fact, courts can declare an entire Act unconstitutional based on a single section of the law being deemed unconstitutional whether or not the Act contains a severability clause.
Let’s assume the state attorneys general are able to get the courts to agree that the mandate to purchase insurance is unconstitutional. Does that automatically mean that the court will declare the entire Act unconstitutional? Not necessarily. After declaring a section of an Act unconstitutional, the courts determine whether the remainder of the Act remains valid. The guiding principle is this according to a report on statutory interpretation from the Congressional Research Service quoting a ruling in Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684 (1987) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976)). “Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.”
In other words, if the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is declared unconstitutional, then the issue will become whether Congress would have enacted the rest of the ACT if there were no individual mandate. We can be fairly certain that four members of the Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) will rule that the entire Act is unconstitutional if they can find any piece of the Act unconstitutional such as the individual mandate. The question then becomes how the remaining five members of the court will rule. It should be very interesting.
Here is more about the severability clause from the Congressional Research Service.
From Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, “Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends,” Updated August 31, 2008 by Yule Kim, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, See page 38.. Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf
CRS-38
Severability
When one section of a law is held unconstitutional, courts are faced with determining whether the remainder of the statute remains valid, or whether the whole statute is nullified. “Unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are within its power, independently of that which is not, the invalid part may be dropped if what is left is fully operative as a law.”214 Congress frequently includes a pro forma severability clause in a statute,215 and this reinforces a “presumption” of severability by removing much of the doubt about congressional intent.216 A severability clause does not guarantee, however, that what remains of a statute after a portion has been invalidated is “fully operative”; courts sometimes find that valid portions of a statute cannot stand on their own even though Congress has included a severability clause.217 Far less frequently, Congress includes nonseverability language providing that remaining sections of a law shall be null and void if a part (sometimes a specified part) is held unconstitutional.218 Case law is sparse,219 but there is no apparent reason why courts should refuse to honor a clearly expressed non-severability directive.220
Footnotes:
214 Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 684 (1987) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108 (1976)).
215 See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 1438 (§ 509 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995): “If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provisions of the remainder to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.” These provisions are also sometimes called “separability” clauses. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 114.
216 Alaska Airlines, 480 U.S. at 486. Absence of a severability clause does not raise a presumption against severability. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 186 (1992).
217 “A severability clause requires textual provisions that can be severed.” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 882 (1997). See also Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922); and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 312-16 (1936).
218 See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 941m(a) (§ 15(a) of the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993): “If any provision of section 941b(a), 941c, or 941d of this title is rendered invalid by the final action of a court, then all of this subchapter is invalid.”
219 But see, e.g., Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 65 (1982) (observing in dictum that, due to inclusion of non-severability language in an Alaska law, “we need not speculate as to the intent of the Alaska Legislature”).
220 See Israel E. Friedman, Comment, Inseverability Clauses in Statutes, 64 U.CHI. L.REV. 903 (1997). Friedman contends that “inseverability clauses are fundamentally different from severability clauses and should be shown greater deference.” Id. at 904. Inseverability clauses, he points out, “are anything but boilerplate,” usually are included only after extensive debate, and are often designed to preserve a legislative compromise. Id. at 911-13.
Reconciliation bill status
Last night the Senate parliamentarian struck two minor provisions from the health reform reconciliation bill dealing with Student Loan/Pell grants as not meeting reconciliation requirements. As a result, the bill must be sent back to the House. The House is expected to easily approve the bill without the two provisions. All Republican amendments were defeated. The Senate will vote on the full bill this afternoon and send it back to House. House is expected to approve it Friday and send to Obama for signature. Looks like the health reform deal is pretty much done.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Has the No/Nothing Republican Party become the home of nut cases? Looks like it.
Is the Republican Party the home of many certifiable nuts? Looks like it from the results from two recent polls. Here some of the findings:
57 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
38 percent of Republicans say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
24 percent of Republicans actually believe that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll
Another poll found that:
36 percent believe Obama was NOT born in the United States.
63 percent believe Obama is a socialist.
