It turns out that the judge who is in such a hurry to pronounce the striking down of  the Affordable Health Care law bypassed high school logic when arriving at his conclusion.  Judge Henry Hudson, a conservative appointed by Bush whose Republican strategy company worked against the passage of the Health Care Reform law in 2009-2010 and whose company was paid directly for services by the Attorney General bringing the case Ken Cuccinelli, struck down the mandate portion of the Health Care Reform law in his Virginia court yesterday.  Can you say conflict of interest?????   In addition, the Judge’s lack of understanding of constitutional law resulted in an amateur mistake in his ruling. 

The following support was proffered by Hudson in his opinion:

If a person’s decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.

The Administration’s argument is as follows:

the Commerce Clause empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce; the American health care system is interstate commerce; and the Affordable Care Act regulates the health care system. As such, the ACA fits comfortably within the confines of the Commerce Clause.

The problem with Hudson’s conclusion clearly spelled out by someone who attended the first week of law school:

[Orin Kerr, a professor of law at George Washington University, on the generally conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy] notes that [Hudson's rationale] is all wrong. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce. Hudson’s argument wipes a key part of the Constitution out of existence. Kerr says Hudson “rendered [it] a nullity.”

Kerr’s co-blogger, Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler agreed, though he cautioned that Hudson’s error doesn’t necessarily imply that the mandate is constitutional.

In an interview with TPM this morning, Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University, a supporter of the mandate, called the logic on this point “completely redundant.”

“In Hudson’s opinion he basically conflates the Commerce power and the Necessary and Proper power and says that each provision in a statute has to be looked at independently from every other provision, and each provision has to be independently authorized under the Commerce Clause,” Jost said. “And if it isn’t, the Necessary and Proper Clause doesn’t grant any more authority.”

As is clear from the above argument, Judge Henry Hudson does not understand the basics of the Constitution which explains his ruling.

Take a look at this email taken directly from the “fair and balanced” news room of Fox News during the Health Care Reform fight and the public option battle specifically.  Media Matters  reports that it obtained the following email from a Faux Noise source:

1) Please use the term “government-run health insurance” or, when brevity is a concern, “government option,” whenever possible.

2) When it is necessary to use the term “public option” (which is, after all, firmly ensconced in the nation’s lexicon), use the qualifier “so-called,” as in “the so-called public option.”

3) Here’s another way to phrase it: “The public option, which is the government-run plan.”

4) When newsmakers and sources use the term “public option” in our stories, there’s not a lot we can do about it, since quotes are of course sacrosanct.

they were funneling ammunition against the overhaul through the Chamber of Commerce…to the tune of $86.2 million dollars!

Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation.

The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Philadelphia-based Cigna Corp., gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democrats were increasing their criticism of the industry, according to one person who requested anonymity because laws don’t require identifying funding sources. The Chamber of Commerce received the money from the Washington-based America’s Health Insurance Plans when the industry was urging Congress to drop a plan to create a competing public insurance option.

The spending exceeded the insurer group’s entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s $214.6 million in 2009 spending. The expenditures reflect the insurers’ attempts to influence the bill after Democrats in Congress and the White House put more focus on regulation of the insurance industry.

Democrats stop running away from health care reform.

Fifty-four percent of voters say they would be more likely to back a candidate who supported health care reform, according to the poll. That number includes 51 percent of independents and 79 percent of Democratic voters. Fifty-nine percent of Republican voters, however, say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported the legislation.

And in another poll

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking poll also found that 49 percent of the public has a “generally favorable” view of the Affordable Care Act, and 40 percent have an unfavorable view.

NOTE:Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

Today, September 23, 2010, as a result of the passage of health care reform Americans have the following protections with respect to their health insurance thanks to the Democrats in the Senate and the House.  Also today, Republicans in the House and Senate are unveiling their pledge to Americans to repeal all of the consumer protections listed below if they gain control of the House and the Senate on November 2, 2010.

