Fact Checking Murphy's Tele-Town Hall

I listened to the Patrick Murphy (PA8) tele-town hall tonight that took place between 7 and 8:30 PM. The forum consisted of live questions, pre-selected questions that had been sent to the Intelligencer and Bucks Courier newspapers. Ray Landis represented AARP who chimed in frequently with Congressman Murphy. Overall this was an interesting event for a few reasons but there were several misrepresentations by Murphy that merit some review.

Most glaring to me, was Murphy's failure to address the question that the public option would lead to single payer or socialized medicine. One questioner asked how we could be assured employers wouldn't dump empoyees in the the public option while the second was from a doctor in Newtown who believed the public option would result in socialized medicine. Murphy addressed the first with a strange answer about rewarding the employer for doing the right thing; making sure the employees had insurance. Does that mean they would only be rewarded if they put employees in a private plan, giving them incentive to keep people off the public option? Murphy side stepped this question twice. Paul Krugman, Barney Frank and a slew of public option supporters clearly believe the best way to get single payer is through the public option. Murphy repeated several times that industry members are supportive of health care reform, which is true. They also have been clear the public option is a deal breaker.

Murphy was asked how he could support a bill that the CBO showed would cost $1 trillion over ten years and then increase the deficit thereafter. (good question btw) Murphy starts out by making the same math errors the President made in his town hall in Colorado. The projected cost is $1 Trillion over ten years but the program doesn't really begin for 5 years. The House bill Murphy would vote on starts in year 4 and is fully phased in by year 6. The $1 Trillion cost should be divided by 6 rather than 10. Hennessey also notes discrepancies in the figure derived from savings from Medicare Advantage. As mentioned above Murphy expects savings to come from industry members who are willing to contribute for the good of reform. They will walk away with a public option though, so if Murphy votes for a plan with a public option, isn't he voting against the support he is banking on to keep the costs down?

Speaking of cost cutting, Murphy repeated several times he is a member of the Blue Dog caucus and is fiscally conservative. His voting record speaks otherwise. He mentioned voting against a $15 billion expenditure. I can't find any such vote. I will not suggest it didn't happen, I just can't find it based on the minimal information Murphy provided tonight. What I have found from examining Murphy's record is that even on those rare occasions Murphy votes against his party, there is always a solid block of Democrat votes to pass these votes regardless of Murphy's oppositiion. The only exception was the war supplemental which passed with bipartisan support. Murphy is on both the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, voting against the supplemental would certainly raise a fuss. He has some really laughable votes against his party too. Take his vote on H. Res. 153 for example, Murphy voted against commending USC Trojans for their victory in the Rose Bowl this year. Fiscal Conservatives everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief on that one. Minor votes like that however keep his record of voting 96% with his party rather than the more realistic assessment of 99%.

Murphy was asked about voting for the use of taxpayer funds for abortion and to provide coverage for illegal immigrants. Murphy assured there is nothing in the bill that would violate Federal law that restricts paying for abortion. Even the Annenberg Center's FactCheck begged to differ when the President made similar promises in the past. Abortion would be covered under public and private plans. As an aside, Murphy's voting on abortion should send chills down the spines of the staff at Archbishop Ryan HS. See Project Vote Smart lists Murphy's ratings from pro-choice and pro-life agencies. A non partisan research arm of Congress investigated the illegal immigrant coverage and their conclusion: "undermines the claims of the president and others that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the House version of the bill." The statement from Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, was reported by CNN.

A questioner, Mike Doyle asked about tort reform. Murphy declared that the bill by design is tort reform. Howard Dean said earlier today that it wasn't in the bill because Congress lacked the courage to take on the trial lawyer lobby. The largest donations to Murphy's vast fund raising coffers come from lawyers as well. Physicians will still need to cover themselves for malpractice and will include those costs in their services. They will practice defensive medicine because they will be on the hook for paying for that insurance.

