The head of a powerful health insurance group said her industry is addressing executive compensation issues, firing back at the White House for its recent report that highlighted the salaries of senior executives.

Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the profits of her sector pale in comparison to others.

In the wake of politically unpopular health premium increases in a handful of states, the Obama administration issued a report last month noting that the CEOs of America’s five largest insurers were each compensated up to $24 million in 2008.

Pressed on the issue in an interview taped for C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers,” Ignagni said, “This issue of executive compensation is a very important question for boards of directors in every stakeholder community and every part of our economy. And in fact, we are having those discussions. Boards of directors are increasingly through proxy kinds of initiatives in their own discussions are increasingly demonstrating that the compensation is aligned with productivity and performance. … I think this is a question that ought to be raised across the economy.”

The administration’s report stated, “Last year, as working families struggled with rising health care costs and a recession, the five largest health insurance companies — WellPoint, UnitedHealthGroup, Cigna, Aetna, and Humana — took in combined profits of $12.2 billion, up 56 percent over 2008.”

Ignagni took issue with the presentation of that number, asserting that few “go the next step” and analyze profit margins. Citing Fortune magazine, Ignagni said her industry margins are in the two to three percent range while other health industries have margins between 15 and 25 percent.

She suggested she and her member companies are ready to look “at ours versus others in the healthcare stakeholder community…We see all these questions as fair game.”

[Read more...]

By Bob Cusack
March 6th, 2010

The Heritage Foundation
How Should Conservatives Respond To The Health Care Summit?
February 27, 2010

It is yet to be seen if President Obama’s health care summit is a genuine attempt to reach out and resolve health care in a bipartisan manner, or a ruse to check the box on bipartisanship before proposing another liberal Washington takeover of health care. Recent reports that the President and Congressional leaders are secretly writing yet another bill to attach to the filibuster-proof reconciliation bill certainly indicate the latter, and if that is the case, conservatives should boycott the event, and call it out for what it really is. But if the President and Congressional leadership are committed to bipartisan reform, there are real grounds of potential agreement among Republicans and Democrats.

Help the Uninsured – First, most agree that the government should provide help to working American families who do not or cannot get health insurance through the place of work. This means changing current federal tax and insurance rules that block access to affordable coverage and undermine the portability of health insurance.

Increase Competition – Second, most agree on the need for more competitive health insurance markets and see the tremendous potential of the states to enact serious health insurance market reforms. Such reforms can dramatically expand coverage and improve safety net care for the sickest, poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens. States will experiment with different approaches. For example, states as radically different as Massachusetts and Utah have embarked on far reaching and consequential changes.

Control Costs – Third, Members of Congress must first control health care costs in the giant public programs they run, Medicare and Medicaid. They should give states more flexibility to manage Medicaid and provide care without breaking their budgets. The President has already proposed more rational subsidies for enrollees in the Medicare Drug Program and a new system of competitive bidding for Medicare Advantage plans. These Presidential proposals could be the basis of a broader reform of the entire Medicare program.

Promote Transparency – Finally, if the President’s health care summit is to result in genuine bipartisan negotiations, he should also recommit himself to supporting real transparency so that the American people can better see and understand the process before drafting any new proposals.

If the summit is to be a serious effort to arrive at a true bipartisan agreement on health care reform, a measure that will impact the lives of three hundred Americans and generations to come, the President and Congressional leaders should start with a clean sheet of paper. Americans do not want a summit that is only a public relations stunt, or a mere pretext for jamming a liberal health policy agenda through Congress outside of regular order through the arcane Senate reconciliation process

Barack Obama has wrapped up a marathon televised debate with congressional leaders on his plans for healthcare reform, but with no sign of a breakthrough on reaching a deal.

The US president called Thursday’s summit meeting in an effort to save his health reform programme and get Republicans to agree to his proposals to bring coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

But after more than seven hours of talks at the Blair House presidential guesthouse the debate ended with little movement towards an agreement.

The meeting saw Obama continue to clash with Republicans over the size and costs his proposals, with the US president arguing that reform was imperative for the future economic vitality of the US.

But Republican leaders argued instead for ditching the plans and starting again from scratch, calling for more discussions on the issue and saying that America cannot afford Obama’s bill as it stands.

That idea was firmly rejected by Obama at the end of the meeting, as he suggested that Democrats will try to pass the sweeping overhauls without Republican support.

“We cannot have another yearlong debate about this,” Obama said.

Earlier, Obama cast health care as “one of the biggest drags on our economy”, tying the health debate to an issue that is seen as even more pressing to many Americans.

Beginning Thursday's summit of 40 key Republicans and Democrats, he had urged both sides to avoid “political theatre” and focus instead on areas of agreement.

But early on he acknowledged that agreement may not be possible.

“I don’t know that those gaps can be bridged,” Obama said. “If not, at least we will have better clarified for the American people what the debate is all about.”

[Read more...]

February 25, 2010
Despite Obama’s Threat to Ditch Bipartisan Health Talks, Lawmakers Remain Divided
FOXNews.com

Yes sir Mr. President. Here is my lunch money for you to do whatever you please to do with it. (Typical liberal.)

WASHINGTON – President Obama ended Thursday’s White House summit by threatening to push for passage of health care reform without Republican support, and despite the daylong meeting with Democratic and Republican lawmakers, a a bipartisan agreement remained out of reach as lawmakers vowed to stick to their guns.

At the conclusion of the televised showdown, which was aimed at finding common ground between the two political parties, Obama said Republicans had only a matter of time to decide if they would jump onboard.

“If we’re unable to resolve differences over health care, we will need to move ahead on decisions,” he said, alluding to using reconciliation, a controversial maneuver that prevents a GOP filibuster by requiring only 51 votes to pass legislation.

Obama added that if voters are unhappy with results, then “that’s what elections are for.”

But Republican leaders expressed doubt after the meeting that a bipartisan agreement could be reached.

“It’s not going to be possible with that kind of an approach to come together within the timeframe that he indicated if he insists…on starting with this 2,700-page bill, then tweaking it to adopt some of our ideas,” said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No 2. Republican in the Senate.

“I don’t think there will be Republican support,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., flatly declared.

