Altmire Voting No, Boyd Yes, and a Fracture in the Stupak Block- Bad News- UPDATE: Cantor Claims Dems Are Bluffing

He's been listening to his constituents, well isn't that novel:

"I regret that this year-long process of debating health care reform has resulted in a final product that I cannot support," he said. "The cost of inaction on health care is great, but it would be an even bigger mistake to pass a bill that could compound the problem of skyrocketing health care costs."

In a live interview on KDKA-TV News at 6 on Tuesday, Altmire said his constituents would help him make the final decision.

"I'm deciding it by doing everything I possibly can to hear what they have to say," he said "The rallies at my office, the phone calls, emails, and letters that are coming in to Washington and in the district."

What he heard from his constituents was the vast majority of them opposed this health care reform. So, is this a big win for "nomentum?" It is tough to say. Rep. Alan Boyd of Florida has declared he will vote for the bill. Boyd is facing a tough primary challenge from the left in a R+6 District. Go figure. Clearly some who were annoyed on the left decided his previous no vote merited a primary challenge as punishment. Though they couldn't have known about the importance of this vote at the time, the challenge does seem to have bought them another yes vote.

It's looking grim. Breaking news Brad Ellsworth is breaking with the Stupak coalition to vote yes. So where does this leave the Stupak coalition? Looks as though we will find out tomorrow at 11 AM.

Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?

If they've made a deal then this is done. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Eric Cantor claims Democrats are bluffing and details why in the link. Byron York concludes:

Who is correct? It's clear the Democrats are working around the clock to create a sense of momentum and inevitability about the vote. But the fact is, there are still enough unknowns to say the outcome is entirely in doubt.

John Boccieri (OH-16) Announces He Will Vote Yes- Uses Natoma Cantfield as Excuse

I just watched Boccieri make this announcement on MSNBC.  As he made the announcement he lamented that it may cost him his job.  Let's work to make that happen.  Boccieri used the Natoma Cantfield story which has been proven false as an excuse for casting the vote that may cost him his job.  Natoma Cantfield is in no danger of losing her home and receives care in a top cancer facility according to Fox News:

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield’s sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she’ll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is “racked with worry” about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said “all indications” at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.

An earlier Bloomberg report indicated the Democrats were 6 votes short of reaching the 216 yes votes they need to proceed with a vote on Sunday.  Boccieri had been leaning in recent days toward voting yes, despite having voted no in November.  Presumably the White House was well aware Boccieri planned to vote yes.

Nearly Half of Primary Care Physicians Feel Passage of Health Care Reform will Make Them Want to Leave Medicine

This was mentioned in the opening of Bill O'Reilly's show last night.   A recent New England Journal of Medicine survey found some startling opinions among physicians about the current health care reform:

• 62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation.
• 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
• 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.

A solid majority of physicians support an incremental targeted approach  to health care reform.  Republicans in Congress have been saying for nearly a year such an approach could achieve wide bipartisan support.  Nevertheless, Democrats are insistent on passage of a sweeping partisan legislation that they will not have courage enough to support in a straight vote on the record.

That nearly half of primary care physicians feel the reform will force them out of medicine should not surprise us.  Granting greater control to the government over health care will leave them underpaid and overworked.  Who exactly will be caring for those millions forced to purchase health insurance?

Ed Morrissey notes the poll focused extensively on the public option despite the measure having been killed in the Senate in December.  Though the polling of the public option seems rather wasted, I think it reflects a measure of distrust among physicians that this Congress will leave that issue alone.  President Obama continues to give winks and nods to his progressive friends that this is just the beginning.  Pelosi announced in recent days, "once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow.”  Clearly, physicians are getting the message they will never be safe from the threat of these progressive policies as well they should.

White House Official Lays Ultimate Slam on Howard Dean: "He's Irrelevant" The Left is Mostly Baffled

Via Memeorandum
Ooh burn, such a low blow against the champion of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Savannah Guthrie reveals the anger over health care debate is not reserved for Joe Lieberman but for Howard Dean who in recent days has called for the death of widely despised health care bill.

Mika Brzezinski I won’t name names, but I heard it from several people in the Administration: Howard Dean, very not pleased, with Dr. Dean speaking out about health care reform and this plan.

Savannah Guthrie: Yeah, very irritated. Yes, isn’t it fascinating they don’t seem to be too angry at Lieberman, they’re reserving their fervor for Howard Dean, but actually, one senior official who I talked to this morning paid the highest insult which was to call him irrelevant to the entire health care debate. You know he kind of had his moment in the sun in the last week when this Medicare expansion looked like it was going to be the thing that broke the logjam between the progressives in the party and the moderates, but, of course, because of Lieberman, the Medicare expansion is gone, and now Dean is having what one official called “a tantrum.”

And they think it’s just not helpful, but they say he’s irrelevant because, bottom line is, even though he was meeting yesterday with all the Democrats, a lot of liberals did blow off steam, there’s a lot of frustration, they’re annoyed that the public option is gone, that then they compromised to do the Medicare extension, now it’s gone. At the end of the day, the moderates are holding sway over this bill, but at the end of the day the President’s been able to hold them in line and they think progressives will be with them.

