Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare (Fixed)
2:33 PM, July 27, 2009
When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.
As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."
In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.
Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.
Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.
And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.
That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.
There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/tough-love-for-fatties-tax-their-food-pay-for-healthcare.html
Nearly 10% of Health Spending Due to Obesity, Report Says
WASHINGTON -- New research shows medical spending averages $1,400 more a year for an obese person than for someone who's normal weight.
Overall obesity-related health spending reaches $147 billion, double what it was nearly a decade ago, says the study published Monday by the journal Health Affairs.
The higher expense reflects the costs of treating diabetes, heart disease and other ailments far more common for the overweight, concluded the study by government scientists and the nonprofit research group RTI International.
RTI health economist Eric Finkelstein offers a blunt message for lawmakers trying to revamp the health-care system: "Unless you address obesity, you're never going to address rising health-care costs."
Obesity-related conditions now account for 9.1% of all medical spending, up from 6.5% in 1998, the study concluded.
Health economists have long warned that obesity is a driving force behind the rise in health spending. For example, diabetes costs the nation $190 billion a year to treat, and excess weight is the single biggest risk factor for developing diabetes. Moreover, obese diabetics are the hardest to treat, with higher rates of foot ulcers and amputations, among other things.
The new study's look at per-capita spending may offer a shock to the wallets of people who haven't yet heeded straight health warnings.
"Health care costs are dramatically higher for people who are obese and it doesn't have to be that way," said Jeff Levi of the nonprofit Trust for America's Health, who wasn't involved in the new research.
"We have ways of changing behavior and changing those health outcomes so that we don't have to deal with the medical consequences of obesity," added Mr. Levi, who advocates community-based programs that promote physical activity and better nutrition.
About a third of adult Americans are obese, and the obesity rate rose 37% between 1998 and 2006, the years covered by Monday's study.
Prescription drugs for obesity-related illnesses account for much of the rise in spending. Medicare spends about $600 more per year on prescriptions for an obese beneficiary than a normal-weight one, the study found.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124869340217883455.html#
Maybe we should ban high fructose corn syrup...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
AP IMPACT: Dodd, Conrad told deals were sweetened
WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.
Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.
Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.
Robert Feinberg, who worked in the Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically how you're coming in here."
"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.
The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:
—Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.
_Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.
Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends" of Angelo. Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.
Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.
Asked by a House investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."
Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:
"And do you know if during the course of your communications" with the senator or his wife "that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?"
"Yes, yes," Feinberg replied.
Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment that were not true.
"As the Dodds have said from the beginning, they did not seek or expect any special rates or terms on their loans and they never received any. They were never offered special or sweetheart deals and if anyone had made such an offer, they would have severed that relationship immediately."
DeAngelis also repeated Dodd's statements from last February that an independent report showed the terms received by the senator and his wife were widely available at the time.
The ethics committee determines whether senators violated standards of conduct. The outcome of the investigation could hinge on whether the mortgage violated strict limits on gifts to lawmakers or ran afoul of other Senate rules.
Feinberg could face criminal prosecution if shown to have made false statements. He was questioned closely by three of the ethics committee's six senators: Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; the panel's senior Republican member, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, according to Elana Goldstein, one of Feinberg's attorneys who accompanied him to both closed-door committee appearances.
The ethics questioning was intense at times, and Boxer asked the bulk of the questions. When Feinberg described a conversation he had with Dodd, she demanded to know how he remembered it. Feinberg said he recalled Dodd saying he had to leave to make a speech.
Boxer asked whether Dodd and Conrad received VIP treatment because they were senators. Feinberg said that was not the case; they received breaks as other influential people in Countrywide's "friends" of Angelo VIP program.
Isakson, a onetime real estate executive, asked more detailed questions about the mortgage agreements' terms.
Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences—a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn't offer.
"The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals," said Feinberg's principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.
Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd's case and one in Conrad's appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.
At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd insisted he didn't receive special treatment. The assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled "Loan Policy Analysis" that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.
The documents had separate columns: one showing points "actl chrgd" Dodd—zero; and a second column showing "policy" was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said "reasons for override." A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.
Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.
Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.
In Conrad's case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.
"I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units," Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.
Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and "see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator."
Conrad's spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator "never asked for, expected or was aware of loans on any preferential terms" and has "worked overtime to set the record straight."
"He went with Countrywide simply because they already had his financial information," Gaddie said. He added that a Countrywide official had told Conrad that "it is not unusual for them to make exceptions for good customers if they could sell the loan in the secondary market. We now know that they did sell the apartment building loan in the secondary market."
Feinberg said in his deposition with House investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.
"If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, 'No, we're a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'" Feinberg said.
Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd's' homes as primary residences.
"He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can't live in two properties at the same time," he said.
Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide's VIP program.
Other names that have surfaced as "friends" of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other "friends" included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.
Conrad initially said in June 2008, "If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it."
The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.
Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator's knowledge.
Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99N143G3&show_article=1
DON'T GO THERE:� DEMS EYE 10%�TAX ON BOTOX, COSMETIC SURGERY
Mon Jul 27 2009 17:18:00 ET
Face-lifts, tummy tucks and hair transplants could be hit with a new tax to help finance the trillion-dollar healthcare overhaul plan, CONGRESS DAILY reports.
The Senate Finance Committee has discussed imposing a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery deemed unnecessary for medical purposes.
DAILY's Peter Cohn reveals: The idea was broached in a meeting with OMB Director Orszag in mid-July, after which Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told reporters he had heard some "interesting," "creative," and "kind of fun" ideas.
MORE
Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbt.htm
I would think 10% a little low..... Why not an excise tax on other vanity items as well?
Yes, Your Guardian article is a joke...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39892847
Frequently the Guardian is more like a check out aisle tabloid than a legitimate news source IMO.
It looks like if it was legit that Arianna would have had something about it.... She was on TV yesterday.
UK Guardian Reproduces Fake Barrow Alaska Pic as Proof of Global Warming
26 Jul
Posted by MacRanger as Global Warming Nonsense
Almost so bad it’s laughable.
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2009/07/26/uk-guardian-reproduces-fake-barrow-alaska-pic-as-proof-of-global-warming/
Nancy Pelosi on being unpopular: 'I don't care'
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25445.html#ixzz0MSi8XG6R
Health care reform - "Democrats are so afraid of failure they will pass anything"
George Stephanopoulos
Change you can believe in.....
Why in the world would Bush classify these aerial photos showing the ice disappearing?
Oops, I've got it -- global warming is a myth.
The big lie of Afghanistan
Inquiries into the 954 deaths in police custody since 1990 have all proved fruitless – and then this historic case comes along
In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament. Women like me, running for office, were held up as an example of how the war in Afghanistan had liberated women. But this democracy was a facade, and the so-called liberation a big lie.
On behalf of the long-suffering people of my country, I offer my heartfelt condolences to all in the UK who have lost their loved ones on the soil of Afghanistan. We share the grief of the mothers, fathers, wives, sons and daughters of the fallen. It is my view that these British casualties, like the many thousands of Afghan civilian dead, are victims of the unjust policies that the Nato countries have pursued under the leadership of the US government.
Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.
You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.
For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.
In the constitution it forbids those guilty of war crimes from running for high office. Yet Karzai has named two notorious warlords, Fahim and Khalili, as his running mates for the upcoming presidential election. Under the shadow of warlordism, corruption and occupation, this vote will have no legitimacy, and once again it seems the real choice will be made behind closed doors in the White House. As we say in Afghanistan, "the same donkey with a new saddle".
So far, Obama has pursued the same policy as Bush in Afghanistan. Sending more troops and expanding the war into Pakistan will only add fuel to the fire. Like many other Afghans, I risked my life during the dark years of Taliban rule to teach at underground schools for girls. Today the situation of women is as bad as ever. Victims of abuse and rape find no justice because the judiciary is dominated by fundamentalists. A growing number of women, seeing no way out of the suffering in their lives, have taken to suicide by self-immolation.
This week, US vice-president Joe Biden asserted that "more loss of life [is] inevitable" in Afghanistan, and that the ongoing occupation is in the "national interests" of both the US and the UK.
I have a different message to the people of Britain. I don't believe it is in your interests to see more young people sent off to war, and to have more of your taxpayers' money going to fund an occupation that keeps a gang of corrupt warlords and drug lords in power in Kabul.
What's more, I don't believe it is inevitable that this bloodshed continues forever. Some say that if foreign troops leave Afghanistan will descend into civil war. But what about the civil war and catastrophe of today? The longer this occupation continues, the worse the civil war will be.
The Afghan people want peace, and history teaches that we always reject occupation and foreign domination. We want a helping hand through international solidarity, but we know that values like human rights must be fought for and won by Afghans themselves.
I know there are millions of British people who want to see an end to this conflict as soon as possible. Together we can raise our voice for peace and justice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/25/afghanistan-occupation-taliban-warlords
From 'ron' on my S.I. thread.....
'David Gregory needs his ass kicked. He needs remedial journalism 101...either that or go the paid shill route and be honest about it:'
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907190006
Revealed: The Secret Evidence of Global Warming Bush Tried to Hide
Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world's weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration
New Element
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.
The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 40 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 4 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
http://glenmeakem.com/2009/07/24/new-element/
CBO deals new blow to health plan
By: Chris Frates
July 25, 2009 02:47 PM EST
For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.
A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.
But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.
"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.
On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.
"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."
But scoreable offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.
The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.
Republicans pounced on CBO's analysis as another demonstration that Democratic proposals don't control costs.
"The President said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs. But CBO has made clear once again that the Democrats' bills in Congress aren't reducing costs and in fact could just make the problem worse," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Saturday's CBO analysis caps a tough week of blown deadlines, partisan bickering and fierce intra-party fighting among Democrats. On Friday, the tension between the Blue Dogs and Waxman exploded when Waxman threatened to bypass his committee and bring the reform bill straight to the House floor without a vote. The move infuriated Blue Dogs who have used their crucial committee votes to leverage changes to the bill.
But by late Friday, Waxman said their colleagues had pulled the two groups "back from the brink" and back to the negotiating table.
Still, Hoyer said there was little chance that that the House would pass a health reform legislation before Friday when lawmakers are expected to leave Washington for summer recess.
House Republican Leader John Boehner's office said that it's time to hit the legislation's reset button.
"This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B33C1278-18FE-70B2-A80BB66164F6B224
Both U.S. political parties offend "Joe the Plumber"
Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:50pm EDT
By Nick Carey
HOLLAND, Ohio (Reuters) - "Joe the Plumber," who came to symbolize U.S. taxpayer frustration during last year's election, sounds even angrier now at what he sees as excessive government spending on the economy and healthcare reform.
"The politicians in Washington are spending trillions of dollars of our money. When are Americans going to stand up and say enough is enough?" said Joe Wurzelbacher, 35, in an interview on Friday at his modest suburban Ohio home.
"Instead of spending more of our money, they should cut back like ordinary Americans are having to. Why do they think they can spend their way out of this mess?" said Wurzelbacher, referring to the $787 billion government stimulus bill.
Wurzelbacher has managed to prolong his 15 minutes of fame since he posed some tough questions of presidential candidate Barack Obama during an Ohio campaign stop in August 2008.
Obama's reply: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," prompted Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, to label the Democrat a socialist and catapulted Wurzelbacher into the media spotlight.
Reporters later learned that Wurzelbacher did not have a plumbing license, was behind on his taxes, had a real first name of Sam, and was unmarried with a teenage son.
At first Wurzelbacher courted the attention, then said it was draining and he wanted to get back to plumbing.
Wurzelbacher said he had voted for McCain but without enthusiasm. "In the end, I had to choose the lesser of two evils.
"Does the Republican Party represent anything I stand for right now? Absolutely not," he said. "Right now the Republican Party doesn't even know what it stands for."
Wurzelbacher said he now attends "tea parties" -- held by Conservative groups to protest against economic policies they dislike -- and does not have time to work as a plumber.
As for President Obama, Wurzelbacher said: "Obama likes to quote great men but will never be a great man himself. I can't stand it when our leader goes around apologizing for who we are."
He urged a grass-roots effort to hold leaders accountable. "Our ancestors picked up guns and knives for their freedom. All I'm asking people to do is pick up a book, get involved or start asking questions," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE56N65J20090725
A Gatesgate At Henry Gates' "Bogus" Charity?
Henry Louis Gates, Jr controls a tax-exempt, non-profit charity, Inkwell Foundation, Inc, that managed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct support in one year, yet only gave out $27,500 in grants, the bulk of which went to Gates' employees and Harvard colleagues. Also, as recently as September 2008, the Boston Globe reported that Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law for failing to register the proper paperwork, despite the charity existing since 2005. The charge at the time was that it was "bogus," as you'll see below. In fact, the state Attorney General's office told the Globe the charity was likely either inactive, or dissolved. Yet, documents below show the charity is healthy, wealthy and active.
Is it possible that Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was acting strange when law enforcement showed up at his door because he didn't want the story below to come out? It may take a tax lawyer to answer that question, but based on this research, it can't be ruled out. We know the press has questioned Gates about the charity in the past and gotten no response.
Acting on a tip and with an item at Instapundit in mind (much more at this link), I was curious when Joseph Culligan of Web of Deception emailed with a tip as to the home's ownership. It seems Harvard does own the home in which Gates lives. But it's also the address for his charity, see below.
Third, Harvard sent someone from the University maintenance department over to secure Gates’ house and/or fix the broken lock on his front door. How many people have an employer who’ll send maintenance staff over to fix up or watch over their house?
Scroll all the way to the bottom at this link for the actual documents, including the real estate information. Gates uses Harvard (12 Quincy St.) as his home address on the charity paperwork, as opposed to the same one as his charity, which is where he actually lives and was at when the recent police incident took place. It would seem to be incorrect. A wiki has this Inkwell below as it's center item and reports that a Globe reporter has accused it of being a "bogus" charity. That story also below.