24 percent believe Obama wants the terrorists to win.
53 percent believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Obama. (Yea, the "you betcha" gal.)
31 percent believe Obama is a racist. (These are the ones who still think it is okay to use the "N" word.)
23 percent believe their state should secede from the United States. (Actually there are a few states I would like to kick out of the union, like Texas, for example.)
68 percent believe gay couples should not receive any state or federal funds.
73 percent believe gays should NOT be allowed to teach in public schools.
51 percent believe sex education should NOT be taught in public schools.
77 percent believe public school students should be taught that the book of Genesis explains how the world was created.
31 percent believe contraceptive use should be outlawed.
34 percent believe using the birth control pill is abortion.
76 percent believe abortion is murder.
91 percent support the death penalty.
67 percent believe that a person can not go to heaven if he is NOT Christian.
Source: http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
And you wonder why Democrats and Republicans can't get along. Look Repubs, get rid of the nutty fringe and maybe we can work together to get something done for the country. Do you really want to be associated with these lunatics?
And, when you even think about voting for a Republican keep in mind the company you will be keeping. Gives you pause to reconsider, doesn't it.
Summary of health bill
Here is a link to a section-by-section summary of the health bill as passed by the Senate that Obama just signed into law.
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf
Contents of the reconciliation bill
Click here for a section-by-section analysis of the reconciliation act that the Senate will begin debating tomorrow.
Summary of health reforms to take effect in the next 12 months.
What are the immediate benefits from the health reform bill? Here is a summary of benefits you will see in the next 12 months;
Small Business Tax Credits
Offers tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage. The full credit will be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees with average annual wages of $25,000, while firms with up to 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of up to $50,000 will also be eligible for the credit. Effective calendar year 2010. Later, when Exchanges are operational, tax credits will be up to 50 percent of premiums
No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
Prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children. Effective six months after enactment, applies to all employer plans and new plans in the individual market. (This provision will apply to all people in 2014).
Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
Provides $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions until new Exchanges are operational in 2014. Effective 90 days after enactment.
Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit
Provides a $250 rebate check for Medicare beneficiaries who hit the ‘donut hole’ in 2010. Effective calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole; also fills the donut hole by 2020.)
Patient Protections
Protects patients’ choice of doctors by allowing plan members to pick any participating primary care provider, prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before a woman sees an ob-gyn, and ensuring access to emergency care. This provision applies to all new plans. Effective six months after enactment.
Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans
Creates immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees, helping to protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees. Effective 90 days after enactment.
Extension of Coverage for Young Adults
Requires insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. Effective six months after enactment, applies to all plans in the individual market, new employer plans, and existing employer plans if a young adult is not eligible for employer coverage.
Free Prevention Benefits
Requires coverage of prevention and wellness benefits in all new plans and exempts these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. Effective six months after enactment.
Free Prevention and Wellness Visits in Medicare
Medicare beneficiaries will receive a free, annual wellness visit and will have all cost-sharing waived for preventive services. Effective January 1, 2011.
Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
Makes $11 billion investment over five years in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. Effective Fiscal Year 2010.
Ensuring Value for Premium Payments
Establishes standards for insurance overhead and requires public disclosure to ensure that enrollees get value for their premium dollars, requiring plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on clinical services and quality activities, and 85 percent for plans in the large group market. Health insurance plans that do not meet these thresholds will provide rebates to their policyholders. Effective January 1, 2011. This provision applies to all plans, including grandfathered plans, with the exception of self-insured plans.
No Lifetime Limits on Coverage
Prohibits insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. Effective six months after enactment, applies to all plans.
Regulated Annual Limits on Coverage
Tightly regulates plans’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care in all group plans and all new individual plans. These tight restrictions will be defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Effective six month after enactment, applies to new plans in the individual market and all employer plans. (When the Exchanges are operational in 2014, the use of annual limits will be banned for new plans in the individual market and all employer plans.)
Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage
Stops insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact. Effective six months after enactment, applies to all new and existing plans.