Democratic leaders, meanwhile, seemed eager to take the president up on his threat and abandon the prospect of a bipartisan bill.

“The president said we have to do something very soon and I agree with him,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “We’re willing to work with him but time is of the essence. The American people waited five decades for this. It’s time we do something and we’re going to do it.”

The summit, in which three dozen lawmakers participated, made clear that both sides agreed that the health care system needed to be fixed, but they sharply diverged on how to do it.

Republicans remained adamant that their incremental approach reflected the will of the people and wouldn’t break the bank while Democrats insisted that sweeping health care reform was the only way to fix the system.

Yet Obama held out hope that the two parties could find common ground.

“I thought it was worthwhile for us to make the effort,” he said in his closing remarks. But he rejected the Republican argument to use a step-by-step approach.

“It turns out that baby steps don’t get you where you need to go,” he said. “If we saw significant movement, not just gestures, then you wouldn’t need to start over because everyone here knows what the issues,” he said. “We cannot have another yearlong debate on this.”

Republicans opened the summit by urging Obama to “start over” on health care reform and to renounce an unusual move to sidestep a GOP filibuster.

Democrats responded by repeatedly highlighting several points of agreement on health care reform with the GOP in an effort to show that it made no sense to start over again. They also cast the reform they want as critical to tackling an issue that is even more pressing to many Americans — the struggling economy.

Yet Democrats were unable to overcome the points of disagreement that prevented a bipartisan breakthrough.

Early on in the summit, the president clashed with Republicans over whether his health care proposal, which is modeled after the Senate version that passed on Christmas Eve, would lower premium rates.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said the Congressional Budget Office, which is the official scorekeeper on Capitol Hill legislation, noted that premiums will rise in the individual market under the Senate bill.

Obama shot back that Alexander’s claim was “not factually accurate,” arguing that premiums would go down 14 to 20 percent for families who keep their same coverage.

“What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they’ve got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they do right now,” Obama said. “That might be 10 to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance they had previously.”

The heated exchange set the tone for a meeting that Democrats dominated by speaking for most of the morning session, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who at one point noted that Democrats had spoken for 56 minutes compared to 24 minutes for Republicans.

But Republicans used their limited time to repeatedly slam the Democratic health care bill, with a harsh critique coming from Sen. John McCain, Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential race.

McCain blasted the steps Democrats have taken over the past year to advance the legislation, including striking backroom deals with the drug manufacturing lobby, and other arrangements that favored certain states with reluctant Democratic senators.

“I hope that would be an argument for us to go through this 2,400-page document, remove all the special deals for the special interests that favor the few and treat all Americans the same … so that they will know that geography does not dictate what kind of health care they would receive,” McCain said.

Obama told McCain that they’re no longer campaigning.

“The election is over,” Obama said.

“I’m reminded of that every day,” McCain said with a laugh.

Throwing diplomacy to the wind, House Minority Leader John Boehner came out swinging during the second half of the summit, telling Obama that he believes the Democratic version of health care reform would “bankrupt our country” and is a “dangerous experiment.”

“We may have problems in our health care system but we do have the best health care system in the world by far and having the government take over health care… is a dangerous experiment with the best health care system in the world that I don’t think we should do.”

N.L. Premier Williams set to have heart surgery in U.S.

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. — Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

“He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done,” said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

“In consultation with his own doctors, he’s decided to go that route.”

Mr. Williams’ decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada’s health-care system.

“It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province,” said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media.

“The premier has made a commitment that once he’s through this procedure and he’s well enough, he’s going to talk about the whole process and share as much detail with you as he’s comfortable to do at that time,” she said.

Ms. Dunderdale wouldn’t say where in the U.S. Mr. Williams is seeking treatment.

A popular Progressive Conservative premier, Mr. Williams has also seen his share of controversy. During the 2008 federal election, Mr. Williams vehemently opposed the Conservative government, launching his “Anything But Conservative” — which has been credited with keeping the Tories from winning any seats in the province.

He’s also drawn criticism for his support of the seal hunt.

NationalPost.com

White House Still Weighing Whether to Push Health Care Through Congress
FOXNews.com
January 24, 2010

The clueless White House is unable to decipher the meaning of Massachusetts voters who spoke for the fiscally-sane of the nation last week. How pathetic is this little league administration? Answer; very. Hint to the White House: It is Kiddie Economics 101: fourth grade. (Sorry fourth graders, I am not trying to insult you.)

The White House is evaluating whether to take a breather on health care or try to push for passing legislation, but is not convinced Massachusetts voters were trying to block health insurance reform by voting last week to send Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

Gibbs said discussions are happening now on timing and whether it is now or in a few months after Congress works on job creation.

“We’re working with leaders on Capitol Hill to try to figure out the best path forward,” Gibbs told “Fox News Sunday.” We don’t know what that is quite yet … The problems that existed in American health care that existed a year ago or a week ago continue today.”

The Senate election Tuesday in Massachusetts gave Republicans the victory they needed to block the Democratic health care bill from passing the Senate as Brown becomes the critical 41st vote in procedural moves to end debate. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded she did not have enough votes in the House to pass a Senate version that already has made it through that chamber. Doing so would avoid bringing Brown into the equation.

Gibbs said that Brown may have campaigned on stopping the health care bill but that’s not why voters elected him over Democrat Martha Coakley.

“More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him,” Gibbs said.

“Seventy percent of the voters in Massachusetts wanted to work with Democrats on health care reform, only 28 percent want to stop health care reform from happening. … If Republicans want to assume that the outcome of what happened in Massachusetts is a big endorsement of their policies when 40 percent are enthusiastic about them and 58 percent are angry about them, then I hope this misread that election as badly as anybody could,” Gibbs said.

Obama adviser David Axelrod said voters want Republicans to work with Democrats to fix problems in the health care system, not to obstruct those efforts. He added that it would be politically foolish for lawmakers who supported the overhaul so far to walk away from it now.

But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said if Democrats try to jam through health care “then November 2010 will be a very good month for us.”

The Massachusetts voters weren’t talking about tactics, they weren’t talking about communication strategy they were talking about policies that they disagree with,” Cornyn said. “If the White House and the Democrats didn’t get that message then I think they really missed the point on what happened in Massachusetts.”