Corporate Filing
Business Information
Filing Number: 000908494
Name: INKWELL FOUNDATION, INC.
Name Type: LEGAL
principal corporate address: 17 WARE ST
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-4004
Business Type: NONPROFIT CORPORATION
Reference Number: 000908494
Status: ACTIVE
Place Incorporated: MASSACHUSETTS
Date Incorporated: 10/27/2005
For Profit: YES
Additional Information: Annual Report Required: YES
Officers - As Of - 07/14/2009
Name Standardized Address Original Address
GATES JR, HENRY LOUIS
Title: PRESIDENT
12 QUINCY ST
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138-3804 12 QUINCY ST.
CAMBRIDGE MA
In September of 2008, the Boston Globe did an item (see second short item in story linked here - also in full below) claiming Professor Gates' charity was not in compliance with the law at that time, in essence suggesting it was phony.
In 2005, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., known to all as "Skip," set up the nonprofit Inkwell Foundation, named after a famous beach/gathering place for African-Americans on Martha's Vineyard. Skip talked about the foundation in a recent interview with Martha's Vineyard magazine and touted it when he launched his for-profit business, AfricanDNA.com, last year. "The precedent-setting site is the only company in the field of genetic genealogy that will provide African Americans with family tree research in addition to DNA testing," its initial press release declared, adding that "a percentage of all profits will be donated to the Inkwell Foundation, dedicated to reforming the teaching of science and history in inner city schools using genetic and genealogical ancestry tracing."
Public records indicate that the charity, domiciled in Gates's Cambridge home, has been dormant since its inception. Jill Butterworth, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office, says Inkwell has never filed the required, annual form PC, for public charities. "They are currently not in compliance," Butterworth said. "It's possible they are inactive or have dissolved. We are checking into it." Gates declined to comment.
According to this 20 page pdf (h/t Joseph Culligan of Web of Deception) - which seems to be the public and open for inspection 2007 tax return for Inkwell Foundation, Inc. Given the 2007 return date and 2008 Globe story date, the return seems to be from during the same time period for which the charity wasn't properly registered.
Gates was unable to complete the form, requesting an extension. This does not mean he hasn't since filed the missing form PC paperwork cited above. But evidently it wasn't filed when the charity began - and for at least three years, thus including the year of the tax filing, it would seem.
In records, it claims to own $14,625 worth of artwork and historical objects - see page 4 of pdf linked above.
But there's still more I discovered down below. Excerpt from page 21:
7 State in detail why you need the extension ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED TO GATHER THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO PREPARE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RETURN.
On page one line 1e, the document declares the charity received $205,400 in direct support, but declares only $27,600 in total expenditures for program services. Twenty-seven-five-hundred dollars went out in contracts to 23 individuals. See page 3 for that total. The charity claims to hold assets of $177,943 from direct contributions it seemingly hadn't spent at time of filing - see page 4. That's a shame, given its charge.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FOUNDATION IS TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO OTHER CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND TO PROMOTE PROGRAMS THAT EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ENCOURAGE ACADEMIC INTEREST REGARDING AFRICAN AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN LITERATURE, ART, HISTORY, AND CULTURE.
Now, beginning on page 17, it provides the details of those grants. Six-thousand dollars to Angela Deleon and $10,000 to Inkwell's Treasurer, Joanne Kendall in research grants. There were 19 $500 grants (a $9,500 total) and 2 of $1,000, ($2,000) totaling $27,500, as declared.
Interesting enough, news reports indicate Angela Deleon was the woman who first called Gates to tell him about Obama mentioning his name. They did not further identify who she is. I couldn't find her at Harvard, or through Google Scholar, and I'm not sure if she is this consultant on elder crime victim issues, or not.
See here:
HENRY LOUIS GATES, JR: ...I was having dinner with a friend on the upper east side in a little private Italian restaurant and all of a sudden I thought my blackberry was going to explode. And the first call...it was from Angela...Angela DeLeon...[saying] Barack Obama just mentioned you in his news conference...
Meanwhile, according to the report below, Joanne Kendall who received $10,000 from the charity, is Gates' assistant, as well as the Treasurer of Inkwell Foundation, Inc.
See here:
Joanne Kendall, Gates' assistant, said that the professor was away from Cambridge for the summer filming a documentary and would only be making periodic returns. Gates could not be reached for comment.
Dell Hamilton would appear to be a $1,000 recipient, formerly the Events coordinator for the Dubois Institute at Harvard. I believe that means he worked for Gates.
Another $500 recipient, Nancy Brigham Cyr also worked for Gates as an administrator.
Nancy Brigham Cyr recently joined the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research as the new institute administrator.
Eric Foner, I assume the DeWitt Clinton Professor at Columbia received $500.
John Stauffer co-wrote a NY Times editorial with Gates and also received a $500 research grant.
David Blight of Yale was also a $500 recipient. Does one get a huge amount of research out of an Ivy League professor for that amount? I honestly don't know.
Evelynn Higginbotham, also of Harvard received $500.
I think John Thorton on page 18 of the tax form may actually be John Thornton, another Harvard African American studies guy.
Linda Heywood, also with the W.E.B. DuBois Institute.
Abby Wolf, also of Harvard - $1,000
You'll find the rest on pages 18 and 19 of the tax document.
I'm not alleging any criminal, or fraudulent behavior. But if Gates' Inkwell Foundation, Inc doesn't have its paperwork up to date, it might want to start. And for a charity with over $200,000 on hand it certainly didn't seem interested in giving much of it away.
When it does give grants, it seems to stay pretty close to home, ... for the most part, Gates' employees and associates at Harvard. I didn't realize working at Harvard, or for Gates, qualifies one as a charitable cause. But perhaps it does, or he's only interested in encouraging academic interest among a rather tight-knit looking group and simply banking the rest.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FOUNDATION IS TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO OTHER CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND TO PROMOTE PROGRAMS THAT EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ENCOURAGE ACADEMIC INTEREST REGARDING AFRICAN AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN LITERATURE, ART, HISTORY, AND CULTURE.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/07/a-gatesgate-at-henry-gates-bogus-charity.html
The Recession is Over
Now what we need is a new kind of recovery.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/208633
Laminate. I love that bamboo material.
Yup... Avoid large crowds, wash hands often... take flu shots for sure....Vaccine being tested.
Mother nature is doing what she is supposed to.
We put down Olive wood which is dark brown with lighter browns intermingled. Looks great.
Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare
It turns out the president misjudged the nation’s mood.
This is big, what’s happening. President Obama appears to have misstepped on a major initiative and defining issue. He has misjudged the nation’s mood, which itself is news: He rose from nothing to everything with the help of his fine-tuned antennae. Resistance to the Democratic health-care plans is in the air, showing up more now on YouTube than in the polls, but it will be in the polls soon enough. The president, in short, may be facing a real loss. This will be interesting in a number of ways and for a number of reasons, among them that we’ve never seen him publicly defeated before, because he hasn’t been. So we may be entering new territory, with new struggles shaped by new dynamics.
His news conference the other night was bad. He was filibustery and spinny and gave long and largely unfollowable answers that seemed aimed at limiting the number of questions asked and running out the clock. You don’t do that when you’re fully confident. Far more seriously, he didn’t seem to be telling the truth. We need to create a new national health-care program in order to cut down on government spending? Who would believe that? Would anybody?
The common wisdom the past week has been that whatever challenges health care faces, the president will at least get something because he has a Democratic House and Senate and they’re not going to let their guy die. He’ll get this or that, maybe not a new nationalized system but some things, and he’ll be able to declare some degree of victory.
View Full Image
Associated Press
And this makes sense. But after the news conference, I found myself wondering if he’d get anything.
I think the plan is being slowed and may well be stopped not by ideology, or even by philosophy in a strict sense, but by simple American common sense. I suspect voters, the past few weeks, have been giving themselves an internal Q-and-A that goes something like this:
Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”
The White House misread the national mood. The problem isn’t that they didn’t “bend the curve,” or didn’t sell it right. The problem is that the national mood has changed since the president was elected. Back then the mood was “change is for the good.” But that altered as the full implications of the financial crash seeped in. The crash gave everyone a diminished sense of their own margin for error. It gave them a diminished sense of their country’s margin for error. Americans are not in a chance-taking mood. They’re not in a spending mood, not after the unprecedented spending of the past year, from the end of the Bush era through the first six months of Obama. Here the Congressional Budget Office report that a health care bill would not save money but would instead cost more than a trillion dollars in the next decade was decisive. People say bureaucrats never do anything. The bureaucrats of CBO might have killed health care.
More Peggy Noonan
Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns.
And click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace.
The final bill, with all its complexities, will probably be huge, a thousand pages or so. Americans don’t fear the devil’s in the details, they fear hell is. Do they want the same people running health care who gave us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the post office and the invasion of Iraq?
Let me throw forward three other things that I suspect lessen , or will lessen, support for full health-care reform, two of them not quantifiable.
The first has to do with the doctors throughout the country who give patients a break, who quietly underbill someone they know is in trouble, or don’t charge for their services. Also the emergency rooms that provide excellent service for the uninsured in medical crisis. People don’t talk about this much because they’re afraid if they do they’ll lose it, that some government genius will come along and make it illegal for a doctor not to charge or a hospital to fudge around, with mercy, in its billing. People are afraid of losing the parts of the system that sometimes work—the unquantifiable parts, the human parts.
Second, and this is big, some of the bills being worked on in Congress will allow for or mandate taxpayer funding of abortion. Speaking only and narrowly in political terms, this is so ignorant as to be astounding. A good portion of the support for national health care comes from a sort of European Christian Democrat spirit of community, of “We are all in this together.” This spirit potentially unites Democrats, leftists, some Republicans and GOP populists, the politically unaffiliated and those of whatever view with low incomes. But putting abortion in the mix takes the Christian out of Christian Democrat. It breaks and jangles the coalition, telling those who believe abortion is evil that they not only have to accept its legality but now have to pay for it in a brand new plan, for which they’ll be more highly taxed. This is taking a knife to your own supporters.
The third point is largely unspoken but I suspect gives some people real pause. We are living in a time in which educated people who are at the top of American life feel they have the right to make very public criticisms of . . . let’s call it the private, pleasurable but health-related choices of others. They shame smokers and the overweight. Drinking will be next. Mr. Obama’s own choice for surgeon general has come under criticism as too heavy.
Only a generation ago such criticisms would have been considered rude and unacceptable. But they are part of the ugly, chafing price of having the government in something: Suddenly it can make big and very personal demands on you. Those who live in a way that isn’t sufficiently healthy “cost us money” and “drive up premiums.” Mr. Obama himself said something like it in his press conference, when he spoke of a person who might not buy health insurance. If he gets hit by a bus, “the rest of us have to pay for it.”
Under a national health-care plan we might be hearing that a lot. You don’t exercise, you smoke, you drink, you eat too much, and “the rest of us have to pay for it.”
It is a new opportunity for new class professionals (an old phrase that should make a comeback) to shame others, which appears to be one of their hobbies. (It may even be one of their addictions. Let’s stage an intervention.) Every time I hear Kathleen Sebelius talk about “transitioning” from “treating disease” to “preventing disease,” I start thinking of how they’ll use this as an excuse to judge, shame and intrude.
So this might be an unarticulated public fear: When everyone pays for the same health-care system, the overseers will feel more and more a right to tell you how to live, which simple joys are allowed and which are not.
Americans in the most personal, daily ways feel they are less free than they used to be. And they are right, they are less free.
Who wants more of that?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306533556532364.html#printMode
Finally watched 7 pounds.
Whew. Leaves a lump in your throat.
A couple of months ago when we were at a Sadhguru (of inner engineering Isha Yoga) conversation with a Rabbi at one of the Jewish Temples downtown, we sat a few rows back from Rosario Dawson, who was also in attendance. She is one stunning woman and 7 pounds didn't do her beauty any justice.
I bet it looks great! Brand new Cherry boards on top of subfloor, or is it a laminate over subfloor?
We want to put Bamboo on the kitchen floor in one of our next remodels.
from personal experience, and not being a minority, situations always become worse when the police get involved. the family tales over more than 40 years have no happy ending when the police are involved.
This thing may get totally out of control as some say 40% may be possible receivers in America?
Terribly close to home.
Thanks. Put in new bedroom cherry flooring today. Only 10 hours, and off to the shower...then beer O Clock.
A Better Health Reform
President Obama gave up yesterday on health-care votes in Congress before the August recess, as his approval rating on the issue sinks below 50% and Democrats get the jimmy legs. The numbers will only get worse if he insists on bull-rushing a government takeover on a partisan vote in the fall. For the sake of the country, not to mention the Obama Presidency, we’d like to suggest a better path to reform that could get Republican votes.
The irony is that pretty much everyone in Washington agrees that the system needs improvement—and the double irony is that the basis for a major reform that combines ideas from both parties already exists. Yet Mr. Obama has delegated health care to left-wing committee chairmen in Congress, much as he did on cap and tax and the stimulus. While a less rushed, less divisive compromise would anger the left, it would also guarantee that a bill passes and would be far more durable.
***
So what might a compromise look like? For all the political fuss, the primary Democratic goal of covering the uninsured is not some insurmountable problem. About 25% or so are probably already eligible for public programs like Medicaid but haven’t enrolled. Another quarter fall in the top half of the income distribution and are either between jobs or could afford to buy coverage on their own. Those facing genuine hardships number far fewer than the 47 million figure tossed about, and the easiest way to help this group is to provide some kind of credit to those who buy private insurance outside the workplace.
The tax code already allows those who are insured through their employers to exclude the value of those plans from income, and if the government is going to subsidize health insurance, this bias for one particular type of coverage is irrational. The House Republican health plan extends a refundable and “advanceable” tax credit, which is basically an upfront cash payment. A plan released under the unlikely auspices of Tom Daschle and Bob Dole would do much the same thing.