Dean hasn't been shy in his criticism of the current health care bill

"This is a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG," former Democratic National Committee chairman and medical doctor Howard Dean told "Good Morning America's" George Stephanopoulos today. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works. "This is an insurance company's dream, this bill," Dean continued. "This is the Washington scramble, and I think it's ill-advised."

Obviously his call to kill the bill has the White House enraged.  Dean's statements reflect the thinking of much of the left wing blogosphere who are baffled by the attitude towards both Dean and Lieberman:

 Joe Lieberman, who held a legislative gun to President Obama's head and threatened to kill all of health care reform, endangering the Democrats' prospects for holding on to control of Congress in the next election and endangering the President's chances at being re-elected, got personally thanked by President Obama yesterday. Thanked for trying to kill health care reform, thanked for shilling for the insurance industry. Howard Dean, who is simply advocating for the President's own campaign promise, is now being dissed by the White House.

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake explains in a piece written for Politico; it's all about those secret deals the White House made:

Health Care Hocus Pocus

John Stossel nails the lies and deceptions used by politicians to sell the health care debacle:

The key to magic is misdirection, fooling the audience into looking in the wrong direction.

I happily suspend disbelief when a magician says he'll saw a woman in half. That's entertainment. But when Harry Reid says he'll give 30 million additional people health coverage while cutting the deficit, improving health care and reducing its cost, it's not entertaining. It's incredible.

The politicians have a hat full of tricks to make their schemes look cheaper than they are. The new revenues will pour in during Year One, but health care spending won't begin until Year Three or Four. To this the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner asks, "Wouldn't it be great if you could count a whole month's income, but only two weeks' expenditures in your household budget?" (H/T: Instapundit )

Charles Krauthammer thinks "the bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool."  Pat Austin wonders if there is a Senate swimming pool.  Of course there must be nothing is too good for those we pay to shred the US health care system then lie about what a wonder it will be.  Presto Changeo, the "result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency," according to Krauthammer, who suggests we can throw a dart at the 2000 page tome and find a problem:

You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.
 
You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently, insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

You’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — percentages picked out of a hat — that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle-class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences. 

Of course we can throw darts all day but the only solution to this bill is to throw a knife and end the misery.  Howard Dean admits the "Republicans are right about the rhetoric of this bill," though Dean seems to be hitching himself to the liberal wing of the party.  Dean's devotion to the public option aside, it is hard to ignore his point the health care bill is a giant bailout that will have negative consequences if enacted.  Hot Air has a transcript for the video below:


Ed Morrissey wonders:

Dean — who was a successful chair of the DNC and supposedly represented the mainstream of the Democratic Party — has now hitched himself to Socialist Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing of the party. Is Dean thinking about a 2012 run predicated on a politically wounded Obama who failed to pass health-care reform?

Now that would be entertaining, imagine sawing the Democratic party in two with a primary.

Without Their Support

William Warren via Net Right Nation

Rasmussen: Support for Health Care Reform Hits New Low

Rasmussen reports the latest in its ongoing tracking of support for the Democrats' health care reform.  Just two days after the Senate voted under the cover of darkness to open debate for the massive expansion of government contained in the Senate health care bill, support for the reform has reached its lowest levels yet.  A mere 38% support the reform while 56% oppose.  I think we can expect support to continue to drop:

Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

It seems to me the people are trying to tell this Democratic congress to put the brakes on this reform.  Congress does not appear to be listening.  

Say Hello to my Little Fed - UPDATE

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey reports the vote to proceed is on for Saturday. Rush reports 97% of bills that succeed in this vote become law.  Call your Senator; tell them to start over.  


Another Saturday health care vote appears to be in the works, this time in the Senate. While the Senate may be may be taking its cue from the "success" of the House in its' Saturday vote, there are a few differences between the two bills that could push any resolution of the health care debate well into next year. Still conventional wisdom has it that if Reid is able to pull together the 60 votes he needs in this important opening vote, some 2000 page piece of legislation will eventually make its'way to the President's desk. Holdouts can be bought and the sky's the limit as far as Democrats are concerned to guarantee passage of their behemoth health care takeover.

Mickey Kaus may have uncovered what may well be the equivalent of the 11th hour reprieve after actually reading a key portion of the monster legislation that threatens to divide the House and Senate before all is said and done.  The Times buried this point of disagreement way at the bottom of their report:

The two chambers also disagree on whether to create an independent commission to help cut the growth of Medicare. Senate Democrats say such a commission could make politically unpopular decisions needed to put Medicare on a sound financial footing. But House leaders say it is the duty of Congress to make such tough decisions.

Kaus wondered whether the Senate bill, which was purported to actually go further than the House bill to contain costs had followed a "Fed" model detailed by Leonhardt in the Times:

A FED FOR HEALTH Twice a year, an outside advisory board sends Congress a list of suggestions for Medicare payment rates, based on the available evidence. Congress generally ignores them, in deference to the various industry groups that oppose any cuts to their payments.