These are summarized by USA TODAY:

• It is now against the law to discriminate against Children with Pre-existing conditions:“New rules prevent insurers from denying coverage to children under age 19 with pre-existing medical conditions, such as asthma or cancer.”
• It is now against the law for Insurance companies to arbitrarily rescind your insurance policy because of a clerical error made by the consumer in their initial application:  Yes insurance companies repeatedly engaged in this deceptive practice as a part of their revenue model.
• It is now against the law for Insurance companies to impose lifetime caps on benefits received:  ”The amount a plan will pay in a person’s lifetime cannot be capped.”
• It is now against the law  for insurance companies to impose ANNUAL caps on benefits: “Insurance companies with annual limits on essential health benefits must provide an increasing amount of coverage. Initially, their annual limit can be no less than $750,000, rising to $1.25 million in September 2011 and $2 million in 2012. Annual limits are prohibited in 2014.”
• The law requires the establishment of high risk pools for Americans with preexisting conditions:  “Now people will not lose their house and life savings because they have been stricken with an illness.  Americans with pre-existing conditions can now buy health insurance in on the high risk pools established in each state.”
• The law requires that Consumers receive a right to appeal coverage denial decisions made by insurance companies:  “Consumers have the right to appeal insurers’ decisions through their plans’ internal review processes, as well as to an independent, third-party reviewer.”
• A $250 Prescription Drug benefit for Seniors:  A $250 check to seniors to help close the donut hole that exists between coverge and eligibility forprescription drug benefits.
• The law requires that Consumers receive Free Preventative Care under their policy:  “Insurers must completely cover a wide range of recommended preventive services — such as immunizations, mammograms and colonoscopies — and can no longer charge co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles for them.”
• Young adults can stay on there parents insurance policies until the age of 26:   “Teens and young adults can stay on or be added to their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26. They don’t need to live with their parents or be financially dependent on them. They can even be married.”
• New $10,000 college tax credit for each child attending a 4-year college/university:  This is essentially a tax cut or tuition relief for American families with multiple children attending college.  You get the $10,000 tax credit for each child attending a 4-year college.  This was included in the health care reform bill. 

Believe it or not prior to health care reform and as late as yesterday insurance companies were rampantly engaged in the above deceptive and unconscionable practices to increase their profit margin. 

This is how BIG Insurance is lying about the health care reform law:

Sebelius sent a letter this month to Ignagni alleging that insurers are sending letters to consumers “falsely blaming premium increases for 2011″ on the health law and warning that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in partnership with states, “will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes.” 

And Republicans would like to allow Big Insurance to continue business as usual.

The GOP promises to repeal all these benefits if they take control of the House and Senate on November 2, 2010.  In fact, we currently have several attorneys general in several Republican leaning states who are litigating the overturning of the health care reform law right now. 

Did we mention that entire health care reform bill is paid for and will not add a penny to the deficit?!  The Democrats are working toward making your lives as Americans better, what are Republicans doing?  Making it easier for Big Business, Wall Street, and Big insurance to screw the consumer in the name of big profits.  Vote on November 2, 2010.

NOTE:Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

Unbelievable

“We are very optimistic that these first batch of grants are going out the door with almost full participation, very thoughtful proposals. So people are seriously interested in expanding capacity on the ground, expanding technical expertise,” Sebelius said. They are, indeed. According to my count, 19 of the 22 states that are suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the health care law applied for the grants. Below is a sampling:

– ARIZONA: “The State intends to improve their filing review process by hiring an actuarial consultant to review 95% of submissions for compliance and make recommendations regarding whether filings are unjustified or excessive.”

– VIRGINIA: “Virginia will expand the information required to be submitted with rate filings and will develop a procedures manual for the review of rate filings.”

– FLORIDA: “The State will expand the scope to include large group and out-of-State products.”

NOTE:Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

For those who have forgotten the Health Care Reform battle that went on for months some of the fruits of that labor come to bear today.  Starting today those who have been denied health care insurance or are considered uninsurable by the insurance industry can begin the process of obtaining insurance beginning today.  This administration and Congress’ high risk insurance pools are being made available to consumers starting today.  If you have been denied health insurance due to a pre-existing condition and have been uninsured for at least six months go to healthcare.govto determine whether you qualify for the high risk insurance currently being offered as a result of the health care reform bill.  This is the temporary measure designed to enable the “uninsurable” to obtain health insurance until health care reform takes full effect in 2014.   There is a limit to the amount of people who can obtain the insurance due to the limit on funds available so if you are interested then you should sign us as soon as possible so as to not miss the opportunity.

Also just in time for the new development some more good news.  The polls are improving as Americans understand the benefits of health care reform.

The Kaiser Family Foundation is the latest survey outlet to see positive movement on the health-care reform bill. In their May poll, 41 percent approved of the bill and 44 percent didn’t. Their June poll has flipped to 48 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval. That’s the fourth poll in a row to show improving numbers for the legislation: The AP and Gallup polls both flipped from plurality disapproval to plurality approval, and the NBC/WSJ poll registered a slight (2 percent, which is within the margin of error) improvement in the bill’s numbers, but remained at plurality disapproval.