January 21, 2010
Pelosi: Not Enough Votes to Pass Senate Health Bill in House
FOXNews.com (AP)

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she does not have the votes to pass the Senate’s version of a health insurance bill that is now in severe jeopardy of being scrapped.

Just days ago, that was the most viable option for keeping alive President Obama’s top domestic priority, but with the election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, the fragile coalition of Democrats has broken apart as lawmakers bicker over which portions of the $900 billion, 10-year Senate bill they will and won’t accept.

Emerging from a closed-door meeting with her caucus, the House speaker vented frustration with the massive version of the legislation.

“In its present form without any changes I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “I don’t see the votes for it at this time.”

Among the issues that House lawmakers are unwilling to accept is the 40 percent excise tax on high-value insurance plans that unions earned an exemption from until 2018 after major backlash toward the Democratic-led Congress.

Lawmakers are now looking at options that were left on the drawing board as the party looks to pursue a more modest bill. Senior House Democratic aides say they are evaluating the potential of taking parts of the existing bill and passing it in a piecemeal fashion. But they say privately there is no roadmap and they don’t expect to have a decision for a couple of weeks.

Pelosi didn’t present a blueprint for how Democrats might proceed on health care, except to say that “everything is on the table.”

“We’re not in a big rush. We’ll pause,” Pelosi said. “We have to know what our possibilities are.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

January 8, 2010
FoxNews.com

This is the last part of a five-part series on health care reform.

Middle ground is hard to come by on the issue of abortion, and the health care debate is no exception.

The House and Senate, entering what may be the final weeks of health care talks, are still struggling to come up with a compromise that will settle disagreements over how best to ensure public dollars do not go toward funding abortion coverage.

The bills in both chambers are distinctly different when it comes to abortion funding. The House sets up a veritable brick wall between taxpayer funds and abortion providers. The Senate, critics say, provides too many openings for public money to fund abortion.

“There’s either funding for abortions or there isn’t,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. “There really isn’t a middle ground on the issue.”

A big problem in resolving the dispute is that the Senate is already on record opposing the kind of strict provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needed in her bill in order for it to pass.

Pelosi, an abortion rights supporter, was only able to pass a health care bill after allowing a vote on tough abortion language sponsored by Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak.

The move won her 40 Democratic votes she easily could have lost if the restrictions had not been included. Even with them, the House bill only passed by five votes, leaving little room for compromise.

Yet anti-abortion forces in the House are not happy with the Senate bill, which has looser restrictions. The package would require that insurance companies segregate any federal subsidies so that only private funds from customers are used for abortion coverage. It would also have companies charge a specific fee dedicated for abortion coverage, which has angered some groups.

In addition, at least one plan in the state-by-state insurance exchanges would have to offer abortion coverage, unless a state individually opts out — which isn’t easy.

“Each state, if they want out of the abortion mandates that are in the Senate plan, would have to pass their own laws to get out of funding abortion,” Yoest said.

Abortion-rights supporters in the Senate, which helped defeat a Stupak-style provision before the full chamber voted on health care in December, are determined not to let the House language leak into their bill.

But will House members who voted for the Stupak amendment accept anything less?

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., suggested moderates would be insistent.

“The exclusion has to remain in place — no taxpayers dollars can be used to fund abortions,” he said.

The question is whether the House and Senate can find some middle ground that won’t lose votes from one group or the other.

House Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment concede the Senate won’t accept that specific language.

“We know what can and cannot be done in the Senate, so the question is can we come up with other language that will be acceptable to uphold the status quo?” said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

Analysts say some of the Democrats who supported the Stupak provision would consider other language, depending on the rest of the bill.

“Not all of them are going to be Stupak or bust,” said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy with Third Way. “A lot of the folks … they wanted to see to make sure that there wasn’t an expansion of abortion coverage, and they’d certainly be willing to take a compromise.”

But Kessler said there may be 10 to 15 House Democrats that absolutely will not support health care reform if it contains the Senate language. That would be too many defectors, since health care reform cannot pass the House a second time if Pelosi loses three or more votes.

The Heritage Foundation – Leadership for America
The Foundry Morning Bell: Obama’s Other Broken Health Care Promises
January 6th, 2010

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) emerged from a closed-door meeting with top House Democratic leaders yesterday, the press asked her about C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb’s request that she permit cameras to televise the final health care negotiations between the House and Senate. After Pelosi first demurred, a reporter reminded Pelosi about President Barack Obama’s frequent promises to the American people throughout 2008 that he would ensure C-SPAN was allowed to televise exactly such negotiations, to which Speaker Pelosi quipped: “There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

Speaker Pelosi is right: President Obama’s broken health care promises are legendary. According to reports, Speaker Pelosi wasn’t even referring to Obama’s whopper from last month that he never campaigned on the public option. No, Speaker Pelosi is apparently most upset with Obama’s support for the Senate’s tax on high cost health plans, which she believes is a violation of Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. But really, President Obama’s current health care plan breaks so many of his previous health care promises, there is no need for Pelosi to have to name just one. Here are just some of the other major promises President Barack Obama has broken:

Individual Mandate: There were not a lot of actual policy fights in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary, but one of the few major policy disagreements between then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was over the individual mandate. Clinton was for it and Obama was against it. On January 31, 2008, Obama made the case against mandates in a Los Angeles, CA, debate: “Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don’t end up having health coverage. I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.” Both the House and Senate bills now contain an individual mandate. According to the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, under the Senate plan, 19 million Americans would pay $29 billion in taxes/fines and still receive no health care in return.

You Will Not Lose Your Doctor: On June 15, 2009, President Obama promised the American people: “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” Again, the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirms that the current Senate health bill breaks this promise. Seventeen million Americans will be forced out of their existing health insurance. Worse, the CMS explains that continued Medicare cuts will encourage more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients entirely, and the 18 million people added to Medicaid will also make it next to impossible for those already on Medicaid to find a doctor who will treat them.