Source: http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill64.pdf
Small businesses benefit from health reform right away. Here’s how.
Small businesses will see immediate benefits from health reform. Here’s how.
Small employers with no more than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 that purchase health insurance for employees will receive a tax credit in two phases.
Phase I starts immediately: For tax years 2010 through 2013, the law provides a tax credit of up to 35% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium if the employer contributes at least 50% of the total premium cost or 50% of a benchmark premium. The full credit will be available to employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000. The credit phases-out as firm size and average wage increases. Tax-exempt small businesses meeting these requirements are eligible for tax credits of up to 25% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium.
The Republican plan for health reform
Representative Steve King (R-IA) has introduced the Republican plan for health reform. Under this Republican plan:
- You will be denied the right to keep your children on your health plan until age 25.
- Your insurer will be allowed to impose lifetime limits on your health insurance benefits.
- Your insurer will be allowed to rescind your coverage if you get sick.
- If you are on Medicare, you will no longer have the right to a free annual wellness visit with your doctor.
- Your insurance company will no longer be required to spend 80% to 85% of the premiums you pay on actual medical care.
- Your insurance company will no longer be required to justify rate increases.
- Your insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition.
- If you have a preexisting condition, you will not have access to health insurance through a high risk pool.
- Your insurance company will be allowed to set annual limits on your benefits.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Your chance to become a co-signer of historic legislation
Become a co-signer of health reform legislation
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hccosign?source=20100322_cosign%20_a
No/Nothing Repubs seek to increase taxes, cut funding to fight fraud and abuse, increase state Medicaid costs and keep the Cornhusker kickback
Repubs say they are determined to keep the health reform reconciliation bill from passing in the Senate. In other words, Repubs want to:
- Reduce the tax credits for middle-income families to buy insurance.
- Increase penalties for not buying insurance.
- Keep the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage.
- Keep the Cornhusker Kickback.
- Increase Medicaid costs to the states.
- Reimburse doctors at less than full rate.
- Cut funding to fight waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare by $250 million.
- Increase taxes on high-end insurance plans.
- Provided tax breaks to families making more than $250,000.
- Kill efforts to reform the student loan program.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Democrats have the votes to pass health reform this evening
Late this afternoon the largest final block of Democratic congressman threatening to vote NO on health reform--the anti-abortion congressean led by Stupak--agreed to vote YES after Obama agreed to issue an executive order maintaining the existing ban on the use of federal funds for elective abortions. This was no change from existing policy but was considered necessary to win these congressmen over.
Democrats now have more than the 216 votes they needed to pass health reform. Final count could be as high as 220 votes.
The House will vote on rules to govern the health reform votes within the next half hour with a vote on the Senate bill and a vote on the reconciliation package later this evening. Obama is expected to address the nation once the final votes are taken.
This is a great day for all Americans.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Final push for health reform--We're almost there
The current vote count puts Democrats within five to six votes of passing historic health reform. The final six votes will most likely come from anti-abortion congressmen who will agree to a carefully worded executive order to make clear, once again, that no federal funds will go to fund elective abortions which will not really be a change from existing administration policy or federal law.
Also, the House will NOT use the "deemed passed"strategy but will vote separately on the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill. Odds continue to improve that the Senate bill will be signed into law by Obama sometime early next week and that the changes in the reconciliation bill will go before the Senate for a week-long debate and then vote. Reid is promising the House that he has the 51 votes he needs to pass the House reconciliation bill. Rumor has it that the House Democrats may be given a letter signed by 51 Democratic Senators saying they will vote for the House reconciliation bill.
The final drama on health reform will begin to play out in the House around 1PM tomorrow with votes beginning around 2PM. Three votes will be taken. First, the House will vote on the rules to follow in the health reform votes. Second, the House will vote on the Reconciliation bill fixing things in the Senate bill House members do not like. Finally, the House will vote to pass the Senate bill. The Senate parliamentarian has informed the House that they can vote on the reconciliation bill first. "Yes" votes on each of these will come exclusively from Democrats. All Republicans will vote "NO." "Yes" votes will probably be just 216 or barely more than that and health reform will become law.