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

Big Insurance, as expected, found a loophole in the Health Reform bill concerning pre-existing conditions.  The insurance industry is claiming that the HCR language does not require it to issue new policies to children with pre-existing conditions but that the new law only applies to existing policies.  Big Insurance wasted no time pointing out the alleged loophole and Kathleen Sebelius wasted no time shutting them down:

Kathleen Sebelius warned the insurance industry Monday not to look for loopholes in health care legislation and informed it that she will be writing regulations to ensure that the industry covers children with preexisting conditions, which some insurers insist is not a requirement of the law.

“The American people debated and discussed health insurance reform for more than a year. Congress and the President have acted. Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system,” writes Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary.

First, we would like to point out that we identified the problem of potential price gouging by the industry through excessive premiums for people with preexisting conditions September of  last year.  Hat tip to us.

Now for Big Insurance response to KS:

Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.

The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the bill’s passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn’t require them to accept sick children until 2014.

We are really hoping that Big Insurance keep trying to circumvent Congress’ intent because it has two very big chips that it can play at any time; the public option and the antitrust exemption.

The GOP has decided to work half days until further notice because they are upset with Democrats for passing health care reform.  So health care reform is now the law of the land and the Republican party in an act of political vengeance has decided to double down on its obstruction. Sen. John McCain even announced yesterday that Democrats should not expect any cooperation from Republican members for the rest of the year.  So Arizonans should not expect anything from McCain in exchange for that $200K salary that they are paying him.  This is truly rediculous.  Regardless of which party you’re in last I checked we do not pay politicians to holiday in a time of such economic strife.  If John McCain worked for a corporation he would be fired immediately.  This is not the playground.  People’s lives are at stake.   You lost the election, GET OVER IT!!!  Elections have consequences which means the GOP agenda will not be implemented when you have a Democratic majority.  You were hired to do the people’s business now do your job.  You’re 73 years old for goodness sake!

Reconciliation Fixes Update:

At around 3am this morning due to a couple of hiccups with the Byrd Rule the Parliamentarian struck a couple of non substantive technical provisions having to do with the education portion of the bill requiring the bill to go back to the House of Representatives for another vote.  The changes are minor and technical so the Reconciliation bill should have no problems getting through the House again.  This is pretty much a done deal.

Neither [flaw] is of any substance, but the Senate parliamentarian informed Democratic leaders that both are in violation of the Byrd Rule.

One is related to Pell Grants and the other makes small technical corrections. Why they’re in violation of the Byrd Rule doesn’t matter; the upshot is that Republicans will succeed in at least slightly altering the legislation, which means that the House is once again required to vote on it…

After the Parliamentarian Alan Frumin had advised the leadership of his ruling, the Democratic and Republican leaders huddled on the Senate floor and agreed to adjourn until 9:45 a.m…

“The Parliamentarian struck two minor provisions tonight from the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, but this bill’s passage in the Senate is still a big win for the American people. These changes do not impact the reforms to the student loan programs and the important investments in education. We are confident the House will quickly pass the bill with these minor changes,” said a statement from Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Here is the timeline and a list of  some of the benefits that Americans will receive as a result of the health care reform bill.

Immediately (within three months):

• High risk pools formed to enable a path to coverage for those previously denied coverage due to preexisting conditions
• Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums for small businesses to buy insurance for their employees
• Senior citizens receive help for prescription drugs in the form of $250 rebate checks for those who have hit the donut hole. A 50 percent discount on brand?name drugs in the donut hole in 2011; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020
• New insurance plans would have to pay full cost of certain preventative care and exempt such care from deductibles

Next three months (6 months after passage):

• Illegal for insurance companies to deny children coverage due to a preexisting condition
• Young adults can stay on their parents health care plan until the age of 26
• Illegal for insurance companies to impose LIFETIME caps on insurance benefits
• illegal for insurance companies to rescind insurance because a customer files a claim
• free preventive care under new private plans—Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co?payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. (Beginning in 2018, this requirement applies to all plans.)
• new independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions by their health insurance plan. Effective 6 months after enactment.
• Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010
• Provides aid to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals. Effective beginning in FY 2010.
• Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. Effective 6 months after enactment.
• Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

Next year (2011):