We already have a wonderful model for how to avoid such interference. It’s called theFederal Reserve. The Fed is charged with setting interest rates based on economic conditions, not politics. The Senate bill would create such a commission for Medicare. Unfortunately, it initially applies to doctors and home health care providers but not hospitals, thanks to a deal between the hospitals and the White House. It expands to include everyone in 2019. The House bill has no such commission.

Whether one ends up in the final bill will be a good test of Mr. Obama’s endgame leadership.

Kaus had assumed the  IMAB,  short for Independent Medical Advisory Board, created in the Senate had been less powerful and threatening after reading Ezra Klein's analysis:

The idea isn't simply that a panel of experts gets to dream up interesting reforms to try out in Medicare. It's that they are charged with making sure that Medicare hits certain growth targets, and their package of reforms has to achieve that goal. Those reforms are then sent to Congress, where Senate debate is limited to 30 hours, and amendments must be both budget neutral and "germane." This report, in other words, is exempt from the filibuster. So far as anything is ever easy to pass, this is easy to pass.

Then he read the bill, or at least the relevant portion found on pages 1000-1053.  Here are the keypoints Kaus found:

--The new 15 member "IMAB" board makes cost-cutting recommendations if Medicare spending exceeds specific targets.

--Congress can disapprove these changes by passing a bill. But like other legislation, the president can veto that bill (and his veto can be overridden).

--The "fast tracking" provisions Klein discusses apply to the bill disapprovingthe changes. That is, they make it easier for opponents of the changes to block them without, say, being filibustered in the Senate. But they also sharply restrict what a "fast-tracked" disapproval can do--for example, it can't block spending cuts if that causes cost-reduction targets to be missed. To this extent it's an "up or down" vote, like a base-closing resolution

--Key point: If Congress doesn't pass the fast-tracked bill, the Secretary of HHS must implement the IMAB panel's recommendations

--And Congress loses even its fast-track disapproval power after 2020, unless, by a 60% supermajority, during a specific window in the first half of 2017, while standing on one leg and humming Battle Hymn of the Republic, it passes a joint resolution discontinuing the whole process. Correction: The part about standing on one leg and humming doesn't seem to be in the final bill.

Though its pretty complicated it looks as though the legislation empowers an unelected body as powerful as the Fed to do some of the dirty work cutting benefits etc that Congress is notoriously reluctant to make. It also makes it much more difficult for Congress to overrule the panel recommendations. Now wipe those two dirty words "death panels" from your mind, we all know how crazy that argument was right?

Still, Kaus wonders what Congress might do if the IMAB decided that the federal government won't pay for mammograms for women under 40? Could they stop it? What if government, as is often the case, is divided? It seems the power is on the side of the "Med" instead of Congress. Yes, there may be means for the Congress to pass a law overthrowing the panel recommendations or eliminating the board altogether. In reality, it is always much more difficult to eliminate or even "audit" such a powerful group once they have been put in action. While we already have one unelected board with power over our money, the Senate bill gives another unelected board power over our health and 1/6th of the economy. What could possibly go wrong?

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes: Oh the Joys of Government Health Care

Via Memeorandum

Keith Hennessey outlines all the new taxes in  the Reid Senate health care bill.  His analysis is based on a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation analyzing the revenue provisions in the “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act.”   I wonder if they think inserting the word "affordable" in these 2000 page behemoths will somehow manage to make them so.  There is nothing affordable about new taxes, which is the only way the federal government can raise revenue - unless we decide to do something outlandish like sell cars.  Take a peek at the affordable new taxes imposed for our affordable new health care entitlement:

• 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 (individuals) / $23,000 (families). Amounts are indexed for inflation by CPI-U + 1% – begins in 2013 – $149 B tax increase
• Additional 0.5% Medicare (Hospital Insurance) tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) – begins in 2013 – $54 B tax increase
• Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs – begins in 2010 – $22 B tax increase
• Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2010 – $19 B tax increase
• Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2010 – $60 B tax increase
• Cut in half (to $500K) the amount of an executive’s compensation that a health plan can deduct from its corporate income taxes – begins in 2013 – $600 million tax increase
• Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures – begins for surgery in 2010 – $6 B tax increase!

Keith does a full analysis of each of the proposed taxes so be sure to read his full post.  There are two major tax increase policies in the bill.  The tax on the cadillac plans is still there; it is merely scaled back due to push back from the unions.  To offset the loss in revenue Reid proposes an increase in Medicare payroll taxes, leaving Reid in the position of defending two major tax increases.  Anyone still want to argue the influence of unions on the Democratic party is not a problem?