No Tax Hikes for People Making Less than $250,000: On February 24, 2009, President Barack Obama promised the American people: “if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” Speaker Pelosi believes the Senate bill’s excise tax on insurance plans breaks this promise, and she is right. But it is not the only way that Obamacare shatters the President’s no-middle-class-tax-hike pledge. There are a slew of new taxes in the Senate bill, many of which will hit the middle class, including taxes on medical devices, tanning beds, insurance user fees, and brand name drugs (not to mention the individual mandate which is enforced by a tax or the employer mandate which kills jobs and punishes the poor).

Your Health Premiums Will Be $2,500 Lower: On October 15, 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) promised the American people: “The only thing we’re going to try to do is lower costs so that those cost savings are passed onto you. And we estimate we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, Americans in large-group employer-sponsored plans would, on average, see their premiums remain flat, while individuals who purchase insurance in the non-group market would see much higher premiums in 2016 under Obamacare than they would under current law. And many believe those estimates are optimistic. According to the Lewin Group, once fully implemented, health care spending per worker will increase for all employers who do not currently offer coverage — $316 per worker under the Senate bill and $800 increase per worker under the House bill.

Health Reform Reduces the Deficit: On September 10, 2009, President Barack Obama promised the American people: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” Even the President’s most ardent supporters are now admitting the Senate bill is full of budget gimmicks to make it appear Obamacare will reduce the deficit. When the true cost of Obamacare is considered, the final tab comes to $2.5 trillion with an honest accounting of Medicare reimbursement rates netting a $765 billion deficit all by itself.

Tax Payer Funded Abortion: On September 10, 2009, President Barack Obama promised the American people: “No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” While the House bill’s Stupak amendment language fulfills this promise, the Senate’s Nelson compromise does not. If the Senate language were to become law, it would overturn the precedent set by the Hyde Amendment, the FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan), Military insurance through TRICARE, and the Indian Health Service. Your taxdollars most definitely would be paying for elective abortions.

No one expects a President to fulfill 100% of his promises. But when the failures to live up to your past pledges pile so high, it shouldn’t be any surprise that the American people have turned so strongly against President Obama’s health care plan.

The Heritage Foundation – Leadership for America
The Foundry
The Health Care Fight is Not Over
December 28th, 2009

Although the left has been celebrating the passage of Obamacare in the Senate as further evidence that the President’s health care reform initiative is a done deal the health care reform fight is not over. The truth is that this bill can not yet be transmitted to the President until very different versions of Obamacare are reconciled. The House and Senate must agree on what to send to the President for his signature before this fight is over.

There are key differences between the House and Senate approaches to Obamacare as explained by Nina Owcharenko and Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D. in a paper published by the Heritage Foundation lists 6 key differences between the two bills. Procedurally, the House passed a version of Obamacare with a public option, an income surtax and with strong language forbidding the use of federal monies to fund abortion. The Senate chose not to take up the House bill and passed a version of Obamacare with no public option, taxes on expensive health care plans and with weak language forbidding the use of federal funds for abortion. Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have since blocked the appointment of conferees to reconcile the differing versions of Obamacare. The options liberals have to get the bill to the President’s desk are therefore limited.

The Senate refused to take up the House bill and many claimed that the House bill was dead on arrival in the Senate. Presumably the Senate bill can’t pass the House, because of the more liberal abortion language, the radically different tax provisions and the lack of a public option. That leaves a so called “ping-pong” strategy where the House can either take up and pass the Senate version of Obamacare or they can take up the Senate bill, amend it, then send it back to the Senate. The Senate would then have the same option: take up and pass or amend and send back to the House. This ping-pong between chambers can happen a few times before the issue loses steam or the bill gets sent back and forth too many times to comply with the rules of the House and Senate.

Don’t forget that the American people absolutely hate this bill. Owcharenko and Moffit write “even if concessions and compromises can be made between the Senate and House versions, public opinion is solidifying against the legislation. A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 34 percent of voters say passing a health care bill is better than doing nothing. This is on the heels of a CNN poll that found 61 percent opposed to the bill and a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that found that only 32 percent think the health care bills are a “good idea.” Even though both the House and Senate have passed very unpopular bills, it is possible that some of these members will actually listen to their constituents and realize that support for this initiative may be the functional equivalent of political suicide.

Any way you slice it, Obamacare still has a difficult path to the President’s desk, because either the Senate or the House will have to back away from their position on important issues. The liberals are 75% down the road to government control of health care, yet they still need to make it that last 25% of the way. For those who have given up hope, you may be correct to say that this is a done deal, but many Members of Congress would have to back away from strong policy stands on the public option, taxes on health care plans, and abortion for Obamacare to get to President Obama’s desk in time for a victory lap at his State of the Union speech.

FOXNews.com
December 23, 2009

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of “Bernie Madoff accounting” for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of “Bernie Madoff accounting” for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

As the Senate prepares for a crucial vote before final passage of a massive overhaul bill that Democrats argue will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years, Sen. Jeff Sesssions, R-Ala, said the nearly $500 billion in cuts to Medicare actually will add $300 billion to the deficit

“The real score on this legislation is that it would cause the deficit to increase, and not be a surplus as the president has promised,” Sessions told Fox News. “And a lot members of our Congress have said I won’t vote for this bill unless it’s deficit neutral. It’s not deficit neutral. It will add to the debt. That’s clear today.”

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., added, “This is Bernie Madoff accounting and it’s an outrage.”

The senators also spoke at a news conference just hours before the Senate was to take up a procedural vote before a final passage vote Thursday.

“I think it’s a potential game changer,” Sessions said.

“The seniors have been had and our kids our gonna get the bill,” Gregg said. “We’re talking here about double-counting, spending the same money twice in order to create a massive new entitlement that has nothing to do with seniors.”

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed the CBO letter dealt explicitly with Medicare, not the overall short and long term budgetary impact of the legislation. But the spokesman did not address the accusation of double counting.

“The statements in CBO’s December 19th letter about the federal budgetary commitment to health care remain correct,” said spokesman Jim Manley. “After 2019, the effects of the proposal that would tend to decrease that commitment would grow faster than those that would increase it.

“As a result, the CBO expects that the proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following the 10-year budget window.”

Sessions reached his calculations after speaking to CBO Director Doug Elmendorf.

In his letter to Sessions, Elmendorf wrote that government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don’t generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

“The key point is that the savings to the (Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs,” Elmendorf wrote.