• Medicare recipients qualify for free wellness visits or preventive care. In other words, the bill eliminates co?payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program
• Insurance Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) increases to 80 percent for individual and small group market plans and increases to 85 percent for large group market plans.  Insurance companies will have to spend 80-85 percent of what it takes in in premiums on actual medical care leaving a maximum of 15 -20 percent to be used for administrative costs and profits. If an insurance company does not spend the REQUIRED MLR percentage on actual medical care the insurance company must refund the difference to the customer.
• All rate hikes must be announced and justified before being imposed on the consumer.
• Effective 90 days after passage a temporary re?insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) is created to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55?64. Effective 90 days
• Creates a long?term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled. Effective on January 1, 2011

2014

• Illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to ANYONE (not just children but also adults) due to a preexisting condition
• Tax credits for small busineses go up to 50 percent of premiums
• Joint federal-state insurance program for the poor: a family of four earning up to 30K annually in any state eligible for Medicaid
• Families of four above 30K would receive tax credits to offset the cost of buying insurance ensuring that a family of four making such amount will pay no more than 3% of its income for insurance.  A family of four earning up to 88K would receive credits so that it does not spend more than 9.5% of its insome for insurance.
• State health insurance exchanges (similar to federal government) will be up and running so that consumers can buy insurance through the exchanges.
• Illegal for insurance companies to impose ANNUAL caps on your health care benefits
• Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
• Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has pledged to file a lawsuit challenging the  health care reform law once its signed into law.  First, for all you non-lawyer tea partiers out there who are touting a violation of the Tenth Amendment as the basis for claiming unconstitutionality of the health care reform bill, the Supremacy clause in the Constitution trumps the Tenth Amendment every day.  The Supremacy clause in the Constitution establishes that the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties are the “Supreme law of the land” even if state laws conflict.  The Tenth amendment and the Supremacy clause must be read together and not in isolation when it comes to federal laws.  So all the Republican politicians who are hitting you up for donations under the guise that they will fight this as Attorney General and prove that health care reform is unconstitutional they are playing you for suckers.  Just like Chairman Michael Steele and the RNC told them to do when hitting you up for money.

Second, established law dictates that a state in and of itself  does not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law if it does not have a legal construct called “standing.”  Meaning,  to challenge a federal law a plaintiff must have been harmed in some way among other things.  If a state is not harmed in a way that legal standing requires to bring a lawsuit in federal court the lawsuit will not proceed.  Under Article III of the Constitution a state must show some sort of actual injury to have standing.  We do not see how te state of Virginia establishes standing in this case.  Individuals, however, who are adversely affected by a federal law do have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law.  In the case of an individual having standing to challenge the health care reform bill the individual must first be adversely affected by the law.  The only type of challenge that may be available in the the health care reform law and may pass the non-frivolous test concerns the individual mandate that requires citizens to buy health insurance.  If an individual decides not to buy health insurance and is assessed a penalty he/she can challenge the constitutionality of the penalty in federal court. However, the individual mandate does not kick in until 2014 therefore no individual can be harmed until 2014.  Any challenges brought before 2014 are not “ripe.” “Ripe” is another legal construct that prohibits preemptive law suits.  Because such suits are not ripe they are frivolous and done merely for political theatre and are therefore a GIGANTIC waste of taxpayer money.  A Massachussesetts citizen challenged its individual mandate and the court dismissed the case as frivolous even though it was ripe.  It is baffling that at a time when Virginia is struggling to meet its budget goals Cuccinelli wants to use state funds to bring a frivolous  lawsuit in order to try and score political points.

To be fair…these are Cuccinelli’s arguments:

The lawsuit will be filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Cuccinelli said. He indicated it wil take aim at a provision which imposes a penalty on individuals who do not purchase health insurance.“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”The General Asembly passed legislation this winter declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance, taking aim at the “individual mandate” provision in the federal law. Cuccinelli said the state legislation puts Virginia in “a unique situation that allows it the standing to file such a suit.”"The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia,” Cuccinelli said. “Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.

This is a loss cause and Cuccinelli knows it.  The Supreme court has already decided a case similar to this where a state law allowing possession of marijuana conflicted with a federal law (Controlled Substance Act) prohibiting such activity.  The Supreme Court of the United States decided that the federal law passed by Congress preventing pot possession is constitutional because the person MIGHT sell the pot in interstate commerce therefore Congress was within its powers under Article I of the Constitution.  In the case of the HCR bill, even if a person decides he/she will never buy insurance (impossible to predict), his/her decision affects ”supply and demand” in the national insurance market and would be within the realm of interstate commerce.  Conclusion,  the Supreme Court is very likely to rule exactly the same way with respect to the HCR bill.  Take a look at the marijuana case below.