Both Daschle-Dole and the House GOP would create state or regional marketplaces where individuals could shop for coverage and where insurers would compete to offer plans with the mix of benefits that consumers find most valuable. Above-baseline spending would ideally be paid out of pocket or from a health savings account. The Medicare prescription drug program has kept costs well below budget using such market-based mechanisms, though in this case individuals would buy insurance with tax-advantaged dollars, instead of picking from a menu of entitlement options.
Senate Finance Democrats and Mr. Obama also endorse the exchange concept, but with more public-utility-like regulation, rigid mandates and a government-run plan that would subsidize coverage and pay doctors and hospitals submarket rates. These are bad ideas in their own right, but none of them will change the incentives to purchase higher-value medicine. Our current blend of low-deductible, low-copayment insurance (really pre-paid health care) and “free” public programs means that no one has any stake in controlling costs. Even limited cost-sharing has a large effect, as White House deputy economic director Jason Furman used to argue before he joined Team Obama.
Tax credits are pricey, but they could easily be made deficit-neutral by capping the employer-sponsored exclusion. Literally every serious health economist or expert in the country recommends doing so. The majority Democrats could steal a good Republican idea, much like President Clinton did with welfare reform in 1996. A cap on the open-ended exclusion would also change incentives, given that today the more people spend on health, the more subsidies they receive. And it would avoid disrupting the current system, though people could gradually take advantage of the insurance exchanges if they chose.
The Administration also backs numerous measures to reduce waste and pare back medical spending, such as health information technology, research on medical outcomes and more prevention. These items are by definition speculative, but all of them could be tried without adding millions of new people to the government rolls. If they don’t pan out, taxpayers are no worse off. Besides, U.S. health care is hardly the feral marketplace of liberal caricature; federal and other public spending already accounts for some 46%. If the Administration really has come up with “game changers” that the private sector hasn’t, Medicare is already a large enough laboratory.
We should add that this kind of compromise is far from our policy ideal. We prefer Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s plan to capitate Medicare payments and John McCain’s campaign plan (not to mention Senator Ron Wyden’s Democratic voice in the wilderness) to replace the current tax exclusion with more individual control over the purchase of medical services. But we’ll gladly settle for second best if we can avoid the terrible harm that the current House and Senate bills would do to the country.
***
Mr. Obama is backing himself into a corner by insisting on the false political dilemma of either doing nothing or putting U.S. health care into government hock. This leaves him trying to pick off one or two Republicans to give a facade of bipartisanship and then ramming government control into law; or else failing to pass anything and damaging his Presidency.
This political leap of bad faith is already scaring moderates in Mr. Obama’s own party, as well as voters concerned about the tax increases and medical rationing that it will require. There is a middle way to success, Mr. President, but it means pursuing policies that are true to your campaign rhetoric about bipartisanship rather than to the liberal dream of government-run health care.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203946904574300041131468218.html
Swine flu may cause seizures in children: report
Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:39pm EDT
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Children who have unexplained seizures and flu-like symptoms should be tested for infection with the H1N1 swine flu virus and treated with flu-fighting drugs, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.
They said four children in Dallas County, Texas, who got the new swine flu virus in late May had seizures or changes in mental status caused by brain infections and swelling.
Some of the children experienced drowsiness, weakness and disorientation and were slow to respond to questions. Two of the four had seizures.
All have recovered and were discharged from the hospital without lingering brain damage, according to a team from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and local and federal health officials.
"Infection with seasonal influenza virus can be associated with neurologic complications, but the frequency with which these occur with novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection is unknown," they wrote in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's weekly report on death and disease.
Influenza infections account for about 5 percent of cases of acute childhood encephalitis, a severe infection and inflammation of the brain that can cause brain damage and death. Neurologic complications were reported in 6 percent of flu-related deaths among children during the 2003-2004 flu season in the United States.
During most flu outbreaks, children of varying ages are most at risk. But the current H1N1 virus that has caused a global pandemic appears to strike healthy older children and young adults.
In the CDC's report, children were age 7, 10, 11 and 17. Two were previously healthy. One had experienced a fever-related seizure a year earlier, and one had a history of asthma. All recovered fully.
"These findings indicate that, as with seasonal influenza, neurologic complications can occur after respiratory tract infection with novel influenza A (H1N1) virus," the team wrote.
The CDC in an editorial urged doctors caring for children hospitalized with influenza-like illness and unexplained seizures or mental status changes to send respiratory specimens for testing, and start treatment with antiviral drugs right away.
"Antiviral treatment should be initiated as soon as possible for any hospitalized patient with neurologic symptoms and suspected seasonal influenza or novel influenza A (H1N1)," according to the report.
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE56M54D20090724
House healthcare talks break down in anger
By Jared Allen, Mike Soraghan and Lauren Burke
Posted: 07/24/09 03:27 PM [ET]
House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.
In advance of a subsequent press conference called by House leadership, Blue Dog liaison Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) said the healthcare bill should be staying in committee.
"I expect the committee process to proceed," Cardoza said.
The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.
“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.
“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.
Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.
If the two sides cannot reach an agreement, the only hope for passage of the bill in the House will be to go straight to the floor, an option leaders shied away from endorsing but said was an option.
But the Blue Dogs issued dire warnings to leaders contemplating that approach.
"Waxman simply does not have votes in committee and process should not be bypassed to bring the bill straight to floor,” Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”
Melancon said there would be 40-45 “solid no” votes from the 52-strong Blue Dogs, among other problems throughout the caucus. And Melancon said there are more Democrats who will vote against the bill.
“If they try to bring it to the floor, I think they’ll find out they have more problems than the Blue Dogs.”
A leadership aide said no decisions have been made on how to proceed.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-healthcare-talks-break-down-in-anger-2009-07-24.html
Dear Mr. President
By Heather Agins
Dear Mr. President,
As I was driving home from taking my three year old son to school this morning I overheard a conversation on the radio about a Harvard professor being arrested for breaking into his own home. There was a slight debate as to whether or not this was a form of racial profiling because Professor Gates happened to be a black man. In disgust I turned the volume down but a few moments later something made me turn it back up. That something was your voice and a particular description of the police force that I found to be quite shocking! I thought for a moment that perhaps I had heard wrong but lucky for me several radio stations were replaying your comments on the incident and so it was confirmed. You stated "the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody" and went on to mention "the long history within this country of African American and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement officers disproportionately...."
I am the wife of a police officer and have worked as a law enforcement dispatcher for the past three years. Needless to say my blood was boiling and as a matter of fact it still is. Because I myself was exposed to the level of crime that male and female law enforcements officers are faced with on a daily basis, I think I may have more of an idea than you. Because I had to listen to my husband over a radio 50 miles away become nervous on a traffic stop in the middle of the night - I think I may have more of an idea than you. I've had to listen to the sound of my husband's voice after just being involved in a major accident because of a drunk driver and because of this I think I may have more of an idea than you. Every day that my husband goes to work he is putting his life on the line. He is putting the life that we have built together on the line to serve and protect innocent people from becoming innocent victims. Every night that he works I am unable to sleep and every morning he is expected to come home I pray that he does.
I am fortunate that my husband has worked with two agencies whose crime rates are not as high as others. But every time he makes an arrest he must drive through certain areas of Miami that I wouldn't see my worst enemy through.
As I'm sure you already know but perhaps others may not, the statistics from national crime rates are drawn from a federal survey called the National Crime Victimization Survey. If I understand correctly, this survey is given to hundreds of thousands of victims in America and asks them among other questions about the race of the criminals who victimized them. The results of these surveys are almost entirely consistent with the results of arrest records. Wouldn't you know it, the majority of these surveys and arrest records indicated that blacks and Hispanics are the victimizers of these crimes.
Police officers make use of what criminological surveys tell us about who is and who isn't likely to commit certain crimes so that violent criminals don't go un-apprehended. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the survey? Perhaps in order to eliminate "racial profiling" we should do away with the survey all together.
I think it's safe to say that a common prejudice is that men are more likely to commit violent crimes than women, and younger people more so than older. I don't hear you objecting to sexual discrimination or ageism for that matter. Criminal profiling shows that serial killers are almost always white. Police investigations of serial murders almost always target white males because of this statistic. I haven't once heard you make mention of this in your "racial profiling" speeches.
Studies of large urban samples show that gang members are responsible for a large proportion of violent crimes. The most recent National Youth Gang Survey indicated 35% of gang members were African American, 49% were Hispanic, 9% were white, and the remaining 7% as other. So how do you say "no racial profiling" to the members of Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force, whom I'm sure use these statistics in addressing the violent crimes that are plaguing our communities.
The use of firearms is a major feature of gang violence. Gang members are far more likely to carry a fire arm than your average juvenile delinquent. In the 2000 NYGS, 84% of the gang problems were reported to have at least once occurrence of firearm use by one or more gang members in an assault crime. These gang members who carried guns are also likely to commit ten times more violent crimes than those who didn't carry a firearm. So what do you say to the police officer who is aware of all these statistics and is on a traffic stop in the middle of the night with a "hooptie-like" vehicle containing 3 or more Hispanic and African American males in the middle of the worst neighborhood in North Miami Beach?
What do you say, Mr. President? Do you advise this officer not to place his/her hand on their firearm because that may be considered racial profiling? Do you say stop thinking about your family and allowing your life to flash before your eyes because this is racial profiling? Do you say ignore all of those statistics and the evidence of those statistics that you happen to see on a daily basis -- because that's racial profiling?
Over the past four decades since the "civil rights" movement, crime statistics have shown that millions of crimes have been committed by African-Americans and other non-white predators against white people. Some of these crimes include robbery, assault, rape and murder. Why are these crime rates so disproportionate to the number of White crimes against Blacks and Hispanics?
Perhaps instead of calling Police officers stupid and going on and on about how African Americans and Hispanics are victims of law enforcement officers you should ask yourself why. Why does a law enforcement officer get nervous when he's on a call with someone who is believed to be dangerous and happens to be black or Hispanic? Why is the crime rate so high among African Americans and Hispanics? Why is the number of African Americans and Hispanics involved in gang related violence so much higher than that of whites? Perhaps we should start there.
Perhaps instead placing the blame on others for the victimization of African Americans and Hispanics you should address the fact that they are victims of themselves. Perhaps you find a way to help them help themselves! And then when the crime rates begin to drop among this group of people you might find that our police officers who are known to "act stupidly" might be a little less on edge.
Perhaps we should just do away with all racial profiling. National security... Who needs it? I mean if we're so concerned about African Americans and Hispanics what about the Islamic extremists? They have feelings too.
Back in 2001, FBI agent Williams wanted to investigate certain militant Muslim men whom he suspected of training in U.S. flight schools as part of al-Qaeda missions. His recommendation was rejected by Director Robert Mueller because of concerns that the plan could be viewed as discriminatory racial profiling. Since then Director Mueller has acknowledged that perhaps if he hadn't rejected such a notion the Twin Towers may still be standing and 3,000 innocent people may still be alive. How about that?!
My heart goes out to all of those innocent people who are burdened because of criminals and terrorists who share their race, nationality, or religion. But I would think any inconvenience is preferable to knowing others out there are suffering because we've decided to walk on egg shells rather than to face the real issues at hand. Don't you?
Sincerely,
Heather Agins
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/dear_mr_president.html
Has Obama's luck run out?
Posted: July 23, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern
© 2009
"The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!"
So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the moon.
It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had come to office with both houses held by the opposition.
Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam.
He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine, journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania – the first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain.
Tired of keeping quiet about increasing government control? Express yourself with the magnetic message: "No Hope in Socialism"
Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation.
When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered.
In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into liberalism's war.
With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam.
The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December, after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68 percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the third most admired man in America.
Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth.
The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too complex, costly and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of national masochism.
The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy. Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising.
As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has 66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime.
Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S. involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S. troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of al-Qaida.
Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist movement is developing.
Has Obama's luck run out?
Posted: July 23, 2009
10:30 pm Eastern
© 2009
"The sound alone was worth the $24 billion!"
So said fellow Nixon speechwriter Ray Price as the mighty Saturn V rocket lifted Apollo 11 and Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins off the launch pad, three miles away, on the start of their voyage to the moon.
It was a splendid moment in that first year of the Nixon presidency, a year that had gone remarkably well for a minority president who had come to office with both houses held by the opposition.
Within weeks of taking office, Nixon had taken a grand tour of the European capitals. He had proposed a Family Assistance Plan, cooked up in Pat Moynihan's shop, to wide applause. He had announced a withdrawal of 100,000 troops from Vietnam.
He would greet the astronauts on the aircraft carrier in the Pacific on their return, travel to Guam to announce the Nixon Doctrine, journey on to Vietnam and visit the troops, thence to Romania – the first U.S. president to travel behind the Iron Curtain.
Tired of keeping quiet about increasing government control? Express yourself with the magnetic message: "No Hope in Socialism"
Returning in triumph, Nixon departed for his August vacation.
When he returned to D.C., the storm clouds had gathered.
In mid-October, hundreds of thousands of protesters surrounded the White House demanding an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, egged on by a media establishment that had cheered JFK and LBJ all the way into liberalism's war.
With David Broder writing of the "breaking of the president," Nixon went on national television to implore the "great silent majority" to stand with him for peace with honor in Vietnam.
The networks trashed the speech. But Vice President Spiro Agnew launched a counter-attack on media power and prejudice. By December, after another 500,000 had marched on Washington, Nixon was at 68 percent approval and Agnew, after Nixon and Billy Graham, was the third most admired man in America.
Though elected in November 1968, it was November 1969 that made the Nixon presidency and produced the New Majority Republicans would rely on for decades. Obama is approaching such a moment of truth.