The Medicare payroll tax increase proposal is a game changer, essentially creating unprecedented changes in how our government is financed.  The bill would use Medicare payroll taxes to finance a new entitlement.  This would permit use of payroll taxes normally entirely devoted to Medicare to be used where the government sees fit.  This was a "slippery slope" Hennessey found particularly shocking for a Democratic leader to propose.  In the end Hennessey thinks this may be a huge risk for moderate Democrats

Ed Morrissey is not sure it's a big enough risk for moderates who will be under tremendous pressure from an Obama administration desperate to pass something, anything really called health care reform:

Is it as big of a risk for moderates as failing to pass a bill will be for Obama and the progressives?  That’s the big question.  Will people get angry enough over a new government entitlement that purports to solve a real issue for many Americans — the increasing cost of health care?  Never mind, for the moment, that it doesn’t actually solve that problem, but makes it worse.  Most won’t see that until 2013 at the earliest, by which point it will be far too late.

Ironically, there are a few taxes proposed taking aim at the health care industry gullible enough to play along with this administration.  Pharmaceuticals get a new tax on the revenue they will generate because the government will spend more on health care.  Health Plan executives are targeted for limits on their executive compensation.  Hennessey wonders who is next:

It’s terrible policy to single out the compensation of any particular industry.  Wall Street – if this becomes law, you’re next in the crosshairs.

This is gratuitous political punishment of an unpopular constituency.  The section is titled “Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance providers.”  It raises $600 M over 10 years, and is thus insignificant as a pay-for.

How’s that political alliance working out for you guys?

Last but not least comes the cosmetic surgery tax.  How ironic that the only aspect of the health care industry to actually contain costs and lower prices over the years gets a tax penalty for their efforts.  Government involvement in health care, what's not to love?  I am somewhat heartened that the tax would seemingly apply to teeth whitening purely for  a told ya moment with my own dentist who is a liberal but makes a living on cosmetic dentistry.  I think I might actually enjoy pointing out this little tax on my next visit.

Gallup: Health Care is Looking Like Waterloo

Gallup's latest poll shows a seismic shift in public opinion on the role of the federal government in health care.   In 2006 69% of Americans thought it was the role of government to ensure everyone has health care coverage.  This poll shows 47% believe this should be the responsibility of the government while the number who believed health care is not the responsibility of government grew from 28% in 2006 to 50% currently.  This represents a 22 point shift in both directions.

A follow up question in the Gallup poll reveals 61% of the American people are in favor of maintaining the current health care system while those in favor of replacing the system with a new government run health care system has fallen to 32%.  It looks as though more people favor "doing nothing" or maintaining the status quo. Maybe it's time for Obama's speech writers to think up a new line.

 Gallup's bottom line:

The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed healthcare debate since Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have healthcare coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the healthcare system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in healthcare could or should be this broad

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out Democrats in Washington have failed to detect the ground shifting beneath their feet:

 Three years ago, the Democratic point of view fell firmly in the mainstream.  Now it’s the fringe, but the Democrats in the Beltway haven’t noticed that the ground has changed under their feet.  A 44-point swing in three years is a sea change, one that will drown the Democrats next year if they try to shove ObamaCare and its mandates down our throats.

This poll completely refutes the conventional "wisdom" in Washington that passing health care will save Democrats in the coming midterm elections.  Bill Clinton paid a visit to the Senate as a reminder what happens when a Democratic majority fails to pass health care.  It's too bad they can't send Napoleon to the Senate as a reminder of what will happen if they do pass health care.

Beck and Brooks Agree: The Party is Over

Though he would be loathe to admit it, David Brooks agrees with Glenn Beck. Consider the opening of his op-ed today, Brooks writes:

That which can’t continue doesn’t. A nation can spend and spend, pile debt upon debt, but eventually there comes a reality moment when some leader emerges to say enough is enough and when decent people, looking around at themselves and their own best nature, respond by demanding a return to responsibility.

Now consider the portion of the Glenn Beck show yesterday the left is having a bit of fun laughing at:

Yes, Beck gets emotional here and takes a long route to get to the point our politicians have been behaving as though they are teenagers at a party they know they shouldn't attend.  If they would follow parental wisdom and come home and admit the truth, take responsibility for their actions whether that is merely attending the party or partying like drunken sailors, we'll get through this.

Of course none of that is easy and as adults we know admitting fault is only a portion of the battle.  The hard part is what Beck alludes to when he says it will stink when we take the consequences, staying home on Saturday night because we are financially grounded.  Lo and behold this is the exact message in Brooks op-ed, though Brooks alludes to the party that has taken place across the pond in the UK and the moment of reckoning the Conservative Party has seized:

In the United States, we’re not at that moment yet. Private debt is being replaced by public debt. New entitlements are being created, and the money that could be used to ward off fiscal disaster is being used for other things. Here, Democrats still get ahead by promising tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent and Republicans get ahead by promising tax cuts for all and Medicare cuts for none.

But Britain has hit its reality moment. The Brits are ahead of us when it comes to public indebtedness and national irresponsibility. Spending has been out of control for longer and in a more sustained way.

But in that country, the climate of opinion has turned. There, voters are ready for a politician willing to face reality.