“To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” he wrote.

Sessions said the cuts to Medicare can extend the government program or create money for a new entitlement program — but not both.

“Either you’ve weakened the Medicare substantially or you’re going to have no money to spend on the new program that’s being created,” he said. “You cannot spend this money twice.”

The news comes as Democrats push the Senate health care bill past the last of three procedural votes Wednesday afternoon. Final passage of the bill is set for Thursday morning, Christmas eve, making the 25th consecutive day of Senate debate on health care.

Once passed, the bill would have to be merged with a House version before President Obama could sign it into law.

Feeling confident about the prospect of passage, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, listed benefits to be seen within the first six months after passage, including getting coverage for children diagnosed with pre-existing conditions, tax credits for small businesses looking to purchase health insurance, no co-pays for preventive services, free check-ups for seniors and reduced prices for prescription drugs through Medicare.

December 22, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

CNSNews.com – Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the “compromise” abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Stupak had contact with the White House last weekend, when the Senate voted 60 to 40 in the wee hours of Monday morning to shut off debate on the Senate version of the bill.

The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion, but does create a firewall to supposedly keep federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Over the weekend, Stupak issued a statement calling the proposed Senate language “unacceptable.”

“A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage,” said the statement.

In his interview with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, Stupak said that the White House “asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language. But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.’ Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed.”

Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.

“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care.”

When asked if he has the votes he needs to stop the bill if, in its final version, it does not include the language of his amendment or nearly identical language, Stupak did not answer directly.

“Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion,” said Stupak. “There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants a vote on a final bill before Christmas. After that, a House-Senate conference could convene in early January to merge the Senate and House versions of the bill and lead to a final vote by both chambers.

A transcript of CNSNews.com’s interview with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) follows below:

CNSNews.com: “Now, I understand that you were in contact with the White House or the White [House] was in contact with you, I guess over the weekend. What kinds of pressure are you under, let me ask you that?”

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): “Well, from the House leadership or the White House – a lot of pressure. They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language. Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

Rep. Stupak: “They asked me just to hold off for a while and not to say anything about this language. But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.’ Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed. There are three ways in which the bill dramatically deviates from current law.”

Rep. Stupak: “So we’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief, and we’re just not – that’s just not us, I mean, we’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care.”

CNSNews.com: “So, to go back and ask you again, do you have the votes needed to stop the bill, if it comes to that?”

Rep. Stupak: “Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained and no public funding for abortion, they’re not gonna’ vote for the bill. There’s 10 or 12 of us — they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”

The Price Is Right? Payoffs for Senators Typical in Health Care Bill
FOXNews.com
December 20,2009

While Sen. Ben Nelson got a particularly juicy concession — permanent and full federal aid for his state’s expanded Medicaid population — in the health care bill, support from a slew of other senators likewise came with its price.

Sen. Ben Nelson’s hardly the only lawmaker extracting sweetheart deals out of the health care reform bill.

While the Nebraska Democrat got a particularly juicy concession in exchange for a “yes” vote on the 10-year, $871 billion package — permanent and full federal aid for his state’s expanded Medicaid population — support from a slew of other senators likewise came with a price.

Western states got more money for hospitals that serve Medicare patients. Louisiana got up to $300 million in Medicaid benefits. The list goes on.

Senate Republicans lined up Saturday to decry the latest deal targeted toward Nebraska, which was decried as the “cornhusker kickback.”

“Votes have been bought,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.

But Senate Democrats said the payoffs are nothing unusual, and in fact typical.

“People fight for their own states. That’s the nature of a democracy,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said on “Fox News Sunday,” defending Nelson against withering attacks from the GOP.

“This is just part of the normal legislative process,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

As a measure of just how typical they are, a slew of payoffs and concessions have been struck over the past several months.

– Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state’s Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the “Louisiana Purchase,” though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.

– Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money — a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.

– Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population “frontier” states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming — the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify. The legislative language defines frontier states as states where at least 50 percent of the counties have fewer than six people per square mile. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the “special deal,” telling “Fox News Sunday” that those five states were getting an increase in reimbursements because they get the lowest amount in the country. “That doesn’t offend me at all,” he said. “It’s in fact, fair.”

– Florida, New York and Pennsylvania — where five of six senators are Democrats — will have their seniors’ Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere.

– Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.

– One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state’s only “public academic medical and dental school.” It’s unclear for which state that language was written.

– Nebraska’s Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state’s expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska’s benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that.

Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman didn’t extract any payoffs for Connecticut. Rather, he succeeded in stripping the government-run insurance plan from the Senate health bill, along with a proposed expansion of Medicare that he recently said he opposes.

Fox News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Nelson Accused of Selling Vote on Health Bill for Nebraska Pay-Off
FOXNews.com
December 20, 2009

What started as Sen. Ben Nelson’s personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state — drawing criticism that his vote was bought.

The Nebraska Democrat, following weeks of negotiations with his caucus, finally agreed to back the Senate’s health care reform bill this weekend after Democratic leaders made a series of concessions. Nelson’s support gives Democrats the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster, barring any last-minute defections.

But critics by Sunday were heavily questioning Nelson’s motivations, given that the abortion restrictions he sought and won did not satisfy several major anti-abortion lawmakers and groups and that it took a major federal payoff to his state to seal the deal.

Critics were calling it the “cornhusker kickback” and the “Nebraska windfall,” lobbing accusations of political deal-making at Nelson.

“It’s pretty obvious that votes have been bought,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.

Nelson did win restrictions on abortion coverage, which is what he sought for weeks. Under the compromise, states would be permitted to ban insurance coverage of abortions in policies sold in the exchanges, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. In states where such coverage is permitted, consumers must notify their insurance company they want it, and pay for it separately.

That didn’t do much to please some anti-abortion lawmakers. But Nelson also won several other concessions, most notably a commitment from the federal government to fully fund his state’s expanded Medicaid population. All states get full federal assistance for the first three years of the bill — but Nebraska would be the only state getting full assistance afterward. One Democratic official put the cost to the federal government at $45 million over a decade.

Democratic senators defended the Nebraska deal. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said all states get a lot of federal aid for Medicaid anyway, and that special treatment is hardly unique to Nebraska.

“Personally, every state gets some kind of differential treatment based on their situation,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

“People fight for their own states. That’s the nature of a democracy,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Nelson’s victory came at the expense of the other 49 states.

“That puts an added burden on all the other states, including mine,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The concessions didn’t end there. Nelson also got an exemption from a fee on non-profit health insurers — the language was written in a way that only applies to Nebraska and Michigan.

Plus an extra tax on tanning was added, along with an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for those making more than $200,000.

The Nelson deal came shortly after Democratic leaders had to forego a government-run insurance plan, and a proposed expansion of Medicare eligibility, to win over Independent Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

McCain suggested the Obama administration wouldn’t be in such a position if it had governed in a more bipartisan way.

“That’s why they’re in the position of having to purchase the last vote or two,” McCain said.

Fox News’ Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Ben Nelson’s Medicaid Deal
December 19, 2009
Politico.com and NewsBusters.com

Sen. Mary Landrieu got the “Louisiana Purchase.” Sen. Ben Nelson got the federal government to pick up most his state’s future Medicaid tab — forever.

As part of the deal to win Nelson’s support, the federal government will pay for Nebraska’s new Medicaid recipients. It’s a provision worth about $45 million over the first decade.

Medicaid is usually paid for with a mix of federal and state funding, but Nelson’s carve out means that any Medicaid beneficiaries who join the program after the bill passes will be paid for in full by the federal government.

It’s a sweet deal considering that many governors are worried that the Medicaid expansion will further strain already stressed state budgets.

The deal is emblematic of the kind of horse trading that gets done to win votes on any landmark piece of legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent $300 million in Medicaid funds to Louisiana as a sweetener to secure Landrieu’s vote to begin debate on the bill.

Nelson would not comment on the provision, saying that he would leave it to Reid to discuss details.

“I’m comfortable it is taken care of,” he said of his state.

Nelson also struck a deal on abortion funding that allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the new insurance exchanges and requires that health plans that provide abortion services segregate the premiums from federal funds so that taxpayer money doesn’t pay for abortions.

The Democrat from Nebraska also ensured that non-profit insurers are exempted from the bill’s $6 billion annual excise tax on insurers. And Nelson won a concession to index for inflation the $2,500 cap on contributions to flexible health spending accounts.

With Budoff Brown of Politico

by Nina Owcharenko
The Heritage Foundation
December 18,2009

Congress will soon unveil legislation to reform the health care system. The policies outlined by President Obama during his campaign and those being discussed in Congress would centralize control over the health care system in Washington.

The chief danger of this approach is that it would directly interfere in the personal health care decisions of Americans. There is a much better alternative: a system that recognizes diversity across the states and differences in individual health care needs and preferences.

A Consensus on the Problems

There is little disagreement that the current health care system needs an overhaul. Today, health care costs continue to rise while people have fewer choices and are less secure that the coverage they have today will be there tomorrow. The U.S. spends over $2.4 trillion on health care (almost 17 percent of GDP), and the government accounts for almost one-half of all health care spending.[1]

Premiums continue to rise in the private sector. Employer-based family coverage has increased from an average of $6,438 in 2000 to $12,680 in 2008.[2] The government health programs are not faring much better. According to recent CMS Actuary calculations, Medicare and Medicaid spent $818 billion in 2008 and are projected to reach $1.7 trillion by 2018.[3]

Americans are also facing fewer choices. Today, 85 percent of all employers offer only one health plan for their employees.[4] Similar restrictions on personal choice face enrollees in government programs. In Medicaid, 23 percent are not accepting new Medicaid patients, and 18 percent are accepting only some.[5] In Medicare, serious legislative efforts are underway that will likely chip away at seniors’ access to the private plans they want in Medicare.[6]

Finally, Americans feel less secure about the future of their health care coverage. With the economic recession, Americans recognize they are one paycheck away from losing their health care coverage. Fifteen percent of Americans are without coverage. The uninsured are not a homogeneous group, but they tend to be disproportionately young, a member of a minority group, and working for small firms.

Most important, while the percentage of those without coverage remains constant, the individuals are not the same. As a matter of fact, 45 percent of uninsured are uninsured for less than four months; only 16 percent are uninsured for more than 18 months.[7] This churning in the health insurance markets, and the lack of portability, is almost entirely the result of outdated government policies.

Two Competing Health Care Visions

There is also general agreement on the outcomes Americans are looking for in any health care reform proposal: affordability, accessibility, portability, and quality. But there is less agreement on policy path for reform.

On one side, there are those who believe that centralizing power in Washington is the best approach to achieve serious and long-lasting health care reform. Their policy prescriptions call for federalizing and heavily regulating health insurance. Proposals for a new public health plan and a federal health insurance exchange, as well as an individual mandate to purchase a government-approved package of benefits, clarify their intent: Washington control over health care financing and delivery.

The result, regardless of stated intentions to the contrary, is that the Congress would ultimately be in charge of health care decisions. It would result in a massive one-size-fits-all government system, and it would depend on flawed financing schemes, new mandates, and higher taxes to pay for it.

On the other side, there are those who believe that individuals and families should be the key decision-makers in health care and that they should control the flow of health care dollars in a reformed system. They are concerned that a centralized system of federal decision-making would:

•Diminish individuals’ control over their personal health care decisions;
•Directly undermine state autonomy and authority in health policy, undercutting both innovation and experimentation to expand coverage and deliver quality care, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens;
•Generate and perpetuate unsustainable federal spending; and
•Ultimately, in the face of serious budget crises, lead to government rationing of care and services.
Key Elements for a Workable Solution

Members of Congress serious about improving the health care system must find a way to bridge the gap between these two competing visions. There are three critical elements that could bring about a workable solution for lasting health care reform.

1. Tax Equity. The cornerstone of any serious health care reform proposal must address the tax treatment of health insurance. Today, individuals who purchase coverage through their place of work receive an unlimited tax break on the value of their health care benefits. However, those who purchase coverage on their own receive no comparable tax break.

There is broad bipartisan agreement, especially among health care economists and experts, that the current tax treatment of employer-based coverage is inequitable and regressive. Ideally, Congress should replace the current tax exclusion with a system of universal tax credits. Moreover, as a general principle, Congress should provide tax relief for those who purchase coverage on their own and redirect other health care spending to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance coverage.

2. State-Based Reform. The health care challenges vary greatly across the country. Some states face high health care costs, while others face high rates of uninsurance. And, rural states face different challenges than urban states.

Instead of depending on a federal one-size-fits-all solution, Congress should embrace a federal-state partnership that would preserve diversity in the states. The states’ role would be to devise the best ways to achieve common national goals–for example, to establish a mechanism for portability. This is in sharp contrast to other state-based approaches where the federal government sets explicit requirements and imposes on the states the onerous task of administering its federal reform. These types of partnerships are little more than a backdoor way to a one-size-fits-all federal plan.

3. Sound Financing. The U.S. spends over $2.4 trillion on health care. Instead of spending an additional $1.6 trillion on a plan financed by tax increases and unproven savings from Medicare and Medicaid that may never materialize, Congress should restructure and redirect existing health care spending to make it more effective. To address long-term health care costs, Congress must focus on fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health insurance and entitlements. At the very least, Congress should require that savings be realized before appropriating them to any expansions.

Creating a Lasting Health Care Reform

Members of Congress have a choice: Either they can support efforts that expand Washington’s control of the health care system, or they can allow the states to develop solutions that will transfer direct control of health care dollars and personal health care decisions back to individuals and families. The choice should not be that hard.

Nina Owcharenko is Deputy Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

All eyes were on the only known Democratic holdout, moderate Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, whose primary concern is that abortion funding restrictions in the bill were too lax.

(AP)

WASHINGTON — It’s one of the oldest spectator sports in American politics: Democrat vs. Democrat. Welcome to the health care overhaul edition.

With just days remaining to prove that they can meet a self-imposed Christmas deadline and pass President Barack Obama’s signature initiative through the Senate, Democrats seeking a rendezvous with history instead detoured to an intraparty brawl.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was poised to release the latest version of the Senate legislation as early as Friday, but it was unclear what kind of reception he’d get. Labor leaders said the bill was soft on the insurance industry, and former party chairman Howard Dean said he’d vote against it if he were a senator.

All eyes were on the only known Democratic holdout, moderate Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, whose primary concern is that abortion funding restrictions in the bill were too lax. Nelson indicated Thursday he still was not happy but would keep talking with Reid, who needs 60 votes to push through Republican opposition.

Nelson, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, was vague throughout the day about his intentions, eventually telling reporters, “I hope we’re getting closer” to agreement.

“Without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient,” he said earlier in the day in a written statement that summarized the results of days of private negotiations. The second-term Nebraskan opposes the procedure and wants tighter restrictions written into the overhaul.

Any hopes the bill’s supporters had of a Republican casting a critical 60th vote vanished when Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine said after a meeting with Obama that the Democrats’ timetable for a pre-Christmas vote was “totally unrealistic.”

Republicans, who have been going all out to kill the bill, couldn’t believe what they were hearing from Democrats.

“If you live long enough, all things can happen,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the Senate floor. “I now find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Howard Dean, who says that we should stop this bill in its tracks. … Dr. Dean, I am with you.”

Former President Bill Clinton came to the defense of the Senate bill. Clinton, whose ambitions were humbled by the collapse of his own health care remake, reminded Democrats that political pros don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

“Take it from someone who knows: These chances don’t come around every day,” Clinton said in a statement. “Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder — both politically for our party, and far more important, for the physical, fiscal and economic health of our country.”

Liberals are furious over the compromises Reid had to make to keep the bill alive. Gone is a government insurance plan modeled on Medicare. So is the fallback, the option of allowing aging baby boomers to buy into Medicare. The major benefits of the bill won’t start for three or four years, and then they’ll be delivered through private insurance companies.

Overall, the legislation is designed to extend coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and slow the rise in medical spending nationwide.

The bill would require most Americans to purchase insurance, and it includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help lower- and middle-class families afford it.

“If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health care bill,” Dean wrote in an opinion piece published Thursday by The Washington Post. “The winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.”

The White House challenged Dean, noting that the insurance industry actually opposes the legislation.

“We’re on the doorstep of doing something really meaningful,” top White House adviser David Axelrod said in an interview.

The bill would cover an additional 30 million people and put into motion a range of experiments that may yet succeed in slowing the growth of health care costs.

Politically powerful labor unions panned the Senate bill but stopped short of calling for its demise, saying they hoped lawmakers ultimately would improve it.

The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, and the Service Employees International Union both expressed deep disappointment. The Senate bill includes a tax on high-cost insurance plans that unions fear will hurt their members.

SEIU president Andy Stern scolded Obama, saying the president should remember his campaign promise to bring change to America. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the Senate bill “bends toward the insurance industry.”

Both union chiefs said they hoped the bill that finally emerges from Congress would reflect the House-passed measure, which incorporated a government insurance option and omitted the insurance tax.

Updated November 25, 2009
Plan to Restrict Health Accounts Will Hurt the Disabled, Critics Warn
By Judson Berger FOXNews.com

Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special “flexible spending” health accounts will have “cruel” and “unintended consequences.”

Sen. Max Baucus, center, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, speaks alongside other panel members before a health care vote in Washington Oct. 13. (Reuters Photo)
Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special “flexible spending” health accounts will have “cruel” and “unintended consequences.”

The Senate and House health care bills both include a revenue-raising provision that would cap at $2,500 the amount of money workers can put into flexible spending accounts. The accounts, used by millions, allow workers to store pre-tax dollars to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year.

Many employers set a cap on contributions at about $5,000, according to Save Flexible Spending Plans, a group formed by benefits providers over the summer to lobby against the changes. Federal government workers are subject to a $5,000 limit, and most state governments impose a $3,000-$6,000 cap. But legally there is currently no cap across the board.

The change is projected to bring in about $15 billion over the next decade by limiting the pre-tax dollar savings, but critics say it could have devastating effects on families that rely on flexibile spending accounts to pay for health care expenses that are not covered by their insurance policies.

“It’s really become kind of a revenue grab rather than good sound health policy,” said Jody Dietel, chief compliance officer for WageWorks, a company that helps administer the accounts. She is also executive director of Save Flexible Spending Plans.

Dietel said her group has succeeded in convincing Congress not to eliminate the accounts altogether, an idea that was floated, but is still pushing to raise the cap to $5,000. The group also wants the Senate bill to make sure the cap is adjusted for inflation.

Dietel’s group estimates that about 35 million people use the flex accounts. She said the average deposit is under $1,500 annually, so most people — who use the money for copays and other small-dollar items — would not be terribly inconvenienced by a $2,500 cap.

But she said the change would be significant for those who routinely rack up out-of-pocket expenses due to chronic illnesses or special-needs children.

Policy groups estimate that people with chronic illnesses face more than $4,000 annually in out-of-pocket expenses. Flex account money can go toward that.

But the accounts have come under fire for contributing to wasteful health care spending — something the health care reform effort is trying to curb. Because the money must be spent in a calendar year, those looking to drain their accounts may dump them on unnecessary medical expenses at the last minute.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggested eliminating the accounts altogether when the health care reform debate was kicking into high gear over the summer.

“FSAs encourage the overconsumption of health care, which runs directly counter to a critical goal of health care reform,” the group said in a study, arguing that other health care reform provisions that limit out-of-pocket expenses would make FSAs less important anyway.

Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, said the real pain from the new policy would be felt among families with special-needs children, who are currently able to use the money to pay for education expenses.

“The No.1 group that would be affected by this are parents of special needs,” he said, citing the tuition costs at some specialized schools that climb well into the thousands.

“This is a classic case of unintended consequences,” Ellis said. “And they’re often fairly cruel … This is a clear case of that.”

The push for the cap came from the Senate Finance Committee, and the cap eventually made its way into both the full House and Senate bills. A representative for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., could not be reached for comment.

Monday, November 23, 2009
By Reuters Press

The pandemic of swine flu may be hitting a peak in the Northern Hemisphere, global health officials said on Friday, but they cautioned it was far from over.

Officials also said they were investigating several troubling outbreaks of drug-resistant H1N1 but noted they were limited so far and that there were no indications yet the virus was mutating in a sustained way.

The World Health Organization said H1N1 flu was moving eastward across Europe and Asia after appearing to peak in parts of Western Europe and the United States.

At least 6,770 deaths have been recorded worldwide since the swine flu virus emerged in April — but officials always stress the confirmed count represents only a fraction of the actual cases, as most patients never get tested.

There are “early signs of a peak in disease activity in some areas of the northern hemisphere,” the WHO said in a statement.

Transmission keeps intensifying in Canada, with the highest number of doctor visits by children. But U.S. officials saw signs of a slowdown.

SOME DECLINES

“We are beginning to see some declines in flu activity around the country but there is still a lot of influenza,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Dr. Anne Schuchat told a news conference.

“It is still much greater than we would normally see this time of year.”

A team at flu test maker Quest Diagnostics analyzed 142,000 U.S. flu tests and found a similar pattern, with tests showing a decline in flu-like illness since October 27.

WHO said Norway and countries farther east including Georgia, Lithuania, Moldova and Serbia were reporting sharp increases in influenza-like illness or acute respiratory infection.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and parts of Afghanistan — particularly the capital, Kabul — are reporting higher numbers of flu cases. Israel is also reporting sharp increases.

“Essentially what is happening is that it is spreading eastward,” Anthony Mounts of WHO’s influenza team told Reuters. “Typically, seasonal influenza always starts west and moves eastward. It seems to be following that pattern except it is coming very early this year.”

Influenza can hit several peaks in a single season. Experts said weeks or months more of disease could be expected and noted that during the 1957 pandemic, a busy autumn was followed by a lull and then infections surged again starting in January.

Vaccination campaigns are beginning in many countries but companies reported some trouble making vaccine from the H1N1 virus. The United States was still struggling to distribute vaccines but Canadian Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said enough vaccine for almost half of Canada’s population would have been shipped out by the end of the next week.

MUTANT VIRUSES

British health officials said they were investigating the likely person-to-person spread of a drug-resistant strain of swine flu.

The Health Protection Agency reported five confirmed cases in Wales of patients infected with H1N1 resistant Roche AG and Gilead Sciences Inc’s antiviral drug Tamiflu.

Another antiviral, GlaxoSmithKline and Biota Inc’s Relenza, were effective in the patients, the HPA said.

The patients had serious conditions that suppressed their immune systems, which can give the virus a better than usual opportunity to develop resistance, the HPA added.

U.S. CDC officials also said they were investigating four cases of H1N1 resistant to Tamiflu at Duke University hospital in North Carolina. “All four patients were very ill with underlying severely compromised immune systems and multiple other complex medical conditions,” Duke said in a statement.

Health experts are looking for any sign that H1N1 is mutating into a drug-resistant form. Last year, the seasonal version of H1N1, a distant cousin of the pandemic strain, developed resistance to Tamiflu.

In Norway, officials were investigating a mutated strain in some patients that they said could be responsible for causing severe symptoms.

“The mutation could be affecting the virus’ ability to go deeper into the respiratory system, thus causing more serious illness,” the Norwegian Institute of Public Health said in a statement.

WHO said the mutation did not appear to be widespread in Norway and the virus remained sensitive to antivirals and pandemic vaccines.

A similar mutation had been detected in H1N1 viruses in several other countries, including China and the United States, in severe as well as in some mild cases, it said.

ABC’s Dr. Johnson Recites Canard Lack of Health Insurance Kills 45,000 Annually

In contending America already has health care rationing, ABC’s Dr. Tim Johnson, a universal coverage advocate, on Friday night’s World News asserted “we have a lot of rationing, based on income, the kind of insurance you have, the way you can navigate the health system” and “a recent Harvard study estimated that 45,000 people died each year in this country because of lack of health insurance. If that’s not rationing, I don’t know what is.”

That “Harvard study,” which the CBS Evening News promoted two months ago, was really produced by the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a left-wing advocacy group which touts itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of PNHP is one of five signers of an “Open Letter to President Obama to Support Single-Payer Health Care
By Brent Baker | November 21, 2009 – 16:06