The universal health insurance plans being advanced all appear too complex, costly and non-credible to pass both houses. The cap-and-trade carbon emissions bill, with its huge costs to be passed on to U.S. producers and consumers, as China opts out, seems an act of national masochism.
The $787 billion stimulus bill has done zip to stimulate the economy. Less than 10 percent of the money has gone out the door, which makes one wonder why it was called a stimulus package. Unemployment is at 9.5 percent, well above what the Obamaites predicted, and rising.
As worrisome is the situation in Afghanistan. The United States has 66,000 troops in country or on the way, as our NATO allies look for the exit ramp. We are seven and a half years in and the Afghan army is not remotely capable of defending the nation or regime.
Afghanistan is now Obama's war. He made the decision to deepen U.S. involvement as we headed out of Iraq. Yet, it is unclear how many U.S. troops will be needed, for how long, to create a stable government and army that can secure the national territory and prevent a return of al-Qaida.
Moreover, Kabul continues to protest U.S. air strikes that continue to kill civilians, as Pakistan protests the Marine offensive in Helmand that is driving the Taliban into Baluchistan, where a secessionist movement is developing.
(Column continues below)
Pakistan also seems more worried about shifting its army away from the border with India than about defeating an Afghan Taliban with whom it had a working relationship before 9/11.
We are thus today pushing the Afghan regime to do what it is not capable of doing and the Pakistani government and army into doing what it would prefer not to do. This does not appear a formula for victory.
Also looming is the issue of Iran's nuclear program.
Obama has moved up from December to September the deadline for serious discussions to begin. If they have not begun by October, will Obama go to the U.N. for sanctions? If the Russians and Chinese object, will Obama and NATO impose sanctions of their own? Will Obama step on an escalator leading inexorably to war? Or authorize Israel to launch an attack?
Does Obama have the authority to take us to war against a nation that has not attacked us? If so, where did he get this authority? While Congress would readily agree to sanctions, would it sign off on yet another war?
From North Korea to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Honduras, and from the economy to health care to carbon emissions, things are not going Obama's way. He is 10 points below where Nixon was after a full year, and on economic issues – unemployment, the deficit, spending – he is under 50 percent.
This presidency is not yet in trouble, but it is sure headed that way.
http://www.google.com/search?q=+Nickelback&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Jon Stewart....on healthcare...
just do like the Republicans do and roll the dildo in glitta.
lol!
This week of bs. I'm in the mood for some hard as nails rock.
I pulled my ex super out of the fire again, second time in the last 4 or 5 weeks. He couldn't wait to get rid of me almost a year ago. Chaps his backside to have to call me back to fix something.
Bullies and tyrants suck.
I'm thinking Nickelback might fill the bill.
Nice easy day tomorrow, massage at 9, then give my bride one later. Got '7 Pounds' in the mail today to watch tomorrow night.
first glass of wine in three weeks tonight.
Cheers Siouxpal and the rest of the board!
Happy weekend!
Dems mull skipping panel, bringing healthcare to floor
By Jared Allen
Posted: 07/23/09 06:24 PM [ET]
House Democrats, still searching for a way to pass their healthcare bill before August, are considering bypassing the Energy and Commerce committee altogether, where the bill has stalled, and proceeding right to the floor.
“The preferable course would be to go through the committee,” Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) said Thursday night. “But all options will be on the table.”
Larson’s comments came as he and the rest of the Democratic leadership team emerged from a meeting where they hosted Ways and Means Committee and some Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats.
Earlier in the afternoon, leaders met for hours with the group of seven Energy and Commerce Blue Dogs who have vowed to block the bill from passing their committee. Those Blue Dogs still have disagreements over regional Medicare reimbursement disparities and insufficient health care savings.
Leaders, including Larson and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said progress is being made, but have announced only their intention to continue meeting.
The Energy and Commerce Blue Dogs have not said much more.
“We continue to discuss the items that I've talked to all y'all about for two weeks,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.). “I like to think we're making progress, and the talks are continuing, and that's a good thing.”
Bypassing Energy and Commerce, which cancelled it’s markup of the healthcare bill on Thursday, would clear one hurdle, but it wouldn’t necessarily solve the Democrat’s vote problem. Hoyer for one has noted since last week that regional concerns about Medicare are not limited to the Blue Dog Coalition.
At the same time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been adamant, even as recently as Thursday morning, that she has the votes to pass the bill on the floor.
Asked about shuffling the healthcare bill right to the floor, Pelosi on Thursday night said: “I don’t want to do that.”
Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was not immediately available for comment on the idea of scratching the rest of his markup.
At least one member of his panel, though, indicated that she believes the markup will proceed.
“We've been asked to clear our calendars for Saturday,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) who joined with six other members of the Committee on Thursday to announce an amendment package they intend to introduce if and when the markup resumes. “I have a busy day in Los Angeles, but I might be spending that busy day in Washington, D.C."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-mull-skipping-panel-bringing-healthcare-to-floor-2009-07-23.html
You totally remind me of Andy Coulter.
Unconstitutional Honduran Referendum Was Rigged, MSM Silent
It isn't just our leftist government that has been squarely behind Manuel Zelaya in his bid to reduce Honduras to a communist dictatorship. As you'll recall, the thug serving as president (Zelaya, not Obama) was run out of town on a rail when he declared there would be a national referendum on repealing term limits, so that he could stay in office forever like his role model Hugo Chavez. In addition to being unconstitutional, the referendum was rigged — not that you would ever get that information from our liberal establishment press, which is sympathetic to Zelaya's authoritarian objectives.
Good thing we have Pajamas Media:
Last Friday, July 17, the Honduran newspaper La Tribuna published a story detailing the Honduran government's seizure of 45 government-owned computers found hidden in a building adjacent to the presidential palace formally occupied by the deposed President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya. According to the Honduran authorities these computers contained the results of the referendum Zelaya was fervently trying to push through. When the authorities examined those results, they found that the Honduran people had overwhelmingly voted in favor of having a constitutional convention.
This would open the door and allow Zelaya to change the constitution, removing the one-term limit on presidents strictly stipulated by the document. It is similar to what his friend and mentor, Hugo Chavez, did in Venezuela, and Zelaya figured it would work for him, too.
The only problem with these results was that the plebiscite vote never took place.
On the day Zelaya and his supporters were planning to conduct the referendum, he was arrested in the early morning hours and flown to exile in Costa Rica. The voting results found on those computers were all contrived to indicate a predetermined outcome. Considering the extremely volatile situation in Honduras, the news of this alleged fraud, if found to be true, would change the entire dynamic of this crisis. However, all throughout Friday and later into the weekend, even though various Spanish-language news outlets in Nicaragua, Argentina, and Spain had reported on this very significant development, there was no mention of it at all by the English-speaking mainstream media. … The truth is that this bombshell discovery was very inconvenient to a mainstream media that had already decided to take the side of the deposed Honduran president.
That both our government and our media would put their weight behind a goon like Zelaya in what amounts to an attempted communist coup should chill your blood. America has always stood for liberty, and has sacrificed a great deal of its blood for that cause. But Hopey Change means that for now, the USA is on the side of darkness.
http://moonbattery.com/
Obama Sides With Nutty Professor
The wheels must be coming loose on Comrade Obama's farcical presidency, because out comes the race card.
The police officer who arrested a Harvard professor for disorderly conduct said Thursday he wants President Obama, who is the educator's friend, to butt out of the incident.
Cambridge, Mass., Sgt. James Crowley arrested Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his home last week after he responded to a report of two black men attempting to break in to Gates' home.
It turned out that Gates, head of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, had broken into his own home after being unable to find his keys upon his return from a trip to China.
Asked about the incident, Obama, who is friends with the professor and documentary filmmaker, told reporters at a Wednesday night press conference that he didn't know all the facts. But he said, "the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
Proof? Like Gates' identification? But when the police asked to see it, Obama's friend started shrieking about racism, which is how he makes his comfy living at Harvard.
Gates also screamed abusive epithets directed at Crowley's mother. Keep in mind that at the time, the cops did not know who he was. You would think he'd be grateful that the police were there to investigate two guys with backpacks breaking into his house, considering that it had been broken into before (per the police report).
Imagine being a cop and having to deal with elitist vermin like Gates, who think that neither laws nor the rules of common courtesy apply to them because they are "oppressed" and therefore higher beings.
From all this, Dear Leader concludes:
Race remains a factor in the society.
I wonder why Chairman Zero would step into this sordid incident just as his Stalinized healthcare debacle is starting to tank. Look for more race-oriented stories to attract his attention as opportunities to distract ours, as the Post Turtle in Chief's panic deepens. Being black got him into this mess, maybe it can get him out…
http://moonbattery.com/
Why won't Congress enroll in gov't health care?
Democrats exempt themselves from own 'reform'
If government-run health care
is such a great idea, why won't members of Congress enroll their own families?
The question has been on the minds of many Americans, but Democrats aren't giving answers. Instead, they are exempting themselves from their own health care "reform."
The Affordable Health Choices Act drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee pushes "Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls," the Wall Street Journal
reports.
At the same time, Page 114 of the act specifically exempts members of Congress from the public plan.
The bill mandates that all other Americans enroll in "qualified" health plans and submit proof of enrollment to the government.
Everyone must report "the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of each individual who is covered under health insurance that is qualifying coverage" and include the "number of months during the calendar year during which each such individual was covered under such health insurance," along with "such other information as the Secretary may prescribe."
Under his plan for health "reform," President Obama has promised Americans that citizens will have the same health care options members of Congress receive. During his presidential campaign, he told an audience in Canton, Ohio, in October 2008: "If you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves."
At a news conference June 23, Obama said people will be able to choose their insurance "the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do."
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Federal employees, retirees and their survivors enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country. You can choose from among Consumer-Driven and High Deductible plans that offer catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles, health savings/reimbursable accounts and lower premiums, or Fee-for-Service (FFS) plans, and their Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO), or Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) if you live (or sometimes if you work) within the area serviced by the plan."
Mark McClellan, a doctor and economist at the Brookings Institution, told USA Today he believes Congress gets a great deal when it comes to health care options.
"It's significantly more generous than most Americans are getting," said McClellan. According to the report, members of Congress also receive medical care from a Capitol doctor for a small charge and my get treatment at military hospitals – the same medical care offered to presidents and visiting dignitaries.
"They get what bureaucrats get – plus," said Steve Ellis with Taxpayers for Common Sense.
In a June 24 ABC News health care forum anchored from the White House
by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson, Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, pointed out that members of Congress may propose government health care solutions for the American public that limit medical care options.
Meanwhile, he explained that lawmakers know that if their own family gets sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
The following is a video of the discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/v/J-fISN-Df0Y&hl=en&fs=1&
He asked President Obama if he wouldn't seek outside care for his wife or daughters if they became ill and his public plan limited treatment and tests.
Devinsky asked:
If your wife or your daughter became seriously ill, and things were not going well, and the plan physicians
told you they were doing everything that could reasonably be done, and you sought out opinions from some medical leaders in major centers and they said there's another option you should pursue, but it was not covered in the plan, would you potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions or would you do everything you possibly could as a father and husband to get the best health care and outcome for your family?
The president would not pledge not to seek outside care, though he said, "I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And, you're absolutely right that if it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.
"There's a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier," he said.
But Rep. John Fleming, R-La., a physician, asks if public health care is such a great idea, why don't members of Congress who vote for it actually sign up their own families?
He has offered H. Res. 615 with 53 Republican co-sponsors, which states:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
Fleming said that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress won't have to participate in the government plan for at least five years – and even after five years, enrollment will still be considered optional. Meanwhile, every other American will be forced to comply with government rules by obtaining "qualifying" plans.
Fleming told Fox News, "All these health care bills that are coming out on the Democrats' side – the 'reform' bills – basically say that Congress is exempt for at least the first five years, and perhaps longer," he said. "I've issued H. Res. 615 that simply says, look, if you vote for this, then you should choose it."
He continued, "We've reached out to every Democrat in the House, and we have yet to have a taker. They want it for every American – except for members of Congress."
Fleming's bill has been referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
On July 16, Rep. Dean Heller, R.-Nev., offered a similar amendment to H.R. 3200 during the House Ways and Means Committee markup that would require members of Congress to enroll in its own government-run health care program. Democrats defeated the amendment by a vote of 21 to 18.
Concerned individuals may contact their respective senators and representatives.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104716
Obama Proposes Replacing Anesthesia with Press Conferences
Andy Borowitz
President Barack Obama made a bold new health care proposal last night, saying that the nation could save billions annually by replacing anesthesia with press conferences.
"Instead of administering costly anesthetics, a doctor could simply pipe in a few minutes of me talking about electronic medical records," Mr. Obama said. "I guarantee you, that patient will be out cold."
The president said that clinical trials showed that patients who are exposed to one of his pressers usually lose consciousness within three minutes, "just like Helen Thomas does."
Mr. Obama's press conference appears to have been a big success, with a new poll showing that 57% of Americans favor the President's health care plan "if he will promise to stop talking about it."
Elsewhere, just days after he was released from prison, Michael Vick said he had nothing to do with the death of the Taco Bell Chihuahua.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-proposes-replacing_b_243372.html
Healthcare Policy, Social Justice and Thugs
By John Dale Dunn MD JD
Policy Makers say the only way to achieve social justice is to deliver an equal and adequate amount of health care, directed by a well motivated government central plan. No more crude private system, flawed, uneven, and unfair.
I have a day job as a physician. A great job, a wonderful job, better because I do it in the emergency department at a very big army base, so I can thank soldiers and retired soldiers for their service. I also get to teach, and emergency medicine is a great niche for a physician suited to it.