Brooks outlines the tough choices have been successfully selling the British public including pay freezes for the public sector, cutting a popular but ineffective baby bond program and opposing tax cuts the country cannot realistically offset with spending cuts or would not produce growth.  Here the Democrats propose adding a VAT and play shell games to fund a massive new entitlement program in the name of reform.  But as Brooks notes, the Brits have already shown the error of this path:

But Britain has discredited the center-left agenda with its unrelenting public spending, its public development agencies and disappointing public-private investment partnerships.

The Brits have begun to face the consequences and made the hard choices that their financial grounding makes necessary.  Are we there yet?  The left is in denial, thinking they can have their massive entitlement and deal with the impending fiscal crisis later or leave it to a GOP controlled House to sort out.   In short, they believe they can get away with staying at the party longer and try to sneak home hoping they aren't caught.  Recent polls suggest the public is suspicious of  that route.  Both Beck and Brooks are correct though, the day of reckoning is coming and it is only a matter of time before the public is completely receptive to facing the truth.  In the mean time Beck and Brooks appear to be preparing their respective audiences for the inevitable consequences we will face when we realize we are out of beer, the party is over.



H/T: Memeorandum

Marriage of convenience between White House and Insurers is headed to divorce court

Uh oh, looks like the insurance industry is about to claim irreconcilable differences in their ill-fated union with the Democrats and Obama administration.  Ceci Connelly writes in the Washington Post the insurers plan to oppose the current health care reform with a report prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers warning that premiums for health insurance could cost $4,000 more than projected for a typical family by the year 2019.

The report was paid for by the American Health Insurance Plans.   Karen Ignani, President and CEO of the group informed board members of the specifics of the report on Sunday:

The report makes clear that several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system. The report finds that the proposal “will increase premiums above what they would increase under the current system for both individual and family coverage in all four market segments for every year from 2010-2019.”
For example, the analysis shows that the cost of the average family policy is approximately $12,300 today and will rise to:

• $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.

• $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.

• $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.

Nancy Ann DeParle dismissed the report claiming:

"Those guys specialize in tax shelters, clearly this is not their area of expertise."

Accounting is not one of the services offered at  PriceWaterhouseCoopers?  Aren't they the guys who tabulate the votes for the Oscars for the uber elites in Hollywood?  Wait for the smear campaign against PriceWaterhouse to begin in 3, 2, 1...

Considering the vote  to take BaucusCare from committee to the floor was scheduled for Tuesday, the timing of the report signals all gloves are off in the health care war over reform.  Things are about to get ugly.

For More See:
Scared Monkeys who also links this post
Pat at And so it goes in Shreveport
H/T: Memeorandum

Dems Declaring "Mission Accomplished" on Health Care

Jonathan Chait declares "Mission Accomplished" on health care in a post at The New Republic.  Citing the following passage from Roll Call, Chait declares passage of health care a fait accomplis:

As a fallback, Senate Democratic leaders have stepped up their pressure on centrists to stick with the party on procedural votes. At a minimum, leaders have asked all 60 Democrats to allow them to bring a health care bill to the floor in order to make sure Republicans cannot filibuster it.

Democratic Senate aides familiar with the thinking of Conference moderates said centrists want to vote for a health care reform bill — even one that is politically problematic — because it appeals emotionally to their inner Democrat.

I am happy for Chait, who must have read  the final bill and finds it worthy of a bit of excessive celebration in the end zone.  Not that we're anywhere near the end zone, just sayin.  Nevertheless, Chait's post confirms how completely disingenuous the Democrats have been in blaming Republicans for their problems with passing health care.   It's been clear for some time the Democrats can pass something, the question remains what will they pass?   Sooner or later someone will have to make a decision on the hot potato  and that's just one of the tough votes Democrats will need to make as we head into midterm election season.  Congratulations, however, for realizing you have all the votes though , at least for now anyway.
H/T:  Memeorandum

Rove with the White Board Explains Health Care Costs

Karl Rove explains about 3 1/2 minutes into this video costs of the current health care reform for the 7.5 million additional people who will be insured after the reform is passed. One interesting point I heard in this was that hospitals may be balking at how few would be insured. The cooperation of hospitals, PhRMA and insurance were built on the notion there would be many more "customers" offsetting the cuts they agreed to in order to pass reform. There is much more to come in the debate and as noted here it will likely get ugly.



Clip via Breitbart

Public Option Propaganda Continues

The public option propaganda continues, sustaining itself on a Los Angeles Times reprint of the "Obama is secretly pushing the public option" article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.   Chuck Schumer reports that things are moving along just blissfully in his efforts to include the public option in a final bill.  It is positively sunshine kisses and rainbow lollipops all around from his report:

"Inside, we were all happy," Schumer said, adding that he and other Democratic senators are targeting Baucus, along with Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) for additional votes on the public option.
He maintained that the final bill to pass through all of Congress would have a public option, whether the Senate passes it initially or has to rely on a budget manuever in the conference report to avoid the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

McJoan, diarist at  Daily KOS, was celebrating in the end zone one minute, while unloading  on Blanche Lincoln the next.  Meaningless polls showing the voters in Nebraska are just wild about the public option are de rigueur in chastising those timid moderates who can't see everyone loves the public option.  I am stunned that Blanche Lincoln is not convinced of the massive support in her state for the public option after seeing that all important Daily KOS poll.