Overall Murphy stressed three factors that must be present for him to vote on a bill. These were closing the donut hole, relief for small business and eliminating discrimination for pre-existing conditions. He was reluctant to admit he would vote for a bill that didn't include the public option. I am sure the far left will be thrilled to hear that. I never heard results of the poll that was on-going through the meeting, specifically the last question about the public option. I voted strongly opposed, I wonder why that question result was omitted. Perhaps it will be in the article in the paper. Nothing in the health care plan or the Obama budgets is sustainable. We need reform that was suggested by one caller, make it portable and available across state lines to restore competition. The most surprising thing I heard tonight was that Murphy's wife is a Republican. He might want to start asking her for advice on how to vote instead of following Pelosi's instructions.

Shocker: $10 billion Provision in HR3200 Benefits Unions

Remember how UAW came out of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy making few concessions in return for owning 55% of Chrysler and 39% of GM?
Bondholders were shoved to the back of the line in favor of the unions. Among the "concessions" made by UAW was the acceptance of stock in return for billions owed to the union-run health care trust specifically:

It also gives a union-run retiree health care trust 17.5 percent ownership of a post-bankruptcy protection GM, with a warrant to buy another 2.5 percent.

In what has to be a stunning turn of events, turns out HR3200 (pg 65 section 164) has a provision that would reimburse "participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees".
Eligible groups are defined as:

(i) is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations, or a voluntary employees beneficiary association, or a committee or board of individuals appointed to administer such plan

Yesterday, Detroit News reported that UAW president Ron Gettelfinger urged support for health care reform "citing a provision that includes $10 billion to defray the medical costs of union members and others in retiree group health care associations." Which provision would that be I wonder? If you guessed section 164 you would be correct. More from Detroit News:

The provision could provide badly needed financial support to hourly retirees, who have agreed to accept stock in exchange for billions owed in retiree health care at General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC. The UAW's voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA, owns a 55 percent stake in Chrysler in exchange for billions Chrysler owed in health benefits. The UAW GM VEBA received a 17.5 percent stake in GM in exchange for billions owed. It also received a warrant for 2.5 percent of GM stock and a note for $2.5 billion.

The Senate HELP bill conatins the same language.

The provision in HR3200 is for retirees between the ages of 55 and 65 and presumably would be open to any plan providing insurance for retirees before they qualify for Medicare. This type of insurance is generally only offered by government agencies, unions, professional organizations and certain larger employers. Communication Workers of America, a division of the AFL-CIO, has stated that only 30% of retirees receive such benefits from employer based programs. Section 164 outlines that such plans must apply for the program and be approved. Are we really supposed to believe large employers who offer this insurance to retain executives are going to be approved? It's no coincidence section 164 includes the specific language "voluntary employee beneficiary association when UAW runs a program that operates under the acronym VEBA. Section 164 and the corresponding provision in the Senate HELP bill are union givebacks and most likely a means to compensate UAW for its concession in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies.

Video Clip from Patrick Murphy Town Hall in Levittown

I happened across a video clip of the town hall held by PA district 8 Rep. Patrick Murphy when searching for news of the large town hall "The Intelligencer" editors called on him to schedule. Of course there was no news on that front but I thought those who have been following here might be interested in this short clip of his "Congressman on your Corner" event held August 1. The clip shows one man making a long statement about his concerns about HR3200 and was posted by Philly We Are Change.

Interesting Finds Around the Blogosphere

The Daily Uprising has a 4 minute video with highlights (lowlights?) from the first 500 pages of the monstrous HC3200.

Erick Erickson at RedState has a scoop on a poll taken by James Carville. It's really bad, so bad you'll never hear it on the MSM. Highlights:

53% of those likely to vote in 2010 think Obama is too liberal. The same number think he’s going to raise taxes. 55% think he doesn’t deliver on his promises.

Oh, and Republicans lead Democrats by 13 points on the issue of who will be a better steward of our tax dollars.

And So it goes in Shreveport has a video of an AARP meeting from hell.

Peggy Noonan "There’s a new tone in the debate, and it’s ugly. At the moment the Democrats are looking like something they haven’t looked like in years, and that is: desperate."