I did my internship at Harlem Hospital in New York, then was a solo general practitioner in a little Nebraska town, followed by a great variety of practice situations in places big and little. I was a student when Medicare started, knew Medicaid in its early years as a ghetto practitioner, ran an HMO in 1980 and 81 as CEO and Medical Director in the early days of managed care, after I finished law school.
My theory or hope (actually, my illusion) was that managed care would reward an effort to provide efficient and effective care. I am an optimistic person, and managed care taught me about pricing and markets for resources -- the basics of economics and insurance. HMO of Baton Rouge went bankrupt in spite of my efforts to make good on my idea that managed care and managing health care costs would be economically viable. No way we could have succeeded without an effective vice president of rationing.
I will admit that since the bankruptcy of HMO of Baton Rouge, I have no interest in being a "manager" and insurance executive, but, like all physicians, my life is being a doctor, like my dad (a general practitioner), my brother (a general surgeon) and my sister (a neurosurgeon). It therefore gives me great sorrow to watch elites and experts and politicians destroy what I have watched become one of the great achievements of America, a health care system that provides incredibly effective technology and treatments for all kinds of things.
When I started in practice in Elgin, Nebraska, a town of 900, in 1972 there was much less technology available and certainly less than that available to big city patients. Things changed and expectations of patients, resources, and mobility increased, so that rural and city medical care in America is now quite sophisticated.
What we developed in American Healthcare, for various reasons, will soon begin to go away. Soon the budgets and the efforts will be pinched and become mediocre under the new proposed Healthcare Takeover plan. However, I must say I saw the beginning of the death of good American Medicine 35 years ago in the office of the Elgin State Bank, where the banker sold Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance, the dominant insurance of the day. The price was great, but I knew that people were going into the only hospital in the county for checkups and sometimes older folks were hospitalized for custodial care during family vacations. Blue Cross had a high tolerance for inappropriate use, the premiums started to increase, and people started to complain, but continued to enjoy hospital care when outpatient care meant out of pocket expenses.
My experience with Medicaid, intended as Medicare for the poor, when I returned to the big city in 1974 and took up a practice with poor patients, was scary. I was so desperate that I went to the Nebraska capital, Lincoln, and pleaded my case to Medicaid officials to hurry up their payments for my predominately Medicaid practice. I wasted my time. I was an outlier in the world of medicine, a goofy do-gooder, during the days when physicians were jumping into higher income brackets.
I went to Louisiana after law school in 1979 for the job I thought ideally suited for a physician-lawyer who was interested in health care economics and policy. I became the benefits and patient care referee, CEO, Medical Director, dealing with a limited premium budget and an insatiable demand from patients. Patients paid a "community" premium, level for the program with no underwriting allowed for preexisting conditions -- no protection at all. We had some patients who got open heart surgery the first month they joined the HMO. That's the way it was for federally funded HMOs (Nixon was the author of an elaborate managed care start up and funding plan, imagine that).
I was the manager between people who couldn't understand the word no -- the patients and members of the HMO would wanted Cadillac medical care 24/7 for their community rated premium, and people who couldn't tolerate saying no -- the physicians and board of directors, influenced by federal experts who believed in lavish benefits combined with a level, one size fits all, premium.
The HMO went into bankruptcy, and I was then occasionally asked to make speeches on why HMOs go broke. I saw patients, tried to keep costs down, but I was fighting a losing battle, because the economics were against me. The bankruptcy was a disappointment and took a lot out of me, but taught me many lessons about patients, insurance, and medical care.
In 1983 I retreated to emergency medicine for thrills and predictable hours and because my nurse wife loved emergency medicine too. There is not enough room here to describe everything I did after that, but I ended up in a medium size town in Texas, because Texas was my kind of place. Not bad for starters and I finally had a good lake for working on water skiing.
Now I am too old for a new career, and teach emergency medicine to army neophyte emergency residents at a big base hospital. I am watching the Texas Medical Association, once a proud and independent organization that stood for the physician role in society and for the benefit of patients, along with every other damn medical society and association, delude themselves into accepting socialized health care. These physicians go to college, listen to socialist smart ass professors, come out convinced that the welfare state and Marxism are well meaning and just need more planning and money. They also feel guilty about being privileged and well off -- and they think the rich need to contribute for the benefit of the poor.
We end up with leftist, socialist, welfare state insanity supported by the smartest guys in the healthcare system.
I found out that HMO managed care is insurance writ large, a total package on the promise of a premium that looks good. The trouble is, there is no way to ration care to the over-users who have no incentive to be rational, and have veritably unlimited access. I see the same thing in Military Medicine, but ignore it, since I do believe that Military Medicine is intended to be easy access as a reward and a thank-you.
The health care crisis in America is not about the quality of health care, but about sticker shock to people who believe and have believed in the free lunch. The political theme is the health care system is broken and too expensive -- and that must mean someone is a victim and someone is taking advantage
There is plenty of talk today about the broken medical care system, inefficiency and waste and the prospects of government-planned better quality and how a more accomplished central planning effort and more rules will create better care at a lower price. All the yakking is a distraction. Even the providers, who know the truth, will join the government plan to save, short term, their economic status. Some hope to maneuver a place on the planning committee and receive favorable payment treatment. They also recognize political pressure and know it's a dance; planning doesn't control silly overuse and lack of economic incentives. They know the system will never be sensible until people start paying their own bills for service. However they also aren't inclined to blurt out the truth to guys with an attitude.
Last night I saw patients, just me and the nurses and the patients. No committee; the association executives and insurance people were asleep, and so was the administrator of the hospital. Just me, thanking soldiers for their service and asking patients what the problem was, coordinating with the radiology and lab and nursing staffs, a plan that was in my head. With a ball point pen spending some money, not as much as residents spend because they are under pressure to over achieve, but still spending hundreds of dollars with a stroke of a pen to answer questions of great import to the patients and to their physician, me.
That's the nature of being the decision maker. I have lived a good and rewarding life being a physician, that's why I must say I am very concerned that my profession is allowing the calling to become a matter of servitude to a government entity, and not a service to the person on the exam table. I am concerned about non-physicians and no-longer-physician-chatterers clogging the hallways and forums of state and federal capitals, pretending that they have special knowledge of the health needs of Americans, what will work, and how to pay for it and achieve social justice.
I am saddened when a conservative physician Senator, a fine man from Oklahoma, sponsors a Republican Bill of 1000 pages in response to a Democrat bill of more than 1000 pages, on the theory that there is a lighter version of overreach.
The vast majority of the uninsured do not need care -- they are young and healthy or they would already be in the safety net. There is no uninsured crisis. The cost of uninsured care in the United States is less than 50 billion, much less, because the bill of 120 billion is a bill of lost income, not cost. Cost is half of that-- 40 to 50 billion, and the uninsured pay 40 or 50 billion, so one might call uninsured care a wash. It's not forbidden to pay for healthcare with cash money, is it?
So the cost of uninsured care is 2 percent of the total cost of American health care. The studies show that they don't suffer ill health because of lack of insurance -- that is another shibboleth put out by the left. Lack of insurance is not a disease I know.
To address another obsession of the public and politicians, encouraged by my whining emergency physician colleagues, the uninsured who go to the emergency department are not that big a problem. In fact the total cost for emergency care in America uninsured, and insured, is 120 million visits at a cost of less than 1000 dollars per visit. That is well less than 5 % of the 2 trillion plus total cost of healthcare in the US. So the crisis is?
So two phony crises are enough to take down the whole system and reconstruct it, and put it in the hands of the organization that gave us the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the VA, the Post Office, the Department of Education, or the EPA and the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce. Is there a czar of national healthcare?
The premium cost and affordability that irritates the devil out of the common man and makes it impossible to find real catastrophic, cheap health insurance, could be fixed on Monday next if the state and federal mandates were removed and insurance companies could get down and compete. My cheap-as-possible catastrophic policy with a 10,000 dollar deductible (yes you read that right, that's the way big boys buy their insurance) would cost me a lot less than 4500 dollars a year, since I have never, ever filed a health insurance claim in my life (I am not unique, some people, even doctors, don't use health insurance to pay their medical bills).
So the problem is that the federal government proposes in its Healthcare Highjack Bill that they will fix the cost of health care and make it cheap and high quality when they caused the problem? The same outfit that made healthcare insurance premiums too expensive and restricted competition across the country says they are the solution?
We need to start over and ditch the guys from Chicago, they're always on the take and acting like thugs.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/healthcare_policy_social_justi.html
TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND CALL ME WHEN YOUR CANCER IS STAGE 4
by Ann Coulter
July 22, 2009
All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.
The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.
As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!
We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations.
So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.
The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.
This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.
But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.
As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.
The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.
Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.
Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.
Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.
Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.
You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.
Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.
Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.
Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=322
54 House Democrats and All Republicans Against Obamacare? Update: Make that 69 Dems?
Today, Nancy Pelosi said: "I have no question that we have the votes on the floor of the House to pass this [health-care] legislation." But Joe Pounder of the GOP Whip's press office emails:
Today, the President will hold a primetime press conference where he will inevitably employ a straw man argument to blame Republicans for somehow delaying the House Democrat health care bill. However, the press conference comes after at least 42 House Democrats have expressed either their outright opposition to or concern about the Democrats' health care bill. Please see below for a full list of the 42 and what they have had to say. We will keep updating this document in the days ahead.
Here's an update: 19 Democrats wrote in a letter to Nancy Pelosi: "we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan." Twelve of these 19 Democrats aren't already on the list of 42, which you can see in full after the jump. (Update: I originally incorrectly wrote that 11 weren't on the list. Corrections have been made accordingly.):
Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.)
Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
Tim Holden (Penn.)
Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas)
Jerry Costello (Ill.)
Travis Childers (Miss)
Steve Driehaus (Ohio)
Paul Kanjorski (Penn.)
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
John Murtha (Penn.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Earlier today, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said at a press conference that he believes there are potentially 39 Democrats who would vote against the House bill because it would mandate taxpayer-funded abortions. Thirty-nine Democrats recently voted to reestablish the Dornan amendment, which prohibits taxpayer-funding of abortions in D.C.
Asked after the same press conference if any Republicans support the bill, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) told me: "As of this point, we don't know of any. I just talked to a senior member this morning about that issue." Some of the most likely GOP suspects to vote for Obamacare are the eight Republicans who voted for cap-and-trade. But most of them have explicitly come out against Obamacare. The one exception: John McHugh, the New York congressman appointed to be Obama's Secretary of the Army. His press secretary did not respond to an email asking about his position on the House's health-care legislation.
If all Republicans oppose the legislation, they would need 40 Democrats to join them in order to defeat the bill.