It could be these moderates are worried about their political hides come midterm elections.  The President, however, is only really concerned about his own re-election.  Chuck Todd makes this revealing statement in the following clip as the Hardball cheerleaders rationalize the lampooning of their hero on Saturday Night Live.  Chuck makes the point very close to the end:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Will the moderates vote for a public option that voters fear will cause them to lose their current health care coverage? It's highly unlikely unless these noble moderates are willing to sacrifice their seats.

H/T: Memeorandum

Behind the Scenes Obama Pushes the Public Option

It seems there was a method to Pelosi's latest public option madness aside from her rather obvious attempt to whip her Blue Dogs into line. A report in today's Chicago Tribune  reveals Obama's extensive behind-the-scenes machinations to ensure some version of the government health insurance plan is included in the Senate bill. Despite repeated claims the government option, or public option, was not integral to Obama's   vision of health care reform, the revelation of his private efforts could betray Obama's hidden agenda that would come as no surprise to conservative critics:


Clip via Naked Emperor News

Obama's efforts to include a public option in the final bill appear to be rather extensive according to the report in Chicago Tribune:

But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.

Among those regularly in the meetings are Obama's top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle, aides to Reid, and Senate finance and health committee staff, both of which developed health care bills.

At the same time, Obama has been reaching out personally to rank-and-file Senate Democrats, telephoning more than a dozen lawmakers in the last week to press the case for action.

Portions of the Tribune report read as more of an effort to bolster support for the administration among its liberal base who have been critical of Obama's seeming lack of support for a government option. The report portrays Obama as much more of a hands-on leader again countering liberal criticism his aloof approach has doomed the beloved public option:

The White House initiative, unfolding largely out of public view, follows months in which the president appeared to defer to senior lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they labored to put together gargantuan health care bills.

It also marks a critical test of Obama's command of the inside game in Washington in which deals are struck behind closed doors and wavering lawmakers are cajoled and pressured into supporting major legislation.

"The challenge is to go to the (Senate) floor, hold the deal," said Steve Elmendorf, a lobbyist who was chief of staff to former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. But "they are more involved than people think. They have a plan and a strategy, and they know what they want to get and they work with people to get it."

There can be no doubt the President would gladly include a government insurance program if he felt he was able to pass legislation with some version included. Deals with industry execs such as PhRMA and the American Hospital Association have been reported to be contingent upon final legislation being passed without a government program, however. It is not out of the realm of possibility the administration would weasel from those deals at the 11th hour leaving the health care industry little or no time to rally a campaign against the reform. Securing the moderate votes to pass a public option is the real hurdle that will only become increasingly difficult as gubernatorial elections loom, however. It is likely the White House strategy may include an effort to persuade liberals Obama is pulling out all stops to get them what they want. When a public option is dropped completely off the legislation at the last minute in order to gain votes to pass a bill, Pelosi and Obama will be exonerated by their base as having given it their best efforts.

The Trib report also mentions the Kaiser Foundation survey showing 58% support among the public for a government insurance program. This study largely shows how polls are influenced by arguments for and against a Medicare type program. It is unlikely such a study would be influential in the final votes of key Senate and House moderates decisions. Nevertheless, the administration that declared it would be the most transparent in the history of man or something, can have any number of tricks in store before the final vote is taken. Until such time, conservatives would be advised to keep the pressure on the moderates, Obama certainly is.

H/T: Memeorandum

Consumers Reports Betrays its Bias on Health Care

Via Taegen Goddard's Political Wire  -Consumers Union publisher of the Consumers Reports monthly  products ratings and review magazine, has stepped outside its' area of expertise and into the health care debate. President Jim Guest attempts to justify an endorsement of Democrats' health care reform while suggesting they are maintaining an impartial view:

"You may wonder why we are injecting ourselves so publicly into a heated debate that has generated an enormous amount of concern and confusion... We are in the business of providing information and advice that helps consumers. We don't make campaign contributions. We don't endorse candidates. And we don't care who gets the credit for fixing the problems with health care -- we just need them fixed. Doing nothing about health care is not a solution."

Doesn't that last line ring a bell? I am not sure who is suggesting doing nothing about health care is the answer, did Consumer's Union take a look at Paul Ryan's Patient's Choice Act? Repeating the President's favorite straw man, "doing nothing" is a tip off to Consumer's Union bias; their endorsement of the "public option" that failed in the Senate Finance markup confirms their bias. Politico points to their web page that promotes Democrats' legislation as well.

Consumers Union will run the following advertisement in the DC area for two weeks:




As Professor William Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion notes Consumers Union's foray into the political debate does not serve them well:

Consumers Union has done substantial damage to its reputation and status. It may know dishwashers, but it obviously doesn't know much about the Democratic proposals which I have spend a considerable time studying. I have analyzed on this blog dozens of specific aspects of the Democratic proposals, and it is shocking to me that Consumers Union is so profoundly ignorant of what actually is in the proposals. The dreamy concept of providing care for everyone at low cost with higher quality, which is the thrust of the Consumers Union position, has no basis in the actual legislative proposals.