In Gonzales v. Raich, a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court’s precedent “firmly established” Congress’ commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a “class of activities” with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a “class of activities”: the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use “essential” to regulating the drug’s national market.

In other words, the Commerce clause is viewed VERY broadly by the Supreme Court when it comes to Congress’ power to make laws.  And because the Supremacy clause dictates that federal law trumps state law the state law was struck down.  For those who are saying that the federal government has never mandated the American people to pay something, the government requires us to pay taxes, medicare, social security, etc.   In addition, the federal government, in the Civil Rights Act,  made business owners serve African-Americans in their business establishments as well as hire AA’s in their companies.   So the claim by these Attorneys General that the federal government has never mandated citizens to do something is rediculous.  Besides, whether Congress is prohibiting or mandating citizens to do something makes no difference.  Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce regardless of what form that regulation takes.  There is no limitation in the Constitution  distinguishing between “mandate” and “prohibit.”  Therefore such a contrast by the right wingers is a distinction without a difference.  Such claims are a waste of time, money, and energy in such tough economic times.

As the first female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi really delivered when it came to this historic achievement of comprehensive health care reform.  Speaker Pelosi not only delivered the votes once but twice in an environment that would send many people running towards safety and did.  This is one tough and effective lady and she deserves SOOOO much credit for getting health care reform passed.  It is hard to put in to words her significant contribution.  Her leadership behind the scenes convincing House members to vote for the Senate bill as is without changes and trust in her that the Senate will make the changes?  Truly effective leadership in action.   She was also instrumental in bringing health care reform back to life after most, following the Massachusetts loss, considered it dead.  Many do not understand what a huge feat that the Speaker was tasked with because she appears to do her job effortlessly and with tremendous grace.  But we can tell you that this…this was a feat of monumental proportions and Speaker Pelosi delivered.  By patiently working with her counterpart in the Senate and pushing for comprehensive health care reform when many were insisting on a scaled back Patients Bill of Rights version the Speaker stayed committed, focused, and undeterred.  She negotiated the fixes to the Senate bill with the White House and the Senate and delivered a House passed Senate bill to the President for signature. In addition to a House passed reconciliation fix to the Senate bill.  HUGE feat!

So thank you Speaker Pelosi for your phenomenal leadership and your unwavering dedication not just to get a bill passed but to get the best bill passed under the current circumstances and given the restraints and pittance that you had to work with.  As a fellow woman….you did us proud.

After over 100 years of debating and attempting health care reform the most sweeping legislation since social security, civil rights, and Medicare, officially passes!!!!  The House has just past the Senate version of the Health Care Reform bill, HR 3590, with a vote of   219-212. No Republicans voted for the bill.  Now the bill goes to the President for his signature and becomes law.  The next two votes this evening will be for the reconciliation fix, HR 4872, that needs to go back to the Senate to be passed with a simple majority vote of 50 Senators including Vice President Joe Biden or 51 without the Vice President.  Earlier today the Senate submitted a letter to the House signed by 51 Senators stating that it agrees to pass the House reconciliation fix bill which includes necessary fixes/changes to the Senate bill (law after President signs it) negotiated between the House, the Senate, and the White House.

Update:

Reconciliation fix, HR 4872 passes the House!!!  The final vote is 220 -211.  Democrats only need 216 for the bill to pass. No Republicans voted for the fix and 33 Democrats voted against.  Now this bill goes back to the Senate for its vote and if no changes or amendments are added it goes to the President for his signature.  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid says that he has the votes to put the reconciliation bill through this week.  Thus health care reform offically completes…..for now by the end of this week. O..M..G!

As conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan parroted the talking points of the GOP,  Rep. Anthony Weiner set her straight and demonstrated what happens if, as an alleged journalist, you actually do your homework.  So glad to have someone with access to the main stream media who is actually knowledgeable about that of which he speaks.  Perhaps Noonan should take note the next time she decides to mindlessly spew the nonsensical talking points of the right.

The Congressional Budget Office has spoken and concluded that this health care reform bill will be the most significant legislation effort projected to decrease the deficit since the 1990s.