Update: Apologies for the piecemeal process of tabulating congressman who have problems with the House bill, but it turns out that 15 of the 39 House Democrats who tried to block taxpayer-funding of abortion in D.C. aren't already listed above or below:
Carney
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Ellsworth
Griffith
Kildee
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Lipinski
Mollohan
Mitchell
Nye
Perriello
Rahall
Skelton
Wilson (OH)
At Least 42 House Democrats Are Holding Up The House Democrat Bill:
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) Rep. Mike Arcuri (D-NY)
Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK)
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL)
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Rep. John Hall (D-NY) Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO)
Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME)
Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY) Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Rep. Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD) Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) Rep. Zack Space (D-OH)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Rep. John Tanner (D-TN)
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM)
Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN)
Full Quotes:
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Altmire: “I Can’t Support The Bill As It’s Currently Written.” ALTMIRE: “Oh, I can`t support the bill as it`s currently written. The tax increases is going to put a burden on small businesses, who can`t afford to offer health care right now. What makes anything think that, by increasing their tax burden, they are somehow going to find a way to offer health care to people that they can`t afford to offer it to now?” (Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” 7/16/09)
· Rep. Altmire: “This Bill, In My Opinion, Does Not Strike The Balance Between Preserving What Works In Our Current System And Fixing What Does Not Work.” ALTMIRE: “This bill, in my opinion, does not strike the balance between preserving what works in our current system and fixing what does not work. We need to make the reforms in our payment system that currently incentivize inefficiencies. We need to do quality reimbursement, not quantity reimbursement. Currently, our reimbursement system is based upon how many services you provide and how often you show up in that doctor`s office. … We need to change that. We need to squeeze the inefficiencies out of the system.” (Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” 7/16/09)
· Rep. Altmire: “I Don’t Want To Talk About Any Tax Hikes.” ALTMIRE: “I don`t think we need to go outside of our health care system to find any revenue that is necessary. I think we can find the revenue within the current health care system by squeezing those inefficiencies. I don`t want to talk about any tax hikes. … I don`t want there to be tax hikes, even if they are being used for health care. I certainly don`t want them to pay for other programs.” (Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” 7/16/09)
· Rep. Altmire: “I Have A Concern With Going Outside The Health Care System.” “While a surtax on the wealthy may be the most politically palatable way to pay for the overhaul, it is sure to cost House Democratic leaders some votes among their caucus. ‘I have a concern with going outside the health care system’ to pay for the bill, said Jason Altmire , D-Pa., a Blue Dog.” (Alex Wayne, “How To Pay For Health Plan? Tax The Rich Or Not?” CQ Today, 7/13/09)
Rep. Mike Arcuri (D-NY): “It Will Be Very Helpful For Me To Have A Bill To Go Home With During The Recess To Talk To People In My District.” “Rep. Mike Arcuri of New York, a Blue Dog Democrat, said slowing down will ease Americans' fears that Congress is ‘shoving probably the most important piece of legislation that we've passed in many years down their throat.’ ‘It will be very helpful for me to have a bill to go home with during the recess to talk to people in my district,’ Arcuri said.” (Bill Theobald, “Rep. Space At Center Of Health-Care Reform Debate,” Zanesville Times Recorder, 7/21/09)
Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH): “My Feeling Is There’s Enough Money In The System Already.” “Still, that’s the kind of discussion that could raise concerns for centrist freshman Democrats like Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio), who says there’s ‘a little fear’ among his constituents of a government-run plan, and no appetite for a tax increase. ‘My feeling is there’s enough money in the system already,’ Boccieri said.” (Mike Soraghan, “Speaker Pelosi Makes Aggressive Push To Finish Healthcare Reform This Month,” The Hill, 7/8/09)
Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “The House Bill That’s Out There, I Can’t Support.” “Second District Congressman Dan Boren said Monday that health care reform rests largely on President Barack Obama's willingness to accept bipartisan compromise on the issue. ‘If health care reform is going to happen it will have to happen in a bipartisan way,’ Boren told the Tulsa Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. ‘It's really up to the president.’ Boren, a Democrat, said he is trying to keep an open mind but said, ‘The House bill that's out there, I can't support.’” (Tom Gilbert, “Boren: Bipartisanship Key To Health Care,” Tulsa World, 7/20/09)
· Rep. Boren: “I Think We’re Spending Enough Already On Health Care. … It’s A Matter Of Using The Resources Wisely.” “So how would Boren suggest providing health care insurance to more individuals? ‘I think we’re spending enough already on health care,’ Boren said. ‘It’s a matter of using the resources wisely.’” (James Beaty, “Boren Wary Of Government-Run Health Plan,” McAlester News-Capital, 7/10/09)
· Rep. Boren: “Said He Couldn’t Support Such An Issue” As Mandating That All Business Owners Provide Insurance Or Face A Fine. “One radical bill floating out in the legislature would mandate all business owners to provide insurance or they would face a fine. Boren said he couldn’t support such an issue.” (Julie Yates, “Boren Answers Questions At Elks,” The Daily Times, 5/29/09)
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL): “I Think That There’s Still A Long Ways To Go.” “‘I think that there’s still a long ways to go,’ Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.) said. ‘Many of us wish we would wait and do this after the Senate acts, and we’ve communicated that to leadership.’” (Steven T. Dennis And Tory Newmyer, “House Health Bill Under Fire,” Roll Call, 7/16/09)
· Rep. Boyd: “Not Enough Has Been Done On The Cost Side. … The Committee Has Not Done Enough To Reduce Costs In The System.” “If changes are not made to health care legislation currently before Congress, the bill is as good as dead, U.S. Rep. Allen Boyd said. The Monticello Democrat is a member of the ‘Blue Dog’ coalition, a group of 51 self-described fiscally conservative Democrats who have been actively lobbying for changes to the reform bill. ‘Not enough has been done on the cost side,’ Boyd said Monday. ‘The committee has not done enough to reduce costs in the system.’” (Matt Dixon, “Boyd: Health Care Bill Should Be Scrapped,” News Herald, 7/22/09)
Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA): “Said A Lack Of Meaningful Medicare Reform Is One Of The Reasons He May Not Vote For The Bill.” “Braley said a lack of meaningful Medicare reform is one of the reasons he may not vote for the bill. The House draft legislation does too little to address the current system, he said. It penalizes doctors and hospitals in states like Iowa that consistently rank at the top in quality of care and bottom in Medicare reimbursement rates. He's frustrated because language in the bill would prevent rates from being reduced for anyone who has been overpaid.” (Jens Manuel Krogstad, “Braley Town Hall Focuses On Health Care Reform,” WCF Courier, 7/20/09)
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): “Said He Will Vote Against The Current House Version Of The Healthcare Reform Bill.” “Congressman Bobby Bright said he will vote against the current House version of the Healthcare Reform Bill unless it changes drastically. ‘Not at all, not the way it is now,’ Bright said during a phone interview with the Dothan Eagle.” (Lance Griffin, “Bright: No To Current Healthcare Bill,” Dothan Eagle, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Bright: “Said He Opposes A ‘Public Option’ For Healthcare Reform.” “Bright said he opposes a ‘public option’ for healthcare reform. According to the current House bill, the public option would be a government subsidized plan that competes alongside current private healthcare plans. Bright said the public option placed too many healthcare decisions in the hands of government officials and could put private plans at a competitive disadvantage. ‘I have said this from the beginning, that I would support a healthcare plan that is market driven,’ Bright said.” (Lance Griffin, “Bright: No To Current Healthcare Bill,” Dothan Eagle, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Bright: “For Them To Try To Pay For Healthcare Reform On The Backs Of Small Businesses, I Can’t Support That.” “Bright said he also opposed tax increases on individuals making more than $250,000 annually because he believed it would disproportionately affect small business owners. ‘For them to try to pay for healthcare reform on the backs of small businesses, I can’t support that,’ he said.” (Lance Griffin, “Bright: No To Current Healthcare Bill,” Dothan Eagle, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Bright: “We Don’t Need A System Of Socialized Medicine Like We See In England Or Canada; That Doesn’t Work.” “Bright cautioned those attending not to listen to scare tactics that have sprung up in the health-care debate. ‘Universal health care doesn't mean socialized medicine where the government controls everything,’ he said. ‘We don't need a system of socialized medicine like we see in England or Canada; that doesn't work.’” (Marty Roney, “Universal Care Not Socialism, Riley Says,” The Montgomery Advertiser, 5/30/09)
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL): Concerning The Surtax, “I Don’t Love It. I Hope There Will Be Some Other Options In The End.” “But of the proposed surtax on wealthiest Americans, Castor is more reserved. ‘I don't love it. I hope there will be some other options in the end.’” (Alex Leary, “Health Care Debate Divides Florida,” St. Petersburg Times, 7/18/09)
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC): “I Don’t Think We Have To Have The Surcharge At All.” CLYBURN: “Well, the Republicans I’ve spoken with are very concerned about this surcharge, and I am concerned about that, too. I’ve had listening sessions working with John Larson, Xavier Baccera, the chair and vice chair of our caucus. We’ve had six listening sessions of our members, and we have come away from those sessions believing that we can do this with the savings that we will get out of the system. If we don't get the scoring from CBO, we can still go ahead and do the plan as we envision the savings to be. And I don't think we have to have the surcharge at all. A lot of Democrats on my side of the aisle believe that.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 7/20/09)
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “I’m Not Persuaded Any Sort Of Tax Increase Is Needed.” “‘I'm not persuaded any sort of tax increase is needed,’ said Rep. Gerald Connolly, a first-term Democrat from Virginia. He suggests Democrats should focus more on finding budget savings. ‘The jury is still out on what, if anything, we have to do for revenue enhancement.’” (Greg Hitt And Martin Vaughan, “Health Bill In House Relies On Wealth Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/11/09)
· Rep. Connolly: “Looking At A Tax Increase Before We Have Rung Out Every Possible Cost Savings, I Think Is A Mistake.” “Representative Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia) explained to CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday’s ‘Washington Unplugged’ why the tax increases in the House version of the health care bill give him (and at least twenty two other freshman Democrats) pause. ‘Looking at a tax increase before we have rung out every possible cost savings, I think is a mistake,’ he said.” (Michelle Levi, “House Freshman: Tax Increases Are Not Answer To Health Care,” CBS News, 7/21/09)
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN): “The Tax Increases On Small Businesses And Upper Income People Is Worrisome Because You Don't Want To Hurt Job Creation At A Time Like This.” (ABC’s “World News,” 7/16/09)
· Rep. Cooper: “It Still Looks Like A Budget Buster.” “‘It still looks like a budget buster,’ said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), who complained that despite the $1 trillion cost it would still fail to cover every American.” (Steven T. Dennis And Tory Newmyer, “House Health Bill Under Fire,” Roll Call, 7/16/09)
· Rep. Cooper: “Pouring More Money Into A Broken System Isn’t A Really Good Idea.” “The bill proposed by the House would cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and concerns about cost make Cooper apprehensive about the legislation. He says bringing in money from small business owners isn't necessary, since there is enough ‘waste’ in the current system to pay for the program. ‘Pouring more money into a broken system isn't a really good idea,’ Cooper said. ‘There's so much waste in the health care system that we don't really need to go outside the health care system.’” (“Unplugged: Moderate Dem Talks About Health Care,” CBS News, 7/15/09)
· Rep. Cooper: “Why Would We Want New Taxes In The Middle Of A Recession?” “Cooper, one of the Blue Dog Coalition's experts on health-care reform, said the House bill ‘has good parts but also a lot of terrible parts.’ Among his objections, besides the bill's cost, is a proposed tax on families making more than $350,000 per year, which he said would hurt small businesses. The tax would generate $540 billion over 10 years. ‘Why would we want new taxes in the middle of a recession?’ Cooper said.” (Bill Theobald, “Health Bill Faces Fight From Tennessee Blue Dogs,” Tennessean, 7/19/09)
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN): “I Cannot Support The Bill.” “On Thursday, Gordon and the other six Blue Dogs on the committee demonstrated their concerns about the bill by reading nearly identical opening statements. ‘I am thoroughly reviewing the bill. However, as currently written, I cannot support the bill,’ Gordon said after the hearing.” (Bill Theobald, “Health Bill Faces Fight From Tennessee Blue Dogs,” Tennessean, 7/19/09)
· Rep. Gordon: “We Cannot Fix These Problems By Simply Throwing More Money Into A Broken System.” “There are seven members of the Blue Dog Coalition on the Energy and Commerce panel. They expressed a broad range of concerns about the bill - ranging from its inclusion of a government-run public insurance plan to its treatment of rural areas - but focused mainly on its estimated $1 trillion cost. ‘We cannot fix these problems by simply throwing more money into a broken system,’ said Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., a member of the Blue Dogs.” (Patrick Yoest, “Moderate US House Democrats Cite Cost In Opposing Health Bill,” Dow Jones Newswires, 7/17/09)
Rep. John Hall (D-NY): “Has Reservations About The Tax Component.” “Rep. John Hall, D-Dover, Dutchess County, has reservations about the tax component. ‘This is a bill that is still in a state of flux,’ Hall said, noting that he's working to make sure small businesses are not harmed.” (Brian Tumulty, “Health Plan Tax Meets Resistance,” Democrat And Chronicle, 7/20/09)
Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM): “It’s Still A Work In Progress And I Think We Need To Reduce Costs Before Considering Other Options.” “Congressman Martin Heinrich says he's not happy about a potential tax hike. ‘I think we have to be committed to providing health care reform this year to stabilize a very problematic system, but it's still a work in progress and I think we need to reduce costs before considering other options,’ he said.” (“NM Congressmen Work To Complete Healthcare Bill,” KOB News 4, 7/21/09)
Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Said This Morning He Would Not Vote For The Health Care Reform Bill In Its Present Form.” “Congressman Baron Hill said this morning he would not vote for the health care reform bill in its present form, primarily because he believes it lacks effective health care cost controls. … ‘There are seven of us blue dogs on the committee opposed to the bill in its present form,’ Hill said. ‘We met the last two days drafting amendments to the bill that address the issue of accountability and cost controls.’ Hill said he wants the bill to control costs by shifting the system away from the fee-for-service model, which he says financially rewards doctors and hospitals in direct proportion to the number of procedures they perform. ‘We need to create a medical system that makes sure the patient comes first instead of a system that rewards doctors for overutilizing services,’ he said. ‘That means getting rid of fee-for-service.’” (Dann Denny, “Baron Hill Wants Health Care Bill Modifications,” Herald-Times, 7/16/09)
· Rep. Hill: “I’ve Expressed Some Concerns To Our President And To Our Leadership That That’s Moving Awfully Quickly.” “Democratic House leaders have told Hill they want to pass the bill out of committee by next Wednesday or Thursday and President Barack Obama and House and Senate leaders want the bill voted on by the first of August. ‘I've expressed some concerns to our president and to our leadership that that's moving awfully quickly,’ Hill said.” (Jill Hall, “Hill: Don’t Rush Reform,” The Tribune, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Hill: “It’s The Spending And The Cost.” “‘It’s the spending and the cost. The [Congressional Budget Office score] last week was really a hit across the bow,’ said Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a Blue Dog leader and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. ‘Blue Dogs took that as an opportunity to try and make some sense out of all the spending that’s in the bill. We must get it under control.’” (Mike Soraghan And Jared Allen, “Dems At Odds On How To Turn Tide On Health,” The Hill, 7/21/09)