I am curious what is motivating this self-destructive decision to weigh in on a political debate.  It is widely known that PhRMA has agreed to run a sizable advertising campaign to promote the Democrats health care reform in exchange for reform that favors their industry.  What deal was cut to motivate Consumers Union to promote Democrats' legislation?  Perhaps Consumers Union was able to suppress its' biases while reporting on lawn mowers and garbage disposals but can no longer maintain its appearance of the unbiased arbiter when it comes to this President's signature legislative agenda.  It will be interesting to see if Consumers Union's true motivation can be established.  In the mean time the majority of Americans who oppose the health care legislation are likely to be skeptical, as am I, about this sudden need to weigh in on health care.

H/T: Memeorandum

Liberals Politicize Death Based on Manipulated Media Reports to Sell a Failing Agenda

Early on Saturday,  a Think Progress report by Victor Zapanta was linked at Memeorandum . The grossly irresponsible headline, "Uninsured 22-Year-Old Boehner Constituent Dies From Swine Flu," betrayed Zapanta's dishonest attempt to draw a causal relationships between Boehner's opposition to the Democratic effort to overhaul health care and the death of young woman.  Several left -wing blogs quickly followed suit, blaming Republican opposition and our broken system for the death of Kimberly Young. 

Unfortunately for the left, the argument is clearly devoid of reason as Rick Moran demonstrates in a masterful take-down of Zapanta's partisan smear attack. Moreover, it is also devoid of factual evidence, relying instead on a cleverly-edited television news report based on an interview with Young's roommate's mother while ignoring first-hand reports from Young's parents themselves.

Jammie Wearing Fool points to the irrational attack on Boehner and connects it with the same lowering of discourse evidenced in the left's politicization of the death of a census worker.  In an interesting update, Jammie Wearing Fool links a recent report confirming Young did not, in fact, die of complications of Swine flu.  Though this report came later than Zapanta's piece as well as the others that followed, there were several other reports available online prior to the 25th that severely undercut the argument Young died because she lacked health care.

A WCPO news report is cited by a TPM Live Wire report to suggest a potential relationship between Young's death and her lack of insurance.  As you will see in the video Young's roommates mother is the source for the speculation Young either did not receive earlier treatment or the treatment was inadequate and Young resisted going to the emergency room for "proper treatment."  This is quite different than  two separate reports by Cathy Young of the events leading to her daughter's death:

“At first she was talkative, we thought she was going to be OK,” Cathy Young said. “The doctor thought she had a pretty good chance because she had gotten there quickly.”

But, the doctor cautioned, H1N1 is viral. Young was given antibiotics, but only to fight off other infections, Cathy Young said.

Her daughter’s immune system was going to have to fight it off.

Doctors determined Young needed to transfer to University Hospital, a trauma hospital better equipped to care for her. Before an ambulance could transfer her, Young’s condition worsened.

Her oxygen levels dropped. She needed a respirator to aid her breathing. Young was flown by medical helicopter to Cincinnati.

In an updated report The Toledo Blade confirms  that Young's family said she died of complications of viral pneumonia.  The fact that she suffered from a asthma would explain why viral pneumonia posed such a serious threat while Kimberly was receiving treatment.  Based on Cathy Young's timeline of events Kimberly got sick on Tuesday the 15th, sought treatment at a care center on Thursday the 17th and was reported to be feeling better Thursday after she was released.  Tuesday her fever returned and Young showed difficulty breathing, this led her roommate to drive her to the hospital.  According to Kimberly's own mother, the doctor treating her daughter thought she had gotten there quickly after showing difficulty breathing.

A careful review of the WCPO news report, which unfortunately will not embed here, shows the father's statement to be cleverly edited to create a false impression that Kimberly's insurance status was to blame.  The reporter suggests Young's death figures prominently in the national debate on health care then cuts to Bryan Young the deceased's father who is shown saying:

"This is not a joke," he said. This is hitting home to average America. I'm just an average guy

A voice over cuts off Mr. Young at this point and leads onto the discussion of the loss of Kimberly Young to swine flu.  The report then dips back in to Mr. Young saying:

"She's going to be missed by lots of people," said her father, Bryan. "I don't want another family to go through what we've gone through."

This leaves the viewer with the distinct impression Mr. Young blames his daughter's lack of health care for her death.  The voice over cuts out a significant statement that makes Mr. Young's position much clearer, however:

"This is not a joke," This is hitting home to average America. I'm just an average guy in a small town who has just lost his 22-year-old daughter to swine flu. This is a serious threat to America. It might sound a little overblown, but it isn't. I just lost my daughter."

Young is clearly stating the swine flu is the serious threat to America, not inadequate health insurance as the news report would have you believe.  