• 95 percent of Americans will be covered equaling 32 million covered
• Total cost $940 billion
• Cuts the deficit by $138 billion dollars over the next ten years
• Cuts deficit over $1.2 trillion the following ten years

After being called out by Rep. Steny Hoyer for his hypocritical condemnation of the “deem and pass” provision that will be used to amend the Senate version of the health care reform bill, Eric Cantor admitted yesterday that such a procedure is proper when used in this way.  It helped that Rep. Hoyer pointed out that “deem and pass’ was used almost 100 times under Newt Gingrich and over 100 times under Speaker Hastert all the while being enthusiastically supported by Rep. Cantor the majority of those times.  Hoyer went on to explai exactly what is really going on.

HOYER: Unfortunately, the Republicans are a little bit like the boy who killed his two parents and then wants sympathy because he’s an orphan. They’ve tried to stop the passage of this bill. Slowed it up. Wouldn’t agree to go to conference, so what we’re going to do is report out what essentially is a conference report with amendments. So we’ll vote on the Senate bill in the rule and we will amend the Senate bill in the process…

Cantor sheepishly smiled at Hoyer and ultimately agreed. “Yes, Steny is right. The rules of the House allow for this type of deeming provision, it’s called a self-executing provision which means that once the bill, the rule for the next bill passes, the Senate bill is automatically is deemed as having passed,” he said. As Norman Ornstein points out, “that strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld).Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration.”

Just another day in the world of hypocrisy constantly being spun by the GOP.

As a pragmatist I understand that certain deals must be made to pass legislation.  What ticks me off is when people play myself and the American people for idiots.  Sen. Dick Durbin announced on Friday that the House reconciliation bill will not include the public option. Speaker Nancy Pelosi then comes out and says that the reconciliation will not include the public option because the Senate does not have the votes.  And the White House……”ominously” silent on this new development.  There is a political blame game going on for the benefit of the American people.  The problem is this is not a game.  People are dying due to lack of health insurance.  It seems as if each time the public option gets close to having the votes someone comes out, like Durbin/Pelosi/Rahm Emmanuel, and throws cold water on the idea by saying that the Senate does not have the votes.  In addition, the White House has not shown any public support for including the public option in the reconciliation fix.  The question is why?  Another question is why is the main stream media not asking this question?  The public option is more popular with the American people then any of the politicians in Washington including the President yet the White House and the Senate are determined not to have an up or down vote on it.  Why is that? 

We somewhat understand the impossible situation that Speaker Pelosi finds herself,  in that if she puts in the public option and Durbin does not whip the Senate votes then the House and the American people may pay a price by being stuck with the Senate version of the health care bill signed into law without the House fixes.  This would be great for the Senate because its the Senate bill that is now law and the House and the American people are left out in the cold.  So the position of the House is logical and understandable given the recent history of the Senate.

So that leaves the Senate and the White House as responsible for the lack of a public option in the Senate bill in the first instance and not being included in the reconciliation fix in the second.   The Senate cannot blame the lack of public option on the House and expect the American people to believe it when the Senate never included the public option in its bill in the first place.  The question is why is the Senate and the White House against the public option?  Is there a deal with the insurance industry that preceded this whole debate similar to the one with the pharmaceutical industry?  As I said at the top of this post, I’m a pragmatist.  However, I do not appreciate is being played.  Tell us the truth.  There is no other reason that the overwhelmingly popular public option is being excluded from the House reconciliation fix except that the fix is in with the insurance industry.  Think about it….a public option will result in more competition for insurance companies and lower premium prices for all Americans equaling less profits for Big Insurance.  As a matter of fact, the public option will likely reduce premium prices more than any other measure in the health care reform bill.  So what is the purpose of health care reform again…to prevent health care premium prices from increasing as much as fifty percent each year as has recently occurred in Detroit, Michigan.  Regardless of the fact that people cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions or be subjected to lifetime medical care caps,  if folks are charged exhorbitant prices for health insurance that the government pays if they cannot afford it only Big Insurance wins.  And that is the truth regardless of how may politicians deny it.  If we hear one more politician say that we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good I am going to scream.  A bill with a public option is not “perfect!”   It is the least that can been done to help reign in health insurance costs given that Big Insurance will receive 30 million new customers!!!!

After this protracted health care battle we do not believe that the Senate or the White House will broach the subject of health care again for quite some time.  So we would pretty much be stuck with whatever the final outcome of this bill turns out to be. 