This is an historic moment. It is very likely that tomorrow we will witness the passage of legislation that is equivalent to the passage of Social Security and Medicare combined. If this happens, Obama would have achieved what Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton could not.
Tomorrow will be a great day for Democrats and an even greater day for the country.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Reconciliation bill now online
Click here for a section by section summary of th health reform reconcilation bill:
Clich here to read the full reconciliation bill:
The vote will probably be held around 2PM on Sunday. Democrats appear to have around 210 of the 216 votes they need to pass the bill.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Still no CBO numbers on health reform?
The Congressional Budget Office was supposed to issue its report on the reconciliation bill yesterday. That got postponed until today. It's now 5:30PM and still no score. No/Nothing Repubs and other right wingers are yelling that Democrats have not released the CBO report because cost/savings are not what Democrats need to have to pass health reform. Some are saying that the CBO scores the reconciliation a billion dollars short through 2014. If that is true, then Demos just have to find a billion dollars and do it quick or else.....well, we don't want to think about that.
Keep your fingers crossed. This is coming down to the wire.
The House may pass health reform without ever voting on the Senate bill.
The House may pass health reform without ever voting on the Senate bill. How is that possible? They will use the “self-executing rule.” What is that? Here is an explanation prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
“Self-Executing” Rules Reported by the
House Committee on Rules
Walter J. Oleszek
Government and Finance Division
House Rule X assigns the Committee on Rules jurisdiction over the “order of business of the House.” The panel’s most noteworthy responsibility is to issue order of business resolutions; these are usually called “rules,” “special rules,” or, less commonly, “special orders.” Chamber adoption of these rules accomplishes two main objectives: it permits the House to take up measures that typically lack a convenient right-of-way to the floor, and it defines the procedural playing field — for example, time for debate and the structure of the amendment process — for considering legislation. The committee’s important scheduling role has meant that congressional scholars and others have classified rules in various ways. For example, an “open” rule affords any lawmaker an opportunity to offer amendments to a bill so long as they are in compliance with the House’s standing rules; a “closed” rule forbids anyone from offering amendments with an exception sometimes made for amendments recommended by the committee that reported the measure. Starting about twenty-five years ago, in response to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.
Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”
Traditional Use. Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), selfexecuting rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the [Senate] amendment.” Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.” “Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.
Contemporary Use. Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving House-Senate relations. They have also been used in recent years to enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions. Examples from the Congressional Record will illustrate:
· On August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less duration.
· On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute made in order as original text.
· H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its constitutionality.
· A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with bipartisan support.
· On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their employees an early-out retirement program.
· On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for purposes of amendment.
http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf
Sure, the Republicans will yell about the Democrats using the self-executing rule. But then they always yell that anything the Democrats do is unconstitutional. And yes, expect some Republicans to challenge the constitutionality of passing health reform this way. And yes, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will rule that whatever the Democrats do is unconstitutional and a violation of the Republican’s right to minority rule as they always do. Thomas' wife will lead the challenge to the law. You betcha!
Monday, March 15, 2010
What to expect next in the House on health reform
Tuesday
The Congressional Budget Office provides a score of the final bill. Democrats will post the reconciliation bill online for 72 hours. The bill will be reviewed and revised to deal with and minimize possible Byrd Rule challenges in the Senate, correct any problems presented by the CBO scoring and deal with other problems that might surface at the last minute.
Wednesday
Obama will meet with Democratic leaders to deal with final issues that might affect the vote including last minute arm twisting that might be necessary to get 216 votes in the House.
Thursday
The Rules Committee takes up the reconciliation bill and reports it out to the floor of the House for a vote. Usually, the vote occurs the next day but Pelosi could hold the vote on Thursday if she thinks she has 216 votes.