As mentioned above, this entire account of the events leading to Kimberly Young's death was available online September 23rd.  The WCPO news report on the 25th not only distorted the father's position that swine flu was a serious threat, it ignored other reports suggesting Kimberly took a turn for the worse while in treatment and rely instead on a third hand account by the roommates mother her lack of insurance may have led to her death.  TCM Live Wire and Think Progress base their arguments entirely on this same third-hand accounting of events.

It is worth a mention that under the proposed health care reform, Kimberly would have been forced to buy health care insurance at the risk of substantial fines and jail time. There is absolutely no evidence however, the outcome of Kimberly's case would have been bettter. If Democrats expect to be trusted to overhaul 1/5th of our entire economy, they might start by making honest arguments instead of politicizing the unfortunate death of a young woman.  That they do this while they also politicize the death of a census worker, frankly calls to mind the image of vultures circling the dead and dying.    Thus far, the nation seems reluctant to entrust their health care to vultures, perhaps it is time for a new strategy.

Friday Morning Links and Laughs

First the Links:

Keith Hennessey finally weighs in on Baucus Care, it's not a pretty picture. Here are two of the many startling things Keith finds in the long-awaited bill:

Nobody has asked the question, “Will the Baucus bill increase or decrease health insurance premiums relative to current law?” CBO’s analysis instead blurs the question of how much health insurance will cost, with how much you will pay for your health insurance after new subsidies and taxes. I fear that these bills will increase the cost of health insurance, then shift those costs from premium payers to taxpayers. If I am right, then the Baucus bill cuts wages. If verified by CBO, that should be sufficient to kill the bill. Somebody in Congress needs to ask CBO this question.

The combination of guaranteed issue and community rating mean the bill would dramatically lower premiums for those with predictably high health expenditures, and would dramatically increase premiums for the relatively young and healthy. When combined with an individual mandate, the Baucus bill would force younger healthier Americans to pay higher premiums to cross-subsidize older and less healthy Americans. All those 20-something staff assistants will be subsidizing their 50-something bosses.

More ObamaCare delusions by Karl in The Green Room.

Daily Uprising: Tolerance and the Left: The Root of Madfloridian’s Madness. Excellent read!

American Power Benjamin Netanyahu: 'What a Mockery of the Charter of the United Nations'

Pundit & Pundette: Descent into comedy: Our "safe schools" czar.

Now a much needed laugh:

White House, Congressional Dems and AARP Conspire to Keep Seniors From Truth about Medicare Advantage Cuts

The AP reported yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services is investigating Humana at the urging of Senator Max Baucus for daring to inform their beneficiaries of impending cuts to their Medicare Advantage programs. Baucus accuses Humana of misleading seniors:

"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject — particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform," Baucus said Monday, disclosing the HHS investigation.

Were there such a  charge as misleading seniors, who was actually doing the misleading?  President Obama denied cuts to Medicare Advantage would result in loss of coverage in his interview with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday.  A CBO analysis released this evening, however, contradicts the Presidents claim.   Director Elmendorf  states the changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans."  The White House and Congressional Dems appear to have been heavily invested in keeping this information from the seniors who would take substantial cuts in their benefits.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal , GOP  leaders are calling the investigation nothing more than a gag order.    GOP.gov states Humana was actually  in violation of a White House edict preventing insurers from communicating with their beneficiaries, an edict which applied to all but one organization, the AARP:

Yet the Administration's edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats' government takeover of health care-quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely. Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization's operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors' medical care-with Democrats' full approval.

GOP.gov explains how AARP  will benefit from the cuts to Medicare Advantage at the expense of the seniors they purport to represent:

Because the government-run Medicare benefit is less generous than most private health plans, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found in June that more than nine in ten seniors not in nursing home settings utilize some form of Medicare supplemental insurance. While many of these individuals currently rely on Medicare Advantage plans for the extra benefits they provide to seniors, many would be forced to purchase supplemental Medigap policies should their existing Medicare Advantage plans be taken away from them due to Democrats' government takeover of health care.

Michelle Malkin  elaborates on this, citing the explanation from a Hill source who also suggests seniors fare better under Medicare Advantage plans while the plans also achieve greater efficiencies and savings.  Be sure to read her entire post where she lists the complete case laid out by GOP.gov in addition to the explanation from the Hill source.  Further evidence the AARP is no stranger to selling out the seniors they represent can be found in a December article by Gary Cohn and Darrell Preston on Bloomberg.com.  Phillip Klein at The American Spectator has an emailed response from the AARP that fails to address specific charges, choosing instead to hide behind claims of scare tactics and "death panels."

Clearly the White House, Congressional Democrats and the AARP have made a concerted effort to keep the seniors who stand to lose substantial benefits in the dark until legislation is passed.  The absurd investigation of Humana suggests there are no limits to the means they will use to achieve that end.   This is far from the transparent process then candidate Obama promised health care reform would be.  Set aside the promises of hearings shown on CSpan that never materialized, gag orders and cozy agreements with AARP can only be the tip of the "dirty little secrets" iceberg.   Each new revelation should give any of the 43% who still support this debacle more than a moments pause to wonder what's next.