Act now.  We need a public option in this bill to compete with private insurance companies.  Call these Senators and tell them to support a public option in the reconciliation fix. phone numbers and contact info

Sen. Max Baucus MT
Sen. Evan Bayh IN
Sen. Mark Begich AK
Sen. Robert Byrd WV
Sen. Thomas Carper DE
Sen. Kent Conrad ND
Sen. Kay Hagan NC
Sen. Tom Harkin IA
Sen. Herb Kohl WI
Sen. Mary Landrieu LA
Sen. Blanche Lincoln AR
Sen. Claire McCaskill MO
Sen. Ben Nelson NE
Sen. Mark Pryor AR
Sen. John Rockefeller WV
Sen. Jon Tester MT
Sen. Mark Warner VA
Sen. James Webb VA

UPDATE: 

We asked the question and TalkingPointsMemo,  a popular progressive site, also stepped up to ask the question (after we did btw) and dug up this New York Times article written in August 2009 discussing exactly what we thought but suspects a different third party player:

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

If this is true then pay 90 percent of private sector rates to hospitals or even private sector rates.  It will still cut out all the profit and administrative costs of Big Insurance thereby dramatically reducing premium rates for all Americans and providing competition to the health insurance industry.

Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner are the two centrist Democratic senators of Virginia and their silence on the public option reflects it even though the majority of Virginia voters disapprove of such silence.  The disapproval ratings for Sens. Webb and Warner’s handling of health care is 52 and50 percent respectively according to a new poll conducted by Research 2000.

Virginia voters were asked the following:  

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

A whopping 61 percent of all Virginia voters want a public option in the health care reform bill.  Yet Sen. Mark Warner and Sen. Jim Webb have not given their support for the measure even though the approval rating for the public option is higher than the job approval rating of both Webb and Warner.  So one would think that it would be a no brainer for these two Virginia senators to push for the public option.  Not so much.  My question is WHY???  Please call or email Senators Warner and Webb  and ask them why they are not pushing for the public option when the majority of the Virginia voters want it.  Please be sure to press them to support including the public option in health reform through reconciliation.  If you see our post here you will notice that the two Virginia Senators have not voiced their position.

Senator Jim Webb:                       Phone: 202-224-4024      Toll Free Number:    1-866-507-1570   Email

Senator Mark Warner:                Phone: 202-224-2023       Toll Free Number:    1-877-676-2759   Email

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

Will someone please tell the Republican party that the Senate version of the Health Care Reform bill was passed on December 24, 2009.  Reconciliation is only being used to amend a bill that has already been passed by the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority.  So all of these end of the world proclamations by the right are hyperbolic, disengenious, falsehoods being perpetuated in the name of political strategy.  The GOP has made a calculated decision that it is better to scare its constuents about this bill in an effort to prevent its passage because Republican members realize that if  the health care reform does pass it will improve the health care market and Democrats will receive the benefit.  This will then dramatically interfere with its efforts to win back the House and Senate in 2010.

Pure politics.

The GOP was out in full force on the Sunday talk shows pushing the same stale talking points that they have been pushing for the last year.  This bill is too big, start over, increased premiums BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.  We caught the recently annointed GOP fiscal wonder boy Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on Fox News Sunday.  Below we have deconstructed his claim that premiums will rise as a result of the health care reform bill as done by the Congressional Budget Office and the President.

REP. PAUL RYAN (WI) Wisconsin claim of Fox News Sunday 02/28/10:  “No, it’s not true [that most Americans would be paying less in premiums].  The Congressional Budget Office says they will get higher premium increases 10 to 13 percent.  Private actuaries put those premium increases in the double digit to triple digit territory.  The Blue Cross plans are telling us you’re gonna see a massive spike in premiums for people…that’s the problem.  What we’re hearing coming out of Washington and the rhetoric doesn”t match the actual facts that are underneath this legislation.”

What the CBO actually said:

According to the nonpartisan CBO, for those in large group policies there would be no increase or a up to a 3% decrease in premiums.  For those in the individual market, premiums would increase 10% to 13% BECAUSE indivuals policy buyer would get better policies [actual coverage for routine procedures like mamograms, physicals, etc.] and over half of those in the individual market would get subsidies ‘that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.”  In other words, people would receive better value for their money or ACTUAL INSURANCE COVERAGE and not junk insurance that doesn’t even cover a annual physical.

Two days later after Congressman Ryan had time to think about a response:

REP. PAUL RYAN:  “Well if you had these…..if you had subsidies sure….but lets get this point clear, we’re not going to have more insurance competition under this new law we’re gonna have less insurance competition…that’s gonna increase prices and if you put more mandates on insurance as this does….this federalizes the regulation of health insurance…displacing states rights…that’s gonna make it more expensive.  So what this bill attempts to do is…yes  make health insurance much more expensive and then just have Washington subsidize more of it to try and limit people’s out of pocket cost..that’s a deficit nightmare its a cost nightmare.  And so you will be putting more cost on to the backs of taxpayers at the end of the day here.”

President Obama’s reponse to Congressman Ryan’s argument two days prior to him making it:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.

Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer.

So the general idea has been here that we should set up some minimum standards within the exchange, that a plan that people are buying into, whether it’s a small business or an individual, should be at least solid enough that if your kid got sick, they’re actually going to be treated; that if something happened that you weren’t left with a huge bunch of out-of-pocket costs. It is true that you can always get cheaper insurance if it has really high deductibles or really high co-payments or doesn’t cover as many things. And so there has to be a balance that’s struck there. [SNIP]

More from the President:

Now, let me respond to your question. We could set up a system where food was probably cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors and we eliminated any regulations in terms of how food is distributed and how it’s stored. I’ll bet in terms of drug prices, we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn’t have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don’t kill us.

But we don’t do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives. And we have bipartisan support for doing it, because what we don’t want is a situation in which suddenly people think they’re getting one thing and they’re getting something else — they’re harmed by a product. What Secretary Sebelius just referred to — which is not a Washington thing; in fact, state insurance standards in many states are higher than anything that’s done in Washington — is as a consequence of seeing consistent abuses by the insurance companies and people finding themselves helpless to deal with.

Just to go back to the original argument that Lamar and I had and we’ve now chased around for quite some time. Look, if I’m a self-employed person who right now can’t get coverage or can only buy the equivalent of Acme insurance that I had for my car — so I have some sort of high-deductible plan. It’s basically not health insurance; it’s house insurance. I’m going to — I’m buying that to protect me from some catastrophic situation; otherwise, I’m just paying out of pocket. I don’t go to the doctor. I don’t get preventive care. There are a whole bunch of things I just do without. But if I get hit by a truck, maybe I don’t go bankrupt. All right, so that’s what I’m purchasing right now.

What the Congressional Budget Office is saying is, is that if I now have the opportunity to actually buy a decent package inside the exchange that costs me about 10 to 13 percent more but is actually real insurance, then there are going to be a bunch of people who take advantage of that. So, yes, I’m paying 10 to 13 percent more, because instead of buying an apple, I’m getting an orange. They’re two different things.

Now, you can still — you still have an option of — no, no, let me finish. The way that this bill is structured uses a high-cost pool, a catastrophic pool, for people who can’t afford to buy that better insurance, but overall for a basic package — which, by the way, is a lot less generous than we give ourselves in Congress. So I’m amused when people say, let people have this not-so-good plan, let them have a high-deductible. But there would be a riot in Congress if we suddenly said, let’s have Congress have a high-deductible plan, because we all think it’s pretty important to provide coverage for our families. And the federal health insurance program has a minimum benefit that all of us take advantage of. And I haven’t seen any Republicans — or Democrats — in Congress suddenly say, “You know what, we should have more choices and not have to have this minimum benefit.”

So what we’re basically saying is we’re going to do the same thing for these other folks that we do for ourselves — on the taxpayers’ dime, by the way. [SNIP]

But again, the one difference, as I understand it, and the reason you’re not supporting the approach that we take, is what we say is there should be sort of a minimum baseline benefit, because if not, what ends up happening is you get a company set up in Nevada — let’s assume there were no rules there, there are no protections for the woman who’s got breast cancer; they go into New York, they offer pretty cheap insurance to everybody who’s healthy; they don’t offer the same insurance to people who aren’t so healthy or have preexisting conditions. They drain from New York all the healthy people who are getting cheaper rates, but now suddenly everybody left in New York who doesn’t qualify for that cheaper plan is in a pool that’s sicker, older, and their premiums go up.

So what we’ve said is, well, if we can set a baseline, then you can have interstate competition, but it’s not a race to the bottom; rather everybody has got some basic care. [SNIP]

NEXT?

The President exposed just how disconnected the Republican party is from the average American in the following exchange with Sen. John Barasso:

Obama: “Would you be satisfied if every member of Congress just had catastrophic care – you think we’d be better health care purchasers?”

Barrasso: “I think actually we would … We’d really focus on it. We’d have more, as you say, skin in the game. And especially if they had a savings account – a health savings account – they could put their money into that, and they’d be spending the money out of that.”

Obama: “Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000. Or if that was your income? Because that’s the reality for a lot of folks.”