· Rep. Hill: “I Think We Can Do A Whole Lot More Controlling Costs Here Before We Raise Taxes.” “Top among the Blue Dogs' concerns is the bill's cost. Currently, the legislation imposes a surtax on wealthy Americans to help pay for the plan, something Hill hopes will be unnecessary if he and other Blue Dogs get their way in imposing more cost controls. But he's not ruling anything out. ‘I've got to keep an open mind’ about financing health care, Hill said. But, he added, ‘I think we can do a whole lot more controlling costs here before we raise taxes.’” (Lesley Stedman Weidenbener, “Hill: change Health-Care Bills,” The Courier-Journal, 7/18/09)
Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH): “‘Concerned’ About The Taxes On Small Businesses And The Wealthy.” “Although Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Columbus, was the only freshman Democrat from Ohio not to sign the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Kilroy spokesman Paul Tencher said she still is ‘concerned’ about the taxes on small businesses and the wealthy.” (Jack Torry, “Ohio Democrats Call Out Pelosi On Health Bill,” The Columbus Dispatch, 7/21/09)
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The House Ways And Means Committee. “The House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation early Friday to overhaul the health care system and expand insurance coverage after a marathon session in which Democrats easily turned back Republican efforts to amend the bill. … In the Ways and Means vote, three Democrats — Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and John Tanner of Tennessee — joined Republicans in voting against the bill.” (Robert Pear, “House Committee Approves Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Kind: “We Have To Have Real Reform.” “If that’s the case, fundamental changes will have to be made, several Democrats said. ‘We have to have real reform,’ said Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee who is pushing leaders to revisit Medicare’s complicated funding formula.” (Patrick O’Connor, “Rank-And-File House Dems Don’t Like It,” Politico, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Kind: “We Are Not Doing Enough To Reform The Health Care Delivery System, To Change The Incentives So Reimbursement Will Be Based On The Value, Rather Than The Volume Of Services.” “House Democrats who voted no cited various concerns. ‘We are not doing enough to reform the health care delivery system, to change the incentives so reimbursement will be based on the value, rather than the volume, of services,’ Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin said.” (Robert Pear And David M. Herszenhorn, “Democrats Grow Wary As Health Bill Advances,” The New York Times, 7/18/09)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA): “We’re Not There Yet, Where I Want Us To Be.” “Loebsack said, though, the bill is far from perfect, especially when it comes to the Medicare reimbursement system. ‘We're not there yet, where I want us to be,’ Loebsack said.” (Christinia Crippes, “House Closes In On Health Care Reform,” The Hawk Eye, 7/19/09)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY): “Also Isn’t Ready To Back The Surcharge.” “Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, Westchester County, also isn't ready to back the surcharge, according to her spokesman, Matthew Dennis. ‘Before she supports another tax on her already heavily taxed constituents, she wants to be sure we maximize savings by squeezing insurers as much as possible,’ Dennis said in an e-mail. ‘That must be determined before we put more burdens on American families. The process is far from over, though, and she will work to reduce the number of people who could be affected by the surcharge and the amount they would pay.’” (Brian Tumulty, “Health Plan Tax Meets Resistance,” Democrat And Chronicle, 7/20/09)
Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO): “I’ve Got My Concerns.” “‘I’ve got my concerns,’ said Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Colo.), a centrist lawmaker from a strongly Republican district. ‘We’ve got to address cost, quality and coverage, with cost being No. 1.’” (Mike Soraghan, “House Dems Show First Draft Of Health Reform Bill,” The Hill, 6/9/09)
Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA): “He Is Opposed To The House Bill In Its Present Form And Does Not Believe It Will Become Law.” “U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall joined a group of fellow Democrats in opposing a bill that would make massive changes in the American health care system. Marshall released Friday a letter signed by 34 self-described ‘fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats’ listing objections to the bill. The Macon Democrat helped draft the letter and signed it, according to a news release from Marshall's office. It quotes his spokesman, Doug Moore, as saying ‘Jim supports fiscally responsible health care reform. He is opposed to the House bill in its present form and does not believe it will become law.’” (Bernard O’Donnell, “Marshall Opposes Health-Care Bill,” 13WMAZ.com, 7/17/09)
Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY): “So If I Had To Vote On The Bill Today, I Would Not Be Able To Support It.” “We spoke to Massa to find out exactly where he stood on the issue. ‘So if I had to vote on the bill today, I would not be able to support it. On the other hand we can not simply sit back and do nothing’, said Massa.” (Nick Natario, “Conflicting Stories,” WETM 18, 7/19/09)
· Rep. Massa: “But I Will Not Vote For A Bill That Gets It Wrong, And If I Had To Vote Today For The Current Piece Of Legislation In Front Of Congress, I Would Not Be Able To Support It.” “U.S. Rep. Eric Massa said if he had to vote today on America's Affordable Health Care Choices Act, he would probably vote against it. ‘We all know that one in six don't have health insurance. We all know that we pay more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world. These things need to be addressed, and doing nothing, which is what so many want to do, is simply not an option,’ said Massa, D-Corning. ‘But I will not vote for a bill that gets it wrong, and if I had to vote today for the current piece of legislation in front of Congress, I would not be able to support it,’ he said Tuesday during his weekly teleconference with the media.” (Ray Finger, “Massa Wary Of Health Care Reform Bill,” Star-Gazette, 7/22/09)
· Rep. Massa: Worried New Yorkers “Could End Up Paying A Disproportionate Amount Into The New System.” “A $1.5 trillion proposal to make health insurance available to every American could be unfair to New Yorkers, U.S. Rep. Eric Massa said Wednesday, July 15. The Corning Democrat said he's concerned New Yorkers could end up paying a disproportionate amount into the new system that relies on the wealthiest, medical providers and employers to foot most of the bill. ‘I'm opposed to it and it may be a deal-breaker,’ Massa said in a morning conference call.” (Joe Dunning, “Massa: New Yorkers Would Suffer Most On Health Care Bill,” The Courier, 7/19/09)
· Rep. Massa: “At A Time When New York Residents Are Up Against The Wall Taxation-Wise, I’m Reluctant To Go Down That Road.” “Massa said his chief concern so far is the tax impact to help pay for the program. Under the plan, a 5.4 percent tax increase would be levied on those making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at incomes starting at $280,000. In New York, that would affect 5 percent of the work force compared to only 1.2 percent of workers nationwide, Massa said referring to numbers supplied by Citizens for Tax Justice, a watchdog group. ‘At at time when New York residents are up against the wall taxation-wise, I'm reluctant to go down that road,’ Massa said.” (Joe Dunning, “Massa: New Yorkers Would Suffer Most On Health Care Bill,” The Courier, 7/19/09)
· Rep. Massa: “I Think We’re Moving Too Fast On Too Many Things.” “The House leadership wants to have this legislation done before end of July, Massa said, noting that is a significant concern. ‘I think we're moving too fast on too many things,’ he said. ‘I would rather see these proposals put up, have members of Congress go back to their districts for the month of August, hear from their constituents and then return. So I'm very concerned.’” (Ray Finger, “Massa: Health Bill Must Cover All,” Star-Gazette, 6/24/09)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT): “We Cannot Fix These Problems By Simply Pouring More Money Into A Broken System.” “The reform proposal, which seeks to control costs while expanding care, is facing a tough fight in the Energy and Commerce committee, mainly because of Blue Dogs like Matheson, who say the current bill is too costly. ‘We cannot fix these problems by simply pouring more money into a broken system,’ Matheson said.” (Matt Canham, “Obama Group Targets Matheson With Health Care Ad,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/19/09)
· Rep. Matheson: “If We Don’t Reform The System To Get Costs Under Control, Then Nothing Else Matters. … We’re Jut Putting More People Into A Broken System.” “Rep. Jim Matheson, a moderate Democrat from Utah, suggested Mr. Elmendorf's assessment ‘is of great concern’ and called for renewed focus on restraining spending. ‘If we don't reform the system to get costs under control, then nothing else matters,’ he said. ‘We're just putting more people into a broken system.’” (Greg Hitt, “Budget Blow For Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Matheson: “Take Whatever Time It Takes To Have A Good Bill.” “But Matheson said afterward that the group will still ‘take whatever time it takes to have a good bill,’ and will ‘not be rushed by a deadline.’ House Democratic leaders have said they want to pass reform out of committee by July 31, when the House starts its summer recess.” (Lee Davidson, “Obama Meets With Matheson On Health Care,” Deseret News, 7/22/09)
Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY): “I’m Not Convinced We Should Raise Taxes To Pay For This Until We Can Be Certain That We Have Squeezed As Much Revenue From The System As We Can.” “Instead of raising taxes, some House Democrats say, lawmakers should dig deeper to find more savings in the health system. ‘I'm not convinced we should raise taxes to pay for this until we can be certain that we have squeezed as much revenue from the system as we can,’ said Rep. Mike McMahon, D-N.Y.” (Martin Vaughan, “House Democrat: US Lawmakers Should Also Pay Health Surtax,” Dow Jones Newswires, 7/17/09)
Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA): “This Needs To Be Budget-Neutral, Meaning No New Dollars Are Spent Until We Find All The Savings We Can In The Current System.” “Melancon, a member of the conservative Democratic group the Blue Dog Coalition, has identified some parameters of what the healthcare reform bill should include. ‘This needs to be budget-neutral, meaning no new dollars are spent until we find all the savings we can in the current system,’ he said. ‘That means avoiding the duplication and concentrate our money on preventative medicine.’” (Keyon K. Jeff, “Congressman Elicits Local Input On The State Of Tri-Parish Healthcare,” Tri-Parish Times, 6/5/09)
Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME): “Businesses Are Having A Hard Enough Time Providing Coverage For Their Employees. … It Would Be Going In The Wrong Direction To Tax Businesses.” “In the House of Representatives, Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine’s second district said he is ‘not wedded to [Obama’s] time frame; I’m wedded to the idea that we do what is right for the country.’ As a fiscally conservative ‘blue dog’ Democrat, Michaud said, one of his primary concerns is how much the health care reform will cost and how it might be funded. He is opposed to taxing employer-sponsored benefits, one idea that has been floated. ‘Businesses are having a hard enough time providing coverage for their employees,’ he said. ‘It would be going in the wrong direction to tax businesses.’” (Meg Haskell, “Maine Leaders Weigh In On Health Care Bills,” Bangor Daily News, 6/27/09)
Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY): “I Don’t Think This Is The Right Way To Pay For Health Care Reform.” “The plan, which would impose a surtax on individuals making more than $280,000 and couples making more than $400,000, is part of a bill the House could vote on by the end of the month. ‘The bill needs to be more focused on taking costs out of the system,’ said Rep. Scott Murphy, D-Glens Falls. ‘I don't think this is the right way to pay for health care reform.’” (Brian Tumulty, “Health Plan Tax Meets Resistance,” Democrat And Chronicle, 7/20/09)
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): “There Is Enough Money In The System To Make This Work. What They’re Talking About Doing Here Is Just Adding Some More Gasoline To The Fire That Going To Burn Down This Country.” “Here's a little secret you might not know about the health care reform being debated in Washington: Minnesota might not want it. At least, that's how members of Congress from Minnesota are talking about the reform proposals on the table right now. They're not sure that the potential cures for the system - requiring everyone to have insurance, expanding Medicare or taxing health benefits - won't be worse than what currently ails health care. ‘They're trying to put a tax on people, so that they can keep the existing system going, and then add some more cost to it,’ said Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota's 7th Congressional District. ‘And it doesn't need to be done. There is enough money in the system to make this work. What they're talking about doing here is just adding some more gasoline to the fire that's going to burn down this country. And I'm not going to go along with that.’ Peterson's a Democrat, and he's for health care reform. Like most members of Congress, he thinks more people should be covered and that health insurance is too expensive.” (Tim Nelson, “Minnesota Delegation Wary Of Proposed Health Care Reform,” Minnesota Public Radio, 7/14/09)
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Polis: “The Surcharge Is A Bit Of A Flawed Concept.” “Mr. Baucus isn't considering a major new tax of the sort being pushed in the House. That's prompting a chorus of House Democrats to call for their leadership to wait and see what Mr. Baucus produces before forcing rank-and-file lawmakers to take a career-defining vote on whether to levy a hefty new surtax on wealthy households. ‘From a political perspective, there's wisdom and advantage to waiting for the other body,’ said Rep. Jared Polis, a first-term Democrat from Colorado. Mr. Polis fears the levy would hurt small, family-owned businesses, which often pay individual income taxes, rather than corporate taxes. ‘The surcharge is a bit of a flawed concept,’ he said.” (Greg Hitt And Patrick Yoest, “Centrists Seek To Slow Health Bill Timetable,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/18/09)
· Rep. Polis: “The Way We Are Paying For Health Reform Would Put A Lot Of Strain On Small Business, Which Is Particularly Dangerous During A Recession.” “On Friday, a group of freshman House Democrats traveled to the White House to talk with Obama about their opposition to provisions in the House bill to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. ‘The way we are paying for health reform would put a lot of strain on small business, which is particularly dangerous during a recession,’ said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a leader of the group.” (Noam Levey, “Obama’s Team Weights In On Healthcare Overhaul,” Los Angeles Times, 7/18/09)
· Rep. Polis: New Taxes “Could Cost Jobs In A Recession.” “On Capitol Hill, the picture is more complex. Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes ‘could cost jobs in a recession.’ … Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. ‘Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,’ he said.” (Robert Pear And David M. Herszenhorn, “Democrats Grow Wary As Health Bill Advances,” The New York Times, 7/18/09)
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The House Ways And Means Committee. “The House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation early Friday to overhaul the health care system and expand insurance coverage after a marathon session in which Democrats easily turned back Republican efforts to amend the bill. … In the Ways and Means vote, three Democrats — Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and John Tanner of Tennessee — joined Republicans in voting against the bill.” (Robert Pear, “House Committee Approves Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Pomeroy: “Said He Will Not Support A Health Care Reform Bill In His House Committee Tomorrow Because It Could Financially Hurt North Dakota Health Care Providers.” “Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., said he will not support a health care reform bill in his House committee tomorrow because it could financially hurt North Dakota health care providers. House lawmakers unveiled a first draft of their plan to reform the nation's health care system on Tuesday, with a public option that would pay health care providers at reimbursement rates used by Medicare, the government-run health care program for Americans 65 and older. Hospitals would receive an additional 5 percent reimbursement under the plan. Pomeroy, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said that would hurt rural states like North Dakota, which has some of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the nation -- a common concern among North Dakota health care providers.” (Brian Duggan, “Pomeroy Says Bill Would Hurt N.D. Providers,” Bismarck Tribune, 7/15/09)