Friday or Saturday
The House has three voting options: (1) The House votes and passes the Senate bill and then the reconciliation bill OR (2) the House votes on the reconciliation bill only and “deems” the Senate bill passed when the Houses passes the reconciliation bill OR (3) “deems” the Senate bill passed when the Senate passes the reconciliaton bill.
If the House follows options 1 or 2, Obama could sign the Senate bill into law before he leaves on his trip. It the House follows option 3, it might take another week or two for the Senate to bring up and pass (by 51 Democratic votes) the reconciliation bill and then the Senate bill with the reconciliatin amendments becomes law.
Another step forward toward health reform
By a vote of 21 to 16, the House budget committee on Monday advanced a budget reconciliation bill to the next stage of the legislative process. The House budget committee action establishes a legislative framework by which to modify the Senate-passed health care bill under reconciliation. The actual wording of the reconciliation bill will be added later this week by the House rules committee. The significance of the budget committee action is that it is one more step in the process of moving to a vote on health reform in the House and finally bringing meaningful health reform to the country.
We still have a long week to go but Democrats are taking the final steps down the path to meaningful change. Keep your fingers crossed. Health reform may finally happen. And, it may happen this week.
Friday, March 12, 2010
More details on schedule for upcoming House action on health reform
Politico has a copy of a memo from the office of Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is the assistant to Speaker Pelosi, to Democratic staffers today telling them to clear members' schedule for next weekend, saying a vote could come as early as Friday or Saturday, and noting that it was no coincidence that President Obama pushed back his trip abroad from March 18 to March 21st.
Content of the memo follows:
Hi all –
Attached and below are some good resources to get through the health care push next week.
Here is my best guess on timeline but as always this is Congress so it could all change very quickly:
TODAY or MONDAY: CBO will publish final scores on legislative language
THEN: House Budget Committee must approve using the reconciliation process to pass this
THEN: The bill will go to the Rules Committee, rule will be constructed for consideration on the floor, and language will be posted online (on the Rules website) and the 72-hour clock will start. When this happens, we will start to have a better idea on what the process will be.
THEN: A Manager’s Amendment will be constructed that will make some final changes
THEN: The Manager’s Amendment will be posted online and the 72-hour clock will start (this may overlap with the 72-hour clock on the reconciliation language). When Manager’s Amendment is done final process decisions will be locked in.
THIS MEANS: We will likely vote Friday or Saturday. (As you probably saw, POTUS pushed back the departure for his Asian trip from Thursday the 18th to Sunday the 21st; this was not a coincidence.) The Speaker has publically committed to trying to get a vote on both the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill on the same day. They are still trying to work out the final process on this and much of what we do depends on what the Senate Parliamentarian decides. You may be receiving calls about the “Slaughter Rule” and other rumors about what the process will be. Again, please understand: no decision has yet been made on the process for consideration on the House floor.
Key points:
1. I would have your Member’s schedule pretty clear for next weekend. They will either be here or exhausted (or both).
2. I continue to encourage all of you not to get into debates about process and to try and persuade your Member not to get into process arguments either. At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote -- up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL. People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.
3. Finally, I encourage you to study the final attached slide (#14) and give some thought to what your plan is post-vote, especially during Easter Work Period. If your Member is a yes, or might be a yes, I would lay the groundwork for some events to highlight the reforms that will quickly become law – no more donut hole, dependent children covered until 26, insurance access for those with pre-existing conditions, etc.
Historic vote on health reform scheduled for next week
The New York Times reports that White House and Congressional leaders have told Democrats that a vote on Thursday or Friday of next week they would schedule a vote on the Senate health bill. The House would first pass the Senate bill and then vote on the reconciliation bill. The next step will be taken by the House Budget Committee on Monday.
NYT reports also that the popular student loan bill will be included as part of the reconciliation package.
This is great news!
Read the times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/health/policy/13health.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Thursday, March 11, 2010
It's official--Democrats to use budget reconciliation to pass health reform
Reuters news reports that Senator Harry Reid has formally notified Republicans that he will attempt to pass the final changes for health reform through the budget reconciliation process.
Reid said in a letter to the Republican leadership, "We plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times. Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process."
In a related story, Democrats in the House say that passing the Senate bill there by March 18th may not be possible. However, Pelosi said: “The March 18 [deadline] is an interesting date, as I say.”
Other developments:
The Congressional Budge Office is expected to score the president's health reform plan as early as this evening.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D, NY) is said to be examining the possibility of using an arcane maneuver that would allow House Democrats to avoid actually voting on the Senate-passed bill but simply "deem" the Senate bill adopted by adopting the reconciliation amendments.
Abortion remains an issue with Stupak and supposedly about a dozen other Democrats in the House saying they will not vote for the Senate bill unless tougher anti-abortion language is included in the reconciliation bill. However, Pelosi has warned the it might not be possible to include abortion in the reconciliation bill since items considered under reconciliation must be "central to the budget."
Another issue that is complicating reform is the proposal by some members to attach a student-lending bill to the reconciliation bill. The House has already approved a student loan bill and some members want to use reconciliation to move the bill forward in the Senate. Senator Ben Nelson (D, Neb) is objecting.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
We need 24 votes in the House to get health reform.
We need 24 votes in the House to get health reform.
Democratic leaders in the House need 216 votes to pass the Senate Health Reform bill and then move to reconciliation. As of now they are 24 short.
David Dayen at FireDogLake provides this count of the votes for and against health reform in the House as of today.
The full breakdown:
Definite YES: 192 Democrats.
Definite NO: 194 -- 177 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
16 Democrats who voted No in November:
Bobby Bright, Mike McIntyre, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Walt Minnick, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Frank Kratovil, Mike Ross, Dan Boren, Gene Taylor, Larry Kissell, Dennis Kucinich, Collin Peterson, Ike Skelton, Jim Marshall, Mike McMahon.
1 Democrat who voted Yes in November:
Mike Arcuri.
21 potential Democratic No-Yes flip votes
14 possible:
Jason Altmire, Bart Gordon, Glenn Nye, Brian Baird, John Tanner, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, John Adler, Scott Murphy, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson.
7 less possible:
Travis Childers, Harry Teague, Heath Shuler (severe lean no), John Barrow, Tim Holden, Charlie Melancon, Ben Chandler.
24 potential Yes-No flip votes:
11 Stupak bloc:
Bart Stupak, Jerry Costello, Charlie Wilson, Kathy Dahlkemper, Joe Donnelly, Joseph Cao (R), Steve Driehaus, Brad Ellsworth, Marion Berry, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski.
13 other wary Democrats:
Zack Space, Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Paul Kanjorski, Ann Kirkpatrick, Alan Mollohan, Nick Rahall, Dan Maffei, Bill Owens, John Spratt, Dennis Cardoza, Dale Kildee, James Oberstar.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/09/new-health-care-whip-count-192-yes-194-no/
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Reconciliation will pass the senate with a super-majority of 60.9 to 63%--Here’s how.
Here is an interesting analysis from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Republicans say that reconciliation should not be used to pass health reform since it is too important to be passed by a simple majority. They say such legislation should require a super majority of 60 or more. Well, that’s exactly what will happen if the senate Democrats use reconciliation as a means to reconcile the senate and house bills. The CEPR took a look at the makeup of the Senate assuming that each senator represents one half of his/her state’s population. Here is the results:
If all Democratic senators vote for reconciliation and all Republicans vote against reconciliation then reconciliation will pass by a population vote of 63% to 37%. In other words, senators representing 63% of Americans would have voted for reconciliation and health reform.
Even if some Democratic senators such as Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, and independent Lieberman vote with the Republicans, reconciliation will still pass with a population vote of more than 60%--60.9% in fact.
So, Repubs shut up about your stupid argument about majorities vs super-majorities. We have a super majority in the senate for reconciliation.
See the CEPR analysis here: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/reconciliation-2010-03.pdf
Listening to all the Repub nonsense I’ve come to the conclusion that what they really want is a change in the election laws and Congressional rules to make it possible for Republicans to win any election or vote in Congress with 40% of the vote while requiring Democrats to get 60%. That’s the way they behave.
Of course, some like Senator Bunning of Kentucky seems to think that we should require not a 60% vote but but something much higher to get anything done in the Senate or Congress. Let’s do the math.
The population of the U.S. is about 308,803,573.
The population of Kentucky is about 4,270,000.
So Bunning represents half of the citizens of Kentucky, roughly 2,135,000 citizens.
Now 2,135,000 divided by 308,803,573 is .0069 or 0.69%.
Now 100% - 0.69% is 99.31%
So in Bunning’s democracy, nothing can get done unless nearly 99.5% of the population wants it to get done. That’s a real SUPER DUPER majority. Of course, that’s ridiculous unless, of course, your real mission is life is to get nothing done as in you are a NO/Nothing. Bunning is. So are the rest of the NO/Nothing Repubs.
The truth about abortion funding in the Senate bill
Passage of health reform may hinge on a small number of provisions in the Senate bill that deal with the issue of funding of abortion. The bill does nothing to change current federal policy concerning funding of abortion. However, Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan and other House Democrats who oppose abortion rights are threatening to derail any plan to save health reform unless President Obama is“more flexible” on tightening abortion restrictions in the big health care legislation. Abortion opponents want to use the threat of not voting for the health reform to force a major change in current federal law concerning funding of abortion to go far beyond current federal policy with respect to prohibiting abortion funding.
Click below to read for yourself the provisions of the Senate bill with regard to abortion funding that are at the center of this controversy.
Gasp! Mit Romney is right about health reform
In his new book, No Apology, Mitt Romney writes (or has written for him) the following about health care reform in America: "The lifespan of the average American is less than that of people in nations that spend far less [on health care] To put it bluntly, we spend more and die sooner."
Specifically, life expectancy in the United States was 77.8 years. That put it behind the following nations, in descending order: Japan (at 82.4 years in 2006), Switzerland, Iceland, Spain, Australia, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Portugal and Denmark.
Meanwhile, health and population economists at the World Health Organization devised another measure to gauge life expectancy -- disability-adjusted life expectancy, or how many years one can expect to live before becoming disabled by old-age illnesses. WHO did its last full-blown international comparison of DALE, as it is abberviated, in 2000, and the results are much the same.
The United States ranked 24th on the WHO list with exactly 70 years of DALE. It trailed Japan (with 74.5), Australia, France, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, Finland, Malta, Germany and Israel.
Now, we'll look at health care expenditures. There are two ways to measure this -- by expenditures per capita, or by expenditures as a percentage of GDP. However you measure it, we're No. 1 -- by a mile.
Using the first measure, the OECD reports that the United States spent $7,290 on health care per capita in 2007. The only two other countries where per capita health care expenditures exceeded even $4,000 were Norway and Switzerland.
Using the second measure, the United States spent more than 15 percent of GDP on health care in 2006, according to the OECD. Only Switzerland and France exceeded 11 percent.
See the complete article at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/03/mitt-romney/romney-says-americans-pay-more-health-care-die-soo/
At yet, Romney doesn’t want to do anything to make things better. He is opposed to comprehensive health reform just like all Republicans. Why is he opposed when he admits that our country does have a serious health care problem? It’s simple, he hopes to use his opposition to meaningful health reform for partisan political advantage. He wants to win the Republican nomination for president. Romney puts his political career above the interest of the country he says he wants to serve. Shame on you, Romney. Shame on you.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Online demand for managers, particular marketing managers, up in February
Oveall online job demand declined by nearly 67,000 in February but demand for managers was up by more than 60,000 according to the Conference Board.
“Among the top 10 occupation groups with the largest number of online advertised vacancies, Management occupations rose 61,100 to 488,000 in February. Job demand in this occupational group lay flat for all of 2009 but has picked up in January and February. The increase reflects postings for a wide variety of occupations including sales managers, computer and information systems managers, and marketing managers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)