· Rep. Pomeroy: “Said Today That He Will Vote Against The Health Care Reform Bill … Because It Would Tie The Payment Schedule For A New Public Option Insurance Plan To Existing Medicare Payments.” “Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., said today that he will vote against the health care reform bill when it comes before the House Ways and Means Committee Thursday because it would tie the payment schedule for a new public option insurance plan to existing Medicare payments. Hospitals and other health care providers in North Dakota are seriously under-reimbursed by Medicare, he said, and ‘there is no way we would sustain existing levels of care,’ including access to hospitals and specialists, with a public insurance option linked to Medicare payment schedules.” (Chuck Haga, “Pomeroy Says He Will Vote Against Health Care Reform Bill,” Grand Forks Herald, 7/15/09)
· Rep. Pomeroy: “I Have A Serious Problem With The Public Plan In This Bill Because It’s Based On Medicare Rates.” “Others worry that a government-run health plan, to be created under the House bill, would underpay doctors and hospitals by using Medicare reimbursement rates. ‘I have a serious problem with the public plan in this bill because it’s based on Medicare rates,’ Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota said. ‘North Dakota is underpaid by Medicare.’” (Robert Pear And David M. Herszenhorn, “Democrats Grow Wary As Health Bill Advances,” The New York Times, 7/18/09)
· Rep. Pomeroy: “There’s A Very Regional Disparity In This Bill. I’m Highly Annoyed By That Inequity.” “He said if a third of North Dakotans transferred their health care coverage to such a public health insurance plan, North Dakota hospitals would be poised to lose $138 million a year. ‘There is no way we will sustain the availability of care ... if our health care system was to take that big a hit,’ Pomeroy said, adding ‘There's a very regional disparity in this bill. I'm highly annoyed by that inequity.’” (Brian Duggan, “Pomeroy Says Bill Would Hurt N.D. Providers,” Bismarck Tribune, 7/15/09)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “No One Knows What The Public Option Will Or Will Not Be Able To Achieve. … Frankly, It’s An Experiment.” “‘No one knows what the public option will or will not be able to achieve,’ said Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, a Blue Dog leader. ‘Frankly, it’s an experiment. We cannot create a public option that stacks the deck against a system that currently provides coverage to more than 160 million Americans.’” (Robert Pear, “Obama Open To A Mandate On Health Insurance,” The New York Times, 6/3/09)
· Rep. Ross: “We Need To Slow Down And Do It Right.” “‘We need to slow down and do it right,’ Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said outside a meeting of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 52 moderate to conservative Democrats. ‘It needs to do a much better job of cost containment’ within the health care system, he added.” (David Espo And Eric Werner, “Health Care Overhaul Suffers Another Setback,” The Associated Press, 7/9/09)
· Rep. Ross: “We Cannot Fix These Problems By Simply Pouring More Money Into A Broken System.” “The CBO director's assessment also underscored concerns that moderate to conservative House Democrats known as Blue Dogs have with the bill backed by their leadership. ‘We cannot fix these problems by simply pouring more money into a broken system,’ said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., chairman of the Blue Dogs' health care task force.” (David Espo, “Health Care Overhaul Bill Has Its Ups And Downs,” The Associated Press, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Ross: “We Had Seven Against It Last Friday; We Have 10 Today.” “U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes. ‘Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee,’ Ross told reporters after a House vote. ‘We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today.’” (Martin Vaughan, “Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill,” Dow Jones Newswires, 7/15/09)
· Rep. Ross: “The Current Bill Would Have To Be Substantially Amended Before We Could Consider Supporting It.” “Ross said the bill, introduced Wednesday by House Democratic leaders, doesn't include provisions adequate to curb rising health care costs, including what the government spends on healthcare. ‘The current bill would have to be substantially amended before we could consider supporting it,’ Ross said.” (Martin Vaughan, “Centrist Dem Leader: Has Committee Votes To Block Health Bill,” Dow Jones Newswires, 7/15/09)
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH): “We Clearly Don’t Want Any Federal Funding For Abortions.” “A group of Democratic legislators sought Tuesday night to shape a compromise measure with an amendment say that abortion coverage could not be mandated as a part of insurance plans, but that insurance companies also couldn’t be prohibited from offering that coverage if they chose to. ‘We clearly don't want any federal funding for abortions,’ said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), the lead author of a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi proposing the measure, which is unlikely to satisfy conservatives. ‘I think this is where both sides can come together.’” (Ben Smith, “Abortion Roils Already Tense Health Debate,” Politico, 7/22/09)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD): “Has Little Enthusiasm For A Plan To Impose A Surtax On People.” “Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has little initial enthusiasm for a plan to impose a surtax on people earning more than $280,000 and couples making $350,000 or more to pay for health care reform. The surtax and income tax would be expected to raise $550 billion over 10 years. It is being proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee. ‘Ways and Means last week took me a little bit by surprise, as well as a lot of folks,’ Herseth Sandlin said.” (Peter Harriman, “Tax Plan Fails To Impress Herseth Sandlin,” Argus Leader, 7/16/09)
· Rep. Herseth Sandlin: Surtax “Not My First Choice.” “The surtax is ‘not my first choice,’ said one Blue Dog Democrat, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota. ‘I’ve got some concerns.’” (Kristin Jensen And James Rowley, “Health Bill Hits Snag As Budget Office Questions Cost-Cutting,” Bloomberg, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Herseth Sandlin: “I Don’t Agree With Those Who Say If We Don’t Get This Before August, We Will Never Get It Done.” “‘I don't agree with those who say if we don't get this before August, we will never get it done,’ she said. ‘I think the window is a little broader than some people claim.’ Rather than a potential black hole that can swallow up momentum, Herseth Sandlin said the August recess actually can give members of Congress a chance to return home and make a stronger case for reform. She also predicts a bill will make its way through Congress and to President Obama by the end of the year.” (Peter Harriman, “Tax Plan Fails To Impress Herseth Sandlin,” Argus Leader, 7/16/09)
· Rep. Herseth Sandlin: “I Am Not Prepared To Vote Unless I See Substantial Movement My Way.” “While she is willing to vote for something before the recess, ‘I am not prepared to vote unless I see substantial movement my way,’ Herseth Sandlin said. ‘My thinking is the substance dictates the timing,’ she said.” (Peter Harriman, “Tax Plan Fails To Impress Herseth Sandlin,” Argus Leader, 7/16/09)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): “I Don’t Think We Have Significant Cost-Containment Mechanisms In The Proposal Yet.” “‘I don't think we have significant cost-containment mechanisms in the proposal yet,’ said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. He said he favors provisions aimed at preventing overtreatment of patients and overpayments to doctors, hospitals and other providers.” (David Espo And Eric Werner, “Health Care Overhaul Suffers Another Setback,” The Associated Press, 7/9/09)
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC): “He Does Not Support The Legislation In Its Current Form.” “Shuler, a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition, said the House bill accomplishes one objective of health reform, to expand access to health insurance, but does not do enough to reduce costs. ‘While I do believe that we must ensure that every American has access to affordable, high-quality health care, it is imperative that we fix the current system to eliminate the waste and abuse that has significantly contributed to our skyrocketing health care costs,’ Shuler said in a statement. While he does not support the legislation in its current form, Shuler said he is working to improve the bill by cutting waste and fraud, and adding reforms that include giving consumers incentive to live healthier lives.” (Bill Theobald, “Blue Dogs Key In Health Plan,” Asheville Citizen-Times, 7/22/09)
Rep. Zack Space (D-OH): “We Share Some Concerns About The Bill That’s Been Presented To Us By Leadership, Specifically Concerning Cost Issues And The Speech At Which We Are Moving.” “‘I and the rest of my Blue Dog Coalition... are deeply committed to fixing the health care delivery system,’ Space said in an interview Tuesday. ‘However, we share some concerns about the bill that's been presented to us by leadership, specifically concerning cost issues and the speed at which we are moving.’” (Bill Theobald, “Rep. Space At Center Of Health-Care Reform Debate,” Zanesville Times Recorder, 7/21/09)
· Rep. Space: “Reading The Bill Is One Thing. I’d Like To Get Feedback From My Constituents And Health Care Providers.” “Space said something as important as fixing the nation's health care system should not be rushed. ‘What we are trying to do is make sure that it's a deliberate and thorough process,’ Space said. ‘Reading the bill is one thing. I'd like to get feedback from my constituents and health care providers back home.’” (Bill Theobald, “Rep. Space At Center Of Health-Care Reform Debate,” Zanesville Times Recorder, 7/21/09)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): “I Cannot Support This Bill In Its Current Form.” “‘I cannot support this bill in its current form,’ Democrat Bart Stupak said, adding it did not provide real competition for the insurance industry and could hike costs for consumers.” (Kim Dixon, “Obama Looks For Republican Healthcare Backing,” Reuters, 7/16/09)
· Rep. Stupak: “You’ve Got A Broken System. We Are Perpetuating A Broken System.” “Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) cast himself as one of eight opponents of the bill as written on Energy and Commerce. ‘You've got a broken system. We are perpetuating a broken system,’ Stupak said. ‘They've got to address our concerns, or the other option is a “no” vote.’ He also said opponents might try to block a bill by defeating the House rule on the floor.” (Jeffrey Young, “House Leaders Cheer Healthcare Progress Amid Infighting,” The Hill, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Stupak: “Why Would We Give You More Money For A System That’s Broken?” “Stupak’s concerns are varied, but they include his desire for a prohibition on federal funding for abortions as part of the public insurance option under consideration, as well as a demand for deeper cost cuts and dealing with regional disparities under Medicare. Fundamentally, the bill does not fix the broken health care system, he said. ‘Why would we give you more money for a system that’s broken?’ he asked.” (Steven T. Dennis, “Stupak Warns Of Democratic Defections On Health Bill,” Roll Call, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Stupak: “Why Does One Person Make The Decisions In Washington, D.C.?” “Stupak also is upset about the creation of a new national health czar who would set the rules for health insurance plans. ‘Why does one person make the decisions in Washington, D.C.?’ he asked. ‘What’s Congress’ role? ... ‘Just give us the money.’ We have no say in it.’” (Steven T. Dennis, “Stupak Warns Of Democratic Defections On Health Bill,” Roll Call, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Stupak: “We Need To Quit Doing Health Care By A Clock. … That’s The President’s Agenda, Not Our Agenda.” “Stupak said he believes the House can pass a health bill, but not by the Aug. 31 deadline. ‘We need to quit doing health care by a clock,’ Stupak said. ‘That's the president's agenda, not our agenda.’” (Jeffrey Young, “House Leaders Cheer Healthcare Progress Amid Infighting,” The Hill, 7/17/09)
Rep. John Tanner (D-TN): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The House Ways And Means Committee. “The House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation early Friday to overhaul the health care system and expand insurance coverage after a marathon session in which Democrats easily turned back Republican efforts to amend the bill. … In the Ways and Means vote, three Democrats — Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and John Tanner of Tennessee — joined Republicans in voting against the bill.” (Robert Pear, “House Committee Approves Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Tanner: “I Don’t There’s Been Enough Emphasis On Removing The Inefficiencies That Exist In The Current System Before You Put More Money In.” “‘I don’t think there’s been enough emphasis on removing the inefficiencies that exist in the current system before you put more money in,’ said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), an influential Blue Dog who is also a chief deputy whip. ‘We’re not doing the reform. We need an incremental approach to get rid of these inefficiencies in the system.’ Tanner, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the healthcare proposal’s tax policy, also says ‘there’s a great deal of uneasiness’ about the tax plans under discussion.” (Mike Soraghan, “Speaker Pelosi Makes Aggressive Push To Finish Healthcare Reform This Month,” The Hill, 7/8/09)
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS): “I Don’t Think We Need To Make More Promises Until We Can Figure Out How We Are Going To Pay For The Ones We Have Already Made.” “Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), who also signed the ATR pledge, believes the tax provisions in the healthcare reform bill will place additional financial burdens on the country at a time when it is already overburdened. ‘We can’t afford the promises that we have already made,’ Taylor said. ‘Between the prescription drug benefit and the Medicare trust fund running out in the next seven years, I don’t think we need to make more promises until we can figure out how we are going to pay for the ones we have already made.’” (Michael M. Gleeson, “Rep. Andrews, Norquist Butt Heads On Tax Pledge,” The Hill, 7/20/09)
Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM): “I Just Want To Be Sure That We don’t Try To Do All This Solely On The Backs Of Small Business.” “Congressman Teague is worried about the impact a health bill could have on the economy. ‘You know, as a small business owner in Hobbs, I know how important small businesses are to communities,’ Teague said. ‘I just want to be sure that we don't try to do all this solely on the backs of small business.’” (“NM Congressmen Work To Complete Healthcare Bill,” KOB News 4, 7/21/09)
Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)
· Rep. Titus: “Increasing Taxes Than Can Affect Small Businesses In My District Will Make It Harder For Them To Be The Engines Of Growth That Pull Us Out Of This Recession And Put People Back To Work.” “Titus, who signed the letter, cited those concerns in explaining her vote against the bill at the committee level. ‘This was a difficult vote. There are positive aspects of this legislation like ending the practice of denial based on preexisting condition and making insurance portable. I know that families across Nevada are struggling due to the high cost of health care, but I have concerns regarding the tax portion of this legislation,’ Titus said. ‘We are working hard to lift our economy out of this recession and to promote growth and job creation. Increasing taxes that can affect small businesses in my district will make it harder for them to be the engines of growth that pull us out of this recession and put people back to work,’ she added.” (Jonathan Allen, “Freshmen Join Blue Dogs In Opposition To Health Bill,” CQ Politics, 7/17/09)
Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN): “I’m Concerned With Getting This Right.” “With that in mind, Walz said he’s less anxious about getting a reform bill passed by the end of next week – a goal set by President Barack Obama – and more worried about making sure the legislation is well crafted. ‘I’m concerned with getting this right,’ the second-term Democrat said. ‘There’s nothing more important, I think, than getting health care reform right. ... This is going to be one of those generational opportunities.’” (Mark Fischenich, “Walz Favors Health-Care Reform,” Mankato Free Press, 7/22/09)
Prepared by the Office of the Whip Press Secretary, 7/22/09
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/53_house_democrats_against_oba.asp
Followers
|
4
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
3795
|
Created
|
10/20/08
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator SiouxPal | |||
Assistants bagwa-john |
Politics in America is getting to be more fun than ever.
Now we can heal the wounds inflicted by the Bush administration. Sioux
November 5, 2008
The NY Times breakdown of how the country voted compared to 2004.
The redder the area the more people shifted towards republicans.
The bluer the area, the more people shifted towards the Democrats.
get the interactive map here: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |