Republican lawmakers and candidates are increasingly divided over illegal immigration — torn between the need to attract Latino support, especially at the ballot box, and rallying party members who support tougher action.
Arizona’s new measure, which requires that the police check the documents of anyone they stop or detain whom they suspect of being in the country illegally, has forced politicians far and wide to take a stance. But unlike in Washington, where a general consensus exists among establishment Republicans, the fault lines in the states — where the issue is even more visceral and immediate — are not predictable.
Conservative Republican governors like Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia and Rick Perry of Texas have criticized the Arizona law. But some more moderate Republicans, like Tom Campbell, who is running in the party’s Senate primary in California, have supported it.
The decision on whether to support or oppose the law can have almost immediate political consequences. The latest evidence may be Meg Whitman’s declining fortunes.
For months, Ms. Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay, enjoyed a substantial lead over her principal rival for the Republican nomination for governor of California, Steve Poizner. But in recent weeks, she has seen her advantage slip significantly, in no small part because Mr. Poizner has hammered her on her opposition to the Arizona law.
Finding herself increasingly on the defensive on the issue, Ms Whitman even proclaims in a new advertisement: “I’m 100 percent against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Period.”
Nonetheless, a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California showed her advantage falling 23 percentage points since March, down to 38 versus 29 percent for Mr. Poizner.
In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law.
In Florida, for instance, Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for governor, now says he approves of the law, though he called it “far out” two weeks ago; Marco Rubio, the state’s Republican Senate nominee, has also shifted his stance.
State Republicans now find themselves in a balancing act, trying to seize a moment of Congressional stalemate to demonstrate leadership while not repelling voters on either side of the debate, a challenge that is particularly daunting for those in a primary fight.
“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush. “I applaud Arizona for taking action, but I think the rhetoric on all sides ought to be lowered.”
Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status.
At the same time, state legislatures are racing to create their own laws, making it more likely than ever that the nation will end up with a patchwork of state legislation instead of a comprehensive national approach in the next year or two.
In the first three months of this year, legislators in 45 states introduced 1,180 bills and resolutions relating to immigration; 107 laws have passed, compared with 222 in all of 2009, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.
“The kindling has been lit in the states,” said Matthew Dowd, a political consultant from Texas who was the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.
”With immigration, the choices you have to make are hard, and most people in Washington don’t really like to make hard choices,” he added. “Hard choices are much more often made in the states.”
Democrats have their own problems with the issue. Some more left-leaning factions of the party prefer an amnesty approach to an overhaul.
But the divisions appear more acute among Republicans, some of whom fear that the party will become identified with punitive immigration laws at a time when Hispanics are a growing part of the electorate — particularly in emergent battleground states like Colorado and Nevada.
“I am a grandson of an Irish immigrant,” Mr. McDonnell of Virginia said in an e-mail message. “The Hispanic population in this country contributes to our culture, economic prosperity and quality of life.”
Republicans who are not facing primary challenges are far more likely to take a more moderate view of immigration, and many, particularly in border states, are aware that business groups that depend on illegal immigrants for labor support a comprehensive immigration overhaul.
“If I am running in a primary without opposition, I have the luxury of not having to worry about what I say on this issue,” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politicsat the University of Southern California.
The dynamics of immigration politics vary vastly by state, even among those with heavy immigrant populations, and can reflect local concerns. In Texas, for instance, Latinos have a lot of political influence and have elected candidates for many years. The population there is often closely aligned with the political leadership of some cities and even with state government.
In Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, who faces a Republican primary challenge, was under extreme pressure from her own party for advocating a tax increase, something now seen as largely mitigated by her signing of the immigration bill.
But it is also true that a spate of new polls show support, although tempered, for the state’s tough new immigration law, which is clearly weighing on the minds of candidates.
In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 57 percent of the 1,079 adults queried said the federal government should determine the laws on illegal immigration, and 51 percent said the Arizona law was “about right” in its approach to the problem.
In a poll released by the Pew Research Center this month, 59 percent of 994 respondents said they approved of the Arizona law, while 32 percent disapproved. An Associated Press/Univision poll found that 42 percent of those asked favored the Arizona law and 24 percent opposed it.
“It is really how you ask the question,” said Sarah Taylor, who was Mr. Bush’s political affairs director. “And it is tied up in people’s feelings about their own family’s immigration experience, and then you have elements of race.”
While the federal government ponders, numerous states have already moved to emulate Arizona’s law, while others have moved forward with other measures, from laws that prohibit driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants to those that improve classes for immigrant children in public schools.
The issue is likely to be a problem for both parties throughout this election year.
“People like Perry and McDonnell and others realize this is a very divisive issue for our party,” said Linda Chavez, the Republican chairwoman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative research organization, referring to the governors of Texas and Virginia. “The fact is, you can’t secure the borders if you don’t fix immigration, because the two go hand in hand.”
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Friday, May 21, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Paul’s Views on Civil Rights Cause a Stir
But throughout the primary campaign, Democrats – and some Republicans – had said that Mr. Paul would prove to be a much stronger candidate in the limited field of a primary than in a general election. Democrats had made no secret that they would prefer to run against Mr. Paul than his opponent, Trey Grayson, the secretary of state, a more moderate and politically experienced choice.
And since Tuesday, the reason for Democrats’ optimism — and for the apprehension of Republicans like Mr. McConnell – has become clear as Mr. Paul has struggled to account for his views on issues like segregation, and to explain why a candidate of the Tea Party would hold his victory night celebration at a posh country club in Bowling Green.
In an interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, Mr. Paul appeared uncertain about whether he would have supported forcing private businesses to desegregate in the 1960s, suggesting that might run afoul of his libertarian philosophy. His views emerged as Ms. Maddow asked Mr. Paul if he thought a private business had the right to refuse service to a patron who was black.
(Mr. Paul’s campaign issued a statement late Thursday morning following the Maddow interview, in which he said he supported the Civil Rights Act. It appears below.)
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” he said. “ I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.”
But things got murky from there in the interview: “Well, what it gets into is, is that then if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant, even though the owner of the restaurant says, well, no, we don’t want to have guns in here? The bar says we don’t want to have guns in here, because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?”
Democrats were quick to pounce, suggesting that the interview showed that Mr. Paul in fact thought that private businesses had the right to refuse service to patrons based on race.
Update: Mr. Paul’s campaign issued a statement this morning in response to the uproar over his remarks. In it, he said that he supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark anti-discrimination law. :
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person,” he said. “I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Mr. Paul disputed the claim by opponents that he would support repealing the Civil Rights Act.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign,” he said.
And in an interview on “Good Morning America” on ABC, Mr. Paul argued that his decision to hold his election night celebration at a fancy country club was not in any way at variance with the grass-roots movement he has now come to epitomize. And in the process of explaining his decision, Mr. Paul invoked Tiger Woods, the golfer.
“I think at one time, people used to think of golf and golf clubs and golf courses as being exclusive,” Mr. Paul said, adding, “Tiger Woods has helped to broaden that, in the sense that he’s brought golf to a lot of the cities and to city youth.”
These interviews have come at a propitious time for Democrats, who greeted Mr. Paul’s victory by noting past interviews in which he hinted at views that appear out of the mainstream, like his favoring abolishing the Department of Education and the income tax, and raising the retirement age.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
What May Says About November
What May Says About November
Tuesday night's election results are certainly no crystal ball. But they do tell us a few important things about the upcoming midterm elections.
Things Change Rapidly
We learned a lesson Tuesday night that we should not soon forget. In an election climate this volatile, things change rapidly. Just weeks ago, Arlen Specter seemed almost guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination. Republicans thought they had a great shot at winning John Murtha's old congressional seat. Democrats thought they had little chance of winning a Senate seat in Kentucky and no chance of losing a Senate seat in Connecticut.
But yes, things do change.
Instead, in Tuesday night's elections, Joe Sestak defeated Arlen Specter by a healthy margin. The Democrats held onto John Murtha's district by an even healthier margin. Rand Paul, a candidate too far to the right even for the Republican leadership, won the Republican nomination in Kentucky, giving Democrats their best possible chance to win a Senate seat there.
(And somewhere in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal's campaign staff continued to think that lying about serving in Vietnam doesn't warrant a real apology.)
There are sure to be more changes between now and November, many that we can't foresee. But we do know some of what's to come. We know that the political climate will almost certainly continue to improve for the Democratic Party.
Later this week, the Senate is expected to pass an unexpectedly strong Wall Street reform bill. Two weeks from now, we are likely to find out that, for the third month in a row, the U.S. economy experienced six-figure job growth. Already, national public opinion polls are showing dramatic improvement in voter optimism about the economy and the direction the country is headed. If Democrats can have this good of a night in May, they are almost sure to beat expectations in November.
The Tea Party Isn't Done Ruining the GOP.
Rand Paul's victory won't be the only primary win for the tea party. Over the coming months, tea party candidates are going to win plenty more Republican nominations. In districts that are conservative enough, that will still ensure a Republican victory in the general election. But in a lot of districts, nominating candidates who subscribe to the full gamut of tea party craziness--from birtherism to repealing voting rights to abolishing the Department of Education and Federal Reserve--will help Democrats retain seats that could have otherwise gone to the GOP.
And it's not just primaries the Republicans should be worried about. We can expect a lot of third party challenges from the right once primary season has ended. The more the Tea Party tries to purify the GOP, the more divorced it will become from rest of the country.
Despite the conventional wisdom, that is simply not a recipe for a successful wave election.
Campaigns Matter.
A lot of analysis of Congressional elections tends to look at only the national picture. We determine how well the Democrats will do based on movements in the generic congressional ballot. We make assumptions about the outcomes in November, not based on the dynamics in each individual race, but based on snapshots of the general mood.
But as we saw tonight, this kind of analysis ignores a critical component of elections: the campaigns themselves.
Well-executed campaigns and strong candidates do influence the outcome of elections. And there is little denying that over the last few election cycles, the Democratic Party has become exceedingly good at running congressional campaigns. On Tuesday night the DCCC won its eleventh special election in a row. The Democrats enter the November midterms with better strategists, better tacticians, a bigger war chest, and a wisdom that comes from consistently winning tough races in tough districts.
The public's frustration with the pace of economic recovery and their lack of trust for Washington institutions will not be the only dynamic at play in November. Republicans have weak candidates, wayward campaigns, and a national party with an abysmal track record. Losing the Pennsylvania special election was a huge missed opportunity for the GOP. The Republican Party cannot lose races like that and still expect to retake the majority. And if they can't win an easy pickup when they are exclusively focused on it, it's hard to imagine them pulling off victories deep in Democratic territory while handling more than fifty races at a time.
Tuesday night doesn't tell us what will happen in November. But it does tell us what won't happen. The Republicans aren't going to walk away with this thing. Not without a fight. And toe-to-toe, the Democrats have proven, again and again, that they are the better fighters.
Dylan LoeweSpeechwriter, Author
Follow Dylan Loewe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanloewe
Tuesday night's election results are certainly no crystal ball. But they do tell us a few important things about the upcoming midterm elections.
Things Change Rapidly
We learned a lesson Tuesday night that we should not soon forget. In an election climate this volatile, things change rapidly. Just weeks ago, Arlen Specter seemed almost guaranteed to win the Democratic nomination. Republicans thought they had a great shot at winning John Murtha's old congressional seat. Democrats thought they had little chance of winning a Senate seat in Kentucky and no chance of losing a Senate seat in Connecticut.
But yes, things do change.
Instead, in Tuesday night's elections, Joe Sestak defeated Arlen Specter by a healthy margin. The Democrats held onto John Murtha's district by an even healthier margin. Rand Paul, a candidate too far to the right even for the Republican leadership, won the Republican nomination in Kentucky, giving Democrats their best possible chance to win a Senate seat there.
(And somewhere in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal's campaign staff continued to think that lying about serving in Vietnam doesn't warrant a real apology.)
There are sure to be more changes between now and November, many that we can't foresee. But we do know some of what's to come. We know that the political climate will almost certainly continue to improve for the Democratic Party.
Later this week, the Senate is expected to pass an unexpectedly strong Wall Street reform bill. Two weeks from now, we are likely to find out that, for the third month in a row, the U.S. economy experienced six-figure job growth. Already, national public opinion polls are showing dramatic improvement in voter optimism about the economy and the direction the country is headed. If Democrats can have this good of a night in May, they are almost sure to beat expectations in November.
The Tea Party Isn't Done Ruining the GOP.
Rand Paul's victory won't be the only primary win for the tea party. Over the coming months, tea party candidates are going to win plenty more Republican nominations. In districts that are conservative enough, that will still ensure a Republican victory in the general election. But in a lot of districts, nominating candidates who subscribe to the full gamut of tea party craziness--from birtherism to repealing voting rights to abolishing the Department of Education and Federal Reserve--will help Democrats retain seats that could have otherwise gone to the GOP.
And it's not just primaries the Republicans should be worried about. We can expect a lot of third party challenges from the right once primary season has ended. The more the Tea Party tries to purify the GOP, the more divorced it will become from rest of the country.
Despite the conventional wisdom, that is simply not a recipe for a successful wave election.
Campaigns Matter.
A lot of analysis of Congressional elections tends to look at only the national picture. We determine how well the Democrats will do based on movements in the generic congressional ballot. We make assumptions about the outcomes in November, not based on the dynamics in each individual race, but based on snapshots of the general mood.
But as we saw tonight, this kind of analysis ignores a critical component of elections: the campaigns themselves.
Well-executed campaigns and strong candidates do influence the outcome of elections. And there is little denying that over the last few election cycles, the Democratic Party has become exceedingly good at running congressional campaigns. On Tuesday night the DCCC won its eleventh special election in a row. The Democrats enter the November midterms with better strategists, better tacticians, a bigger war chest, and a wisdom that comes from consistently winning tough races in tough districts.
The public's frustration with the pace of economic recovery and their lack of trust for Washington institutions will not be the only dynamic at play in November. Republicans have weak candidates, wayward campaigns, and a national party with an abysmal track record. Losing the Pennsylvania special election was a huge missed opportunity for the GOP. The Republican Party cannot lose races like that and still expect to retake the majority. And if they can't win an easy pickup when they are exclusively focused on it, it's hard to imagine them pulling off victories deep in Democratic territory while handling more than fifty races at a time.
Tuesday night doesn't tell us what will happen in November. But it does tell us what won't happen. The Republicans aren't going to walk away with this thing. Not without a fight. And toe-to-toe, the Democrats have proven, again and again, that they are the better fighters.
Dylan LoeweSpeechwriter, Author
Follow Dylan Loewe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanloewe
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
NAACP backs Obama's Supreme Court nominee Kagan
The nation's oldest and largest civil rights group voted unanimously at a board meeting in Florida to endorse Kagan, in line to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. It was an early endorsement by a major interest group for Kagan, who is solicitor general, the government's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.
The NAACP's president, Benjamin Jealous, told The Associated Press that the group initially was concerned because Kagan, who never served as a judge, had little direct evidence or a record that she would actively promote civil rights. Many were worried that she might have an overly expansive view of executive power at the expense of individual liberties, and the group also had hoped to see a black woman appointed to the high court.
The National Action Network and its board of directors also endorsed her nomination. Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the organization, said Kagan "is worthy of the support of the civil rights community." Sharpton said she has shown balance and fairness throughout her career."
Kagan, 50, has received some support from conservative groups because of her efforts to reach across ideological divides, including the recruiting of conservative professors while she was Harvard Law School dean.
Jealous said the group ultimately was swayed by Kagan's work as a solicitor general as well as her tenure as White House aide during the Clinton administration, where she sought to strengthen hate crimes legislation and civil rights enforcement. He also noted that Kagan, who clerked for Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice, was effective in boosting enrollment of black and Hispanic students when she was at Harvard.
"We don't think any Supreme Court nominee walks on water," Jealous said. "It was not an issue of whether we could live with her on one thing or another, but the question was whether we believed she would be an asset to the court."
"We looked at her record, we spoke to people who worked with her as well as the civil rights community as a whole. The discussions painted a portrait of someone committed to civil rights and civil justice," he said.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Scientists worry current could carry oil to Keys
With BP finally gaining some control over the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, scientists are increasingly worried that huge plumes of crude already spilled could get caught in a current that would carry the mess all the way to the Florida Keys and beyond, damaging coral reefs and killing wildlife.
Scientists said the oil will move into the so-called loop current soon if it hasn't already, though they could not say exactly when or how much there would be. Once it is in the loop, it could take 10 days or longer to reach the Keys.
"It's only a question of when," said Peter Ortner, a University of Miami oceanographer.
In the month since an offshore drilling platform exploded, killing 11 workers, BP has struggled to stop the leak, trying in vain to activate emergency valves and lowering a 100-ton box that got clogged with icy crystals. Over the weekend, the oil company finally succeeded in using a stopper-and-tube combination to siphon some of the gushing oil into a tanker, but millions of gallons are already in the Gulf.
The loop current is a ribbon of warm water that begins in the Gulf of Mexico and wraps around Florida. Some scientists project the current will draw the crude through the Keys and then up Florida's Atlantic Coast, where the oil might avoid the beaches of Miami and Fort Lauderdale but could wash up around Palm Beach.
Many scientists expect the oil to get no farther north than Cape Canaveral, midway up the coast, before it is carried out to sea and becomes more and more diluted.
By JEFFREY COLLINS and MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press Writers
Scientists said the oil will move into the so-called loop current soon if it hasn't already, though they could not say exactly when or how much there would be. Once it is in the loop, it could take 10 days or longer to reach the Keys.
"It's only a question of when," said Peter Ortner, a University of Miami oceanographer.
In the month since an offshore drilling platform exploded, killing 11 workers, BP has struggled to stop the leak, trying in vain to activate emergency valves and lowering a 100-ton box that got clogged with icy crystals. Over the weekend, the oil company finally succeeded in using a stopper-and-tube combination to siphon some of the gushing oil into a tanker, but millions of gallons are already in the Gulf.
The loop current is a ribbon of warm water that begins in the Gulf of Mexico and wraps around Florida. Some scientists project the current will draw the crude through the Keys and then up Florida's Atlantic Coast, where the oil might avoid the beaches of Miami and Fort Lauderdale but could wash up around Palm Beach.
Many scientists expect the oil to get no farther north than Cape Canaveral, midway up the coast, before it is carried out to sea and becomes more and more diluted.
By JEFFREY COLLINS and MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press Writers
Incumbency loses its edge
One major theme to watch for as primary returns start rolling in for Tuesday's key Senate races: Is incumbency all it's cracked up to be?
In most election cycles, holding a seat in Congress is a huge tactical advantage, since sitting lawmakers are usually able to draw on the campaign war chests that national party organizations and congressional campaign groups build up — in addition, of course, to all the time that elected officials spend fundraising on their own.
That advantage shrivels, though, when the electorate seems to be in throw-the-rascals-out mode, as seems to be the case so far in 2010. Rather than coasting into a lavishly funded media push in the homestretch of their primary races, two veteran senators — Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — are fighting for their political lives. In Kentucky, the battle for the seat opened by Republican Jim Bunning's retirement is between a candidate endorsed by the state's GOP hierarchy, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the self-described tea party candidate, Rand Paul. Tuesday's ballot may well signal the depth of popular anger at Washington — and might serve as a bellwether for which party ultimately gains control of Congress in November.
Pennsylvania
When Arlen Specter switched parties a year ago, he made no secret of his main motive: political survival. Facing a nasty GOP primary against onetime opponent Pat Toomey, Specter wasn't sure he could win. In any other case, such candor might help a candidate, but not this year. Even though Specter often siphoned off some Democratic support in his previous Republican campaigns, the longtime senator has struggled to convince members of the Democratic base that's he really one of them. In recent weeks, Joe Sestak, a Democratic congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs, has closed the gap with Specter, earning endorsements from groups like the abortion-rights group NARAL and MoveOn.org. And Sestak has been savvy not merely in questioning Specter's party loyalty, but also in joining the chorus of other primary challengers denouncing incumbent politicians and campaigning for a "new generation" in Washington. To counter that argument, Specter has been highlighting his "experience" in his own campaign messages. That's not just a dig at Sestak's limited time in Congress, but also a reminder of Specter's long resume in the Senate. Unfortunately for Specter, that may not be much of a selling point for voters Tuesday.
Holly Bailey is a senior political writer for Yahoo! News.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Obama bypassing Senate to appoint key nominees
The president plans to use recess appointments to fill 15 economic posts against the wishes of Republicans, some of whom had been holding up the confirmation process.
The Obama administration moved Saturday to fill 15 economic posts whose nominees are held up in Congress, bypassing the formal Senate confirmation process -- a decision that is sure to further anger and embitter Senate Republicans.
The move reflected the frustration within the White House about what they see as obstructionist actions by a Republican minority that is intent on blocking the administration's agenda.
The Republicans saw the move as confirmation that President Obama had abandoned his pledges of trying to govern in a bipartisan way and further deepened their skepticism over the administration's economic policy.
As the White House announced its intention to make the recess appointments, an administration official confirmed that Obama would name Donald M. Berwick, a pediatrician who has pushed hospitals to lower costs and improve care, to head a crucial agency overseeing parts of the new healthcare law.
Berwick, who would not be a recess appointee, has been tapped to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Many of the potential recess appointees had bipartisan support, White House officials contended, but had been caught up in holds placed by various GOP senators.
But at least one of the nominees, Craig Becker, a union lawyer nominated to the National Labor Relations Board, was deeply controversial. Union leaders, who have been disappointed with the White House's failure to enact laws making it easier to organize workplaces, had demanded that the administration push Becker through.
All 41 Republican senators on Thursday urged Obama not to use a recess appointment for Becker.
"The president's decision to override bipartisan Senate rejection of Craig Becker's nomination is yet another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The White House said it had 77 nominees awaiting votes in the Senate -- 44 of whom have been waiting more than a month. At a comparable time in his presidency, George W. Bush had five nominees awaiting a vote, said Jen Psaki, White House deputy communications director.
Presidents are allowed to circumvent the constitutional requirement to seek the "advice and consent" of the Senate on nominations if Congress is in recess. Presidents of both parties have used the power to temporarily appoint controversial nominees or to try to clear logjams in the confirmation process.
In all, Bush made more than 170 recess appointments and President Clinton made about 140.
Bush used a recess appointment to install John R. Bolton as the U.N. ambassador over the objections of Democrats and liberal Republicans. Clinton used a recess appointment to install Bill Lann Lee to a key Justice Department job over the objections of many Republicans.
As a senator, Obama criticized the selection of Bolton and argued that, as a result of the recess appointment, the U.N. ambassador was "damaged goods."
Besides Becker, the Obama administration appointments appear to be mostly technocratic, not ideological. They include undersecretaries in the Commerce and Treasury departments and posts in several agencies and boards.
The move reflected the frustration within the White House about what they see as obstructionist actions by a Republican minority that is intent on blocking the administration's agenda.
The Republicans saw the move as confirmation that President Obama had abandoned his pledges of trying to govern in a bipartisan way and further deepened their skepticism over the administration's economic policy.
As the White House announced its intention to make the recess appointments, an administration official confirmed that Obama would name Donald M. Berwick, a pediatrician who has pushed hospitals to lower costs and improve care, to head a crucial agency overseeing parts of the new healthcare law.
Berwick, who would not be a recess appointee, has been tapped to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Many of the potential recess appointees had bipartisan support, White House officials contended, but had been caught up in holds placed by various GOP senators.
But at least one of the nominees, Craig Becker, a union lawyer nominated to the National Labor Relations Board, was deeply controversial. Union leaders, who have been disappointed with the White House's failure to enact laws making it easier to organize workplaces, had demanded that the administration push Becker through.
All 41 Republican senators on Thursday urged Obama not to use a recess appointment for Becker.
"The president's decision to override bipartisan Senate rejection of Craig Becker's nomination is yet another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The White House said it had 77 nominees awaiting votes in the Senate -- 44 of whom have been waiting more than a month. At a comparable time in his presidency, George W. Bush had five nominees awaiting a vote, said Jen Psaki, White House deputy communications director.
Presidents are allowed to circumvent the constitutional requirement to seek the "advice and consent" of the Senate on nominations if Congress is in recess. Presidents of both parties have used the power to temporarily appoint controversial nominees or to try to clear logjams in the confirmation process.
In all, Bush made more than 170 recess appointments and President Clinton made about 140.
Bush used a recess appointment to install John R. Bolton as the U.N. ambassador over the objections of Democrats and liberal Republicans. Clinton used a recess appointment to install Bill Lann Lee to a key Justice Department job over the objections of many Republicans.
As a senator, Obama criticized the selection of Bolton and argued that, as a result of the recess appointment, the U.N. ambassador was "damaged goods."
Besides Becker, the Obama administration appointments appear to be mostly technocratic, not ideological. They include undersecretaries in the Commerce and Treasury departments and posts in several agencies and boards.
By Julian E. Barnes
March 28, 2010
Reporting from Washington
March 28, 2010
Reporting from Washington
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Saturday, March 27, 2010
10 Ways the New Healthcare Bill May Affect You
10 Ways the New Healthcare Bill May Affect You
by Katie Adams
The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly referred to as the "healthcare bill", has taken over a year to craft and has been a lightning rod for political debate because it effectively reshapes major facets of the country's healthcare industry.
Here are 10 things you need to know about how the new law may affect you:
1. Your Kids are Covered
Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.
2. You Can't be Dropped
Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.
3. You Can't be Denied Insurance
Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.
4. You Can Spend What You Need to
Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.
5. You Don't Have to Wait
If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.
6. You Must be Insured
Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.
7. You'll Have More Options
Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.
8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible
Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.
9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More
Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.
10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses
Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".
However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.
Conclusion
Over the next few months you will most likely receive information in the mail from your health insurance company about how the newly signed law will affect your coverage. Read the correspondence carefully and don't hesitate to ask questions about your policy; there may be new, more affordable options for you down the road.
by Katie Adams
The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act, more commonly referred to as the "healthcare bill", has taken over a year to craft and has been a lightning rod for political debate because it effectively reshapes major facets of the country's healthcare industry.
Here are 10 things you need to know about how the new law may affect you:
1. Your Kids are Covered
Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.
2. You Can't be Dropped
Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.
3. You Can't be Denied Insurance
Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.
4. You Can Spend What You Need to
Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.
5. You Don't Have to Wait
If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.
6. You Must be Insured
Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.
7. You'll Have More Options
Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.
8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible
Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.
9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More
Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.
10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses
Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".
However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.
Conclusion
Over the next few months you will most likely receive information in the mail from your health insurance company about how the newly signed law will affect your coverage. Read the correspondence carefully and don't hesitate to ask questions about your policy; there may be new, more affordable options for you down the road.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
It's the law of the land: Health overhaul signed
Jubilant Obama signs historic health overhaul after long struggle -- political fight continues.
, On Tuesday March 23, 2010, 5:57 pm.
President Barack Obama signs the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Claiming a historic triumph that could define his presidency, a jubilant
After more than a year of hyperpartisan struggle -- and numerous near-death moments for the measure -- Obama declared "a new season in America" as he sealed a victory denied to a line of presidents stretching back more than half a century. Democratic lawmakers cheered him on, giving the White
Not everyone was cheering. The Democrats pushed the bill through Congress without GOP support, and the Republicans said Tuesday that those Democratic lawmakers would pay dearly in this November's elections. Opinion polls show the public remains skeptical, too, and Obama will fly to Iowa on Thursday for the first of a number of appearances that will be more like a continuing sales job than a victory lap.
Aside from the huge, real-life changes in store for many Americans, the White
The reshaping of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, to be phased in over several years, ranks among the biggest changes ever devised by Washington. Indeed, that was a main complaint from Republicans who characterize the measure as a costly, wrongheaded government power grab. Obama and the Democrats portray it as literally a lifesaver for countless Americans.
The core of the massive law is the extension of health care coverage to 32 million who now lack it, a goal to be achieved through a complex cocktail of new mandates for individuals and employers, subsidies for people who can't afford to buy coverage on their own, consumer-friendly rules clamped on insurers, tax breaks, and marketplaces to shop for health plans.
The law's most far-reaching changes don't kick until 2014, including a requirement that most Americans carry health insurance -- whether through an employer, a government program or their own purchase -- or pay a fine. To make that a reality, tax credits to help cover the cost of premiums will start flowing to middle-class families and
Among the new rules on insurance companies are banning lifetime dollar limits on policies, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, and policy cancellations when someone gets sick. Insurers also will have to allow parents to keep children on their plans up to age 26.
The changes are to be paid for with cuts in projected government payment increases to hospitals, insurance companies and others under Medicare and other health programs, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for some, fees on insurance companies, drug makers and medical device manufacturers, a new excise tax on high-value insurance plans and a tax on indoor tanning services.
For seniors, the plan the plan will gradually close the "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gap and improve preventive care. But it also will cut funding for popular private insurance plans offered through Medicare Advantage. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for such plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs.
Democrats, led by Obama, celebrated a "new wind at our backs" from an achievement accomplished after more than a year of high tension and deep division -- stretching back to shouted protests that interrupted lawmakers' town hall meetings on the subject last summer. Obama signed the measure less than two days after the cliffhanger final
"Our presence here today is remarkable and improbable," Obama said, his grin wider than any in recent memory. "With all the punditry, all of the lobbying, all the game-playing that passes for governing in Washington, it's been easy at times to doubt our ability to do such a big thing, such a complicated thing."
At a second celebration later, he said, "After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land."
The president now faces the task of selling to the public a bill that satisfies neither side of the political spectrum.
Liberals bemoan that a government-run plan to compete with private ones was shed from the legislation during bitter negotiations. Conservatives fear an expansion of government and costs they say will bankrupt the country, despite an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that the law will cut federal budget deficits by an estimated $143 billion over a decade.
Obama's explanatory hurdle is not an easy one, given the law's multilayered provisions and timetables. A bumper-sticker slogan it is not. But he must help protect the Democrats -- particularly those from conservative-leaning districts -- who stand to suffer in the fall elections from their votes.
Republicans face a challenge as well. Aware of traditional American suspicions of government intrusion, they cast themselves throughout the process as against major changes. They now must explain to voters impatient for action in Washington why nothing was their best choice.
In a hint of the coming Republican line of argument, Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said the new law would push the United States to a "European-style" government.
More than a dozen Republican senators introduced legislation to repeal the law that
"Repeal and replace," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters.
And attorneys general from 13 states acted on their opposition immediately, filing suit to stop the overhaul just minutes after the bill signing. Florida
Obama made clear that the Republican offensive will not go unanswered. His larger, second event, held in a vast Interior Department auditorium, had a more combative feel. He accused Republicans of telling "lies."
"Those fighting change are still out there, still making a lot of noise about what this reform means," he said. "Look it up for yourself."
Starting with a Thursday trip to Iowa City, where as a presidential candidate he announced his health care plan in May 2007, Obama intends to emphasize the law's most immediate impacts, including the ability of young adults to remain on their parents' health plans and a ban on insurers denying coverage to sick children.
Even as the celebration proceeded in Washington, Congress labored to complete the overhaul with a companion measure containing changes demanded as a condition of
"We are going to make a good law signed by the president even better," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared on the Senate floor.
Associated Press Writer Donna Cassata contributed to this story.
Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
“We have just now enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care,” Mr. Obama declared in the East Room, before an audience of more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, White House aides and others who rode a yearlong legislative roller-coaster ride that ended with Sunday night’s House passage of the bill. They interrupted him repeatedly with shouts and standing ovations.
Moments later, the president sat down at a table, and affixed his left-handed, curlicue signature, almost letter by letter, to the measure, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, using 20 pens that he intended to pass out to key lawmakers and others as mementoes.
He was surrounded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other top Democratic leaders, as well as some special guests: 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Seattle, who became an advocate for health care reform after his mother died without health insurance, and Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield, the Ohio cancer survivor whose struggle to pay skyrocketing premiums became a touchstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign to overhaul the system.
Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who had been a driving force for health care legislation before his death last year, was also by Mr. Obama’s side. Mrs. Kennedy wore a blue plastic bracelet around her wrist that said “TedStrong,” and appeared emotional after the ceremony.
“I know how happy he would be,” she said of her husband, adding, “It was so meaningful for him, in a very personal way.”
Mr. Kennedy’s son, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, was also there, carrying a gift for the president: a copy of a bill his father introduced in 1970 to provide national health insurance. On it, the younger Mr. Kennedy had written a personal message to Mr. Obama.
For Mr. Obama, the bill signing marks a high point of his presidency. For the many House members in the audience, it marks the end of a trying, chapter, and they let the president know it as he remarked that many had “taken their lumps during this difficult debate.”
To that, Represenative Gary Ackerman, the New York Democrat, shouted, “Yes we did!” — a riff on Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes we can.” The crowd, including Mr. Obama, broke up laughing.
“Our presence here today is remarkable, and improbable,” the president said. “With all the punditry, all of the lobbying, all of the game-playing that passes for governing in Washington, it’s been easy at times to doubt our ability to do such a big thing, such a complicated thing; to wonder if there are limits to what we as a people can still achieve.”
The White House took on a festive air for the occasion, as senators mingled in the grand foyer of the Executive Mansion before the signing ceremony. A Marine pianist was playing as lawmakers and other guests chatted in anticipation of Mr. Obama’s arrival. As they filtered into the East Room, many lawmakers took out cameras to photograph one another and record the moment.
One moment that Vice President Biden probably did not intend to be recorded was the profane private congratulation he offered the president as they embraced after Mr. Biden’s introductory remarks. The comment, though not audible to others in the East Room, was picked up clearly by the broadcast microphones on the lectern where Mr. Biden had just lauded the president’s “perseverance” and “clarity of purpose” in achieving the health care overhaul, and it was soon circulating widely on the Internet.
The landmark bill, passed by the House on Sunday night by a vote of 219-212, will provide coverage to an estimated 30 million people who currently lack it. Its passage assures Mr. Obama a place in history as the American president who succeeded at revamping the nation’s health care system where others, notably Bill Clinton, tried mightily and failed.
The measure will require most Americans to have health insurance coverage; would add 16 million people to the Medicaid rolls; and would subsidize private coverage for low- and middle-income people. It will cost the government about $938 billion over 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has also estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over a decade.
Despite the president’s signature, the legislative work on the measure is not over, nor is the intense partisan fight over it. Republicans are already vowing to repeal the bill. And the legislative battle will flare anew in the Senate on Tuesday, where lawmakers are set to take up a package of changes to the measure under the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation.
At the Capitol, Representative John Boehner, the Republican leader, said it was no day to celebrate. “This is a somber day for the American people,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “By signing this bill, President Obama is abandoning our founding principle that government governs best when it governs closest to the people.”
The White House ceremony marked the beginning of what will be an intense sales pitch by the White House and leading Democrats to convince Americans of the benefits of the health bill. As soon as the ceremony was over, Mr. Obama went into campaign mode, traveling to the Interior Department — the federal building with the biggest auditorium the White House could find — where he addressed a crowd of 600 doctors, nurses, patients and federal employees.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Reform's Incredible Significance And Why It Won't Matter Much In November Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/22/health-reforms-incredible-significance-and-why-it-wont-matter-much-in-november/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0ixza8kRh
Even after a weekend of hyperbole from Democrats and Republicans on what the passage of health care legislation will mean for America, it is hard to overstate the bill's political and policy implications.
President Obama largely got the bill he wanted -- a tempered compromise between the wings of his party that alters the existing system without razing it. He sees this legislation as a significant step toward his ultimate goal: reestablishing government as a responsible partner -- and, at times, steward -- of the private sector, as well as providing for Americans who are unable to provide for themselves. It is the largest piece of social welfare legislation passed since the Great Society, and this president, speaker and congress will be enshrined as champions in the history books of the Democratic party for getting it through.
The unprecedented partisanship of Sunday's vote -- not a single Republican voted for the landmark legislation -- will likely spark a long debate on the role of the minority in our government. On this particular issue, the Democratic vision proved incompatible with the Republican one. Monolithic, emotional opposition from the right was more about what the bill represented to them -- a fundamental shift away from Reagan's exhortation that "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem"-- than an inability to accept what in reality are fairly moderate and uncontroversial policies. Obama, despite campaigning under the banner of post-partisanship, has a traditionally liberal view of governance; he just prefers to seek common ground and strike a conciliatory tone in his pursuit.
Health reform is contentious not only because of its human element, but because both sides see it as a symbolic foot in the door, a crucial first step toward polarized ideals of government's role. The decades-long debate to come over the merits of this policy will be framed in these terms. Republicans will blame the bill for ballooning the health care inflation and entitlement spending it is designed to soften, but can do little to overcome alone. Democrats will fiercely defend the entire package, even if some elements prove ineffective.
And then there are the real world changes: 31 million Americans will be added to the health insurance rolls, expanding the risk pool and altering the business model of the industry; billions of federal dollars will be deployed to purchase portions of that coverage and expand Medicaid eligibility; and an unprecedented level of new taxes and regulations will be levied on companies of all sorts in the medical field. What all this means to each party, each individual, is hard to say, but we know this much: It's big.
All that being said, I think health care's political implications for this November have been overstated. Democrats will lose seats; such is the nature of this cycle. Repeal is not a realistic platform for Republicans -- Obama's veto pen isn't going anywhere and the political wisdom of such a push is questionable at best. Passage will rally the bases, provide ample red meat for the trail and may narrow the enthusiasm gap for Democrats, but I don't see it sparking a lopsided groundswell or changing many undecided minds. Those on the left like it, those on the right don't. Democrats will have some concrete deliverables (no preexisting condition discrimination for children, etc.) but I suspect that they will fit into a larger theme of accomplishment and reform, not serve as a platform centerpiece.
The narrow section of true independents feel neither euphoria nor horror over health reform. People's anger that "government is broken" isn't about health care, it stems from economic insecurity. If the midterms are to be a referendum on any one issue, it will be stewardship of the economy. And if the Democrats must choose one cause to highlight, financial reform, if passed, has the potential to be a far more potent weapon against obstinate Republicans than health care ever could.
The gravity of this moment is undeniable, but health reform won't be the pivotal issue this fall.
Posted by Adam SorensenRead more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/22/health-reforms-incredible-significance-and-why-it-wont-matter-much-in-november/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0ixzhzk5i
President Obama largely got the bill he wanted -- a tempered compromise between the wings of his party that alters the existing system without razing it. He sees this legislation as a significant step toward his ultimate goal: reestablishing government as a responsible partner -- and, at times, steward -- of the private sector, as well as providing for Americans who are unable to provide for themselves. It is the largest piece of social welfare legislation passed since the Great Society, and this president, speaker and congress will be enshrined as champions in the history books of the Democratic party for getting it through.
The unprecedented partisanship of Sunday's vote -- not a single Republican voted for the landmark legislation -- will likely spark a long debate on the role of the minority in our government. On this particular issue, the Democratic vision proved incompatible with the Republican one. Monolithic, emotional opposition from the right was more about what the bill represented to them -- a fundamental shift away from Reagan's exhortation that "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem"-- than an inability to accept what in reality are fairly moderate and uncontroversial policies. Obama, despite campaigning under the banner of post-partisanship, has a traditionally liberal view of governance; he just prefers to seek common ground and strike a conciliatory tone in his pursuit.
Health reform is contentious not only because of its human element, but because both sides see it as a symbolic foot in the door, a crucial first step toward polarized ideals of government's role. The decades-long debate to come over the merits of this policy will be framed in these terms. Republicans will blame the bill for ballooning the health care inflation and entitlement spending it is designed to soften, but can do little to overcome alone. Democrats will fiercely defend the entire package, even if some elements prove ineffective.
And then there are the real world changes: 31 million Americans will be added to the health insurance rolls, expanding the risk pool and altering the business model of the industry; billions of federal dollars will be deployed to purchase portions of that coverage and expand Medicaid eligibility; and an unprecedented level of new taxes and regulations will be levied on companies of all sorts in the medical field. What all this means to each party, each individual, is hard to say, but we know this much: It's big.
All that being said, I think health care's political implications for this November have been overstated. Democrats will lose seats; such is the nature of this cycle. Repeal is not a realistic platform for Republicans -- Obama's veto pen isn't going anywhere and the political wisdom of such a push is questionable at best. Passage will rally the bases, provide ample red meat for the trail and may narrow the enthusiasm gap for Democrats, but I don't see it sparking a lopsided groundswell or changing many undecided minds. Those on the left like it, those on the right don't. Democrats will have some concrete deliverables (no preexisting condition discrimination for children, etc.) but I suspect that they will fit into a larger theme of accomplishment and reform, not serve as a platform centerpiece.
The narrow section of true independents feel neither euphoria nor horror over health reform. People's anger that "government is broken" isn't about health care, it stems from economic insecurity. If the midterms are to be a referendum on any one issue, it will be stewardship of the economy. And if the Democrats must choose one cause to highlight, financial reform, if passed, has the potential to be a far more potent weapon against obstinate Republicans than health care ever could.
The gravity of this moment is undeniable, but health reform won't be the pivotal issue this fall.
Posted by Adam SorensenRead more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/22/health-reforms-incredible-significance-and-why-it-wont-matter-much-in-november/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0ixzhzk5i
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Health Care Madness!
It's so bad that Michelle Bachmann, an elected Representative from the land of the great lakes(I think all that cold up there might have chilled the brains of some of the voters in the land of Prince), is calling for the impeachment of Nancy Pelosi. Glenn Beck is calling this the most traumatic event in A-merry-ca since the civil war, and he has all but told his O ness to watch his back. I just watched Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, (real nice guy that John Boehner) and a bunch of angry white men declare war on this health care bill, and you could just tell from the looks on their faces that if this thing passes they will all have to be put on suicide watch. Over at Radio Rwanda they are taking calls from republican operatives live on the air and telling their viewers that the bill could still die. The wingnut web sites are beside themselves with rage. They are accusing the dumbocrats of lying and cheating to get their way. Oh what a difference a few years make.
Still, the votes are going to be close. I am hearing that this bill might pass by just one vote. Imagine that? One vote! I am still seeing images of all those people in Grant Park and I am hearing those chants of "Yes We Can" in my ears, and I can't believe that if his O ness passes his signature legislation- one that he has damn near staked his entire presidency on- it will only pass by one stinking vote.
I see Dennis Kucininich switched. Good for him. ( Now there is a guy who married up. Literally.) Hey, I am not crazy about this watered down version of a bill, either. But hell, I guess it's better than nothing. In a way, I might have switched my thinking as well. I didn't know how much passing this bad boy meant to his O ness. He canceled his trip to Australia and Indonesia, he went on Radio Rwanda, and he has been literally begging fence sitters for votes. Damn it O man, all you had to do was ask. I would have gotten your back a lot sooner.
I want to know what the wingnuts will do if the bill does pass. They have been threatening all kinds of shit. It should be interesting. Will they storm the people's house and pull the beige man and his family out? Will there be rioting and looting in the streets? Will the teabaggers have a sit down in the middle of Washington D.C and shut down the city? Man they have a lot of options. And, they might have to use them. I see the CBO report just came out and it should give some of those cowardly dumbocratic politicians some cover. As a result, look for a couple of more yes votes flipping for his O ness.
Hang on folks, this should be more fun than a buzzer beater.
*Pic courtesy of Ehow.com
Written by field negro
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Kucinich will support Obama health overhaul
WASHINGTON – Liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he will support President Barack Obama's health care overhaul bill when the House considers it.
The Ohio Democrat opposed the bill when the House voted on it last year. But he has been lobbied hard by the president himself, as Democratic leaders try to corral the 216 House votes they need to approve the nearly $1 trillion package.
Kucinich announced his decision Wednesday. It's important because the vote will be close, and Democrats are scrounging for all the support they can get.
All Republicans are expected to oppose the legislation. Some Democrats who voted for an earlier version in November believe the new bill lacks sufficient curbs on federal financing of abortions and are expected to vote "no."
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
House heads toward close healthcare vote
House heads toward close healthcare vote
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats took the first step on Monday toward a quick final vote on a healthcare overhaul and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to muster the votes needed to pass it. With a close vote expected later this week, House Democrats hustled to line up support and President Barack Obama hit the road in Ohio to push his case for a sweeping overhaul of the $2.5 trillion healthcare system.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Democrats took the first step on Monday toward a quick final vote on a healthcare overhaul and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to muster the votes needed to pass it. With a close vote expected later this week, House Democrats hustled to line up support and President Barack Obama hit the road in Ohio to push his case for a sweeping overhaul of the $2.5 trillion healthcare system.
Democrats should stop being clever and pass the bill
Democrats should stop being clever and pass the bill. By Ezra Klein
March 15, 2010; 7:10 AM ET
Every time I write something like "health care has entered its end game," it turns out that there's another overtime just around the corner. So I'm going to stop writing that. But the expectation is that the House will pass the Senate bill within the next week or so. "Whoever sits here at this time next week, I think will not be talking about health care as a proposal, but as the law of the land," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on Sunday.
But there are a number of ways health care could become the law of the land, some of them more absurd than others. The House has to pass the Senate bill, and then both chambers want to pass a package of tweaks and fixes through reconciliation. The House, as we've heard at length, is worried that the Senate won't manage to pass the reconciliation addendum. So they're getting a bit creative. Jon Cohn lays out the options:
The House has leeway for how it debates and votes on those two bills. And according to the sources--which include a senior House leadership aide--three options are on the table:
1) The House would vote on the two bills separately. Upon passage, the Senate bill would be ready for the president's signature. The amendments, meanwhile, would go to the Senate for approval there. Call this the "Schoolhouse Rock" option.
2) The House would vote once. The vote would be on the amendments. But with that vote, the House would "deem" the Senate bill passed. (Yes, it can do that.) At that point, the main bill would be ready to go to the president for his signature, while the amendments would go to the Senate for consideration there.
3) The House would vote once, just like in option (2). But in this case, the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the Senate had approved the amendments. Once the Senate approved the amendments, then--and only then--could the main bill go to the president for signature.
Oy. Options two and three are bad, bad, very bad ideas. Indeed, the fact that they're under consideration suggests the House has let its anger at the Senate drive it temporarily insane.
Option two is bad politics. No one cares whether the House passed the bill or "deemed" the bill passed. People don't pay attention to whether you voted using the passive voice or not. But by falling back on this bizarre locution, the House signals to voters that it thinks it's passing a bad bill. Some members of the House may indeed think that. I disagree with them. But for their own sake, if they're going to let this bill become law, they'd better pretend they agree to me.
Imagine the ads. "My opponent thought the health bill such a bad piece of legislation that he wouldn't even vote for it. But nor was he brave enough to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and say no! Vote for the guy who's not a wimp." And what's our hypothetical House members response? "No, you don't understand. I only refused to vote yes or no because I was hoping to pass a small package of amendments and was worried that the Senate wouldn't act on them fast enough?" You have to be kidding me.
Option three combines the bad politics of option two with bad legislative strategy. It signals to Republicans that this isn't over until the reconciliation amendments pass, which means that anything they can do to obstruct those amendments makes perfect sense because they are obstructing the whole of reform, not a small package of popular amendments.
If the Senate bill is passed and Democrats are just getting rid of the Nebraska deal and easing the bite of the excise tax, Republicans will have a lot of trouble standing in the way and becoming defenders of the Nebraska deal and the excise tax. At that point, they're not opposing health-care reform and instead opposing small, popular changes that make the bill better. They're literally obstructing good government that fits with their recent rhetoric. After all, having spent the last few months hammering the Nelson deal, it doesn't look very bipartisan to keep Democrats from taking your advice and reneging on it.
But if reform isn't passed until the amendments pass, then Republicans are battling the whole of reform rather than just the amendments, and the stakes are high and their procedural obstructionism seems more legitimate. The result is a gruesome Senate fight with Joe Biden potentially having to rule Republicans dilatory and all the rest of it. Delaying victory hasn't served the Democrats well thus far, and it's not likely to be a good idea now. It's time to stop being clever and pass this bill.
Photo credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak.
By Ezra Klein
March 15, 2010; 7:10 AM ET
March 15, 2010; 7:10 AM ET
But there are a number of ways health care could become the law of the land, some of them more absurd than others. The House has to pass the Senate bill, and then both chambers want to pass a package of tweaks and fixes through reconciliation. The House, as we've heard at length, is worried that the Senate won't manage to pass the reconciliation addendum. So they're getting a bit creative. Jon Cohn lays out the options:
The House has leeway for how it debates and votes on those two bills. And according to the sources--which include a senior House leadership aide--three options are on the table:
1) The House would vote on the two bills separately. Upon passage, the Senate bill would be ready for the president's signature. The amendments, meanwhile, would go to the Senate for approval there. Call this the "Schoolhouse Rock" option.
2) The House would vote once. The vote would be on the amendments. But with that vote, the House would "deem" the Senate bill passed. (Yes, it can do that.) At that point, the main bill would be ready to go to the president for his signature, while the amendments would go to the Senate for consideration there.
3) The House would vote once, just like in option (2). But in this case, the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the Senate had approved the amendments. Once the Senate approved the amendments, then--and only then--could the main bill go to the president for signature.
Oy. Options two and three are bad, bad, very bad ideas. Indeed, the fact that they're under consideration suggests the House has let its anger at the Senate drive it temporarily insane.
Option two is bad politics. No one cares whether the House passed the bill or "deemed" the bill passed. People don't pay attention to whether you voted using the passive voice or not. But by falling back on this bizarre locution, the House signals to voters that it thinks it's passing a bad bill. Some members of the House may indeed think that. I disagree with them. But for their own sake, if they're going to let this bill become law, they'd better pretend they agree to me.
Imagine the ads. "My opponent thought the health bill such a bad piece of legislation that he wouldn't even vote for it. But nor was he brave enough to stand up to Nancy Pelosi and say no! Vote for the guy who's not a wimp." And what's our hypothetical House members response? "No, you don't understand. I only refused to vote yes or no because I was hoping to pass a small package of amendments and was worried that the Senate wouldn't act on them fast enough?" You have to be kidding me.
Option three combines the bad politics of option two with bad legislative strategy. It signals to Republicans that this isn't over until the reconciliation amendments pass, which means that anything they can do to obstruct those amendments makes perfect sense because they are obstructing the whole of reform, not a small package of popular amendments.
If the Senate bill is passed and Democrats are just getting rid of the Nebraska deal and easing the bite of the excise tax, Republicans will have a lot of trouble standing in the way and becoming defenders of the Nebraska deal and the excise tax. At that point, they're not opposing health-care reform and instead opposing small, popular changes that make the bill better. They're literally obstructing good government that fits with their recent rhetoric. After all, having spent the last few months hammering the Nelson deal, it doesn't look very bipartisan to keep Democrats from taking your advice and reneging on it.
But if reform isn't passed until the amendments pass, then Republicans are battling the whole of reform rather than just the amendments, and the stakes are high and their procedural obstructionism seems more legitimate. The result is a gruesome Senate fight with Joe Biden potentially having to rule Republicans dilatory and all the rest of it. Delaying victory hasn't served the Democrats well thus far, and it's not likely to be a good idea now. It's time to stop being clever and pass this bill.
Photo credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak.
By Ezra Klein
March 15, 2010; 7:10 AM ET
Saturday, March 13, 2010
President Obama delays trip for final healthcare push
Obama delays trip for final healthcare push
By John Whitesides and Donna Smith
WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday delayed an overseas trip to focus on the final drive for healthcare reform as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the sweeping overhaul next week.
Obama pushed back a scheduled March 18 departure on his first overseas trip of the year to March 21 to help rally support in the days before the House vote.
The House Budget Committee will meet on Monday to take the first steps toward passage of the healthcare overhaul, Obama's top legislative priority, with final votes planned in the full House by the end of the week.
"I'm delighted that the president will be here for the passage of the bill," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "It's going to be historic." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Take a Look on healthcare [ID:nHEALTH] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Obama has been pushing hard for a quick final vote on the healthcare overhaul, which has ignited a long-running political brawl with Republican opponents and consumed the U.S. Congress for the last nine months.
Democrats hope to finish the legislation to expand coverage to more than 30 million of the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans and regulate insurance industry practices before leaving for a two-week recess on March 26.
Health insurer shares dropped on Friday even though the broader market was little changed. The Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor index .HMO ended 1.4 percent lower and the S&P Managed Health Care index .GSPHMO dropped 1.8 percent.
House Democrats said on Friday they have largely worked out the final changes to the healthcare overhaul and are awaiting final cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
They hope to keep the total cost in the same neighborhood as the Senate bill's $875 billion price tag over 10 years and deficit reduction of about $118 billion over the same period.
NO PUBLIC OPTION
The final package will include Obama's proposed revamp of the federal student loan program that would boost aid for needy students, Pelosi said, but will not include a government-run public insurance option. She said the public option does not have the votes to get through the Senate.
"I'm quite sad that a public option isn't in there," Pelosi said. The provision, designed to create more competition for insurers and choice for consumers, was included in a House bill passed in November but rejected by moderate Senate Democrats.
Pelosi faces a huge challenge in lining up 216 House votes for final passage among Democrats unhappy with key provisions -- particularly language on the ban on federal funding for abortion -- and nervous about November's elections in which Republicans could challenge their control of Congress.
But House Democrats, who passed their overhaul in November with only three votes to spare, said they were confident they could muster the votes for passage next week even if they lose support by a handful of anti-abortion Democrats.
"There has been a tidal change in the last 72 hours or so," Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner said. "The very idea that we are talking about the endgame tactical stuff is a sign there is increasing confidence we're going to get this done."
Under a two-step process, House Democrats plan to approve the Senate's version of the bill and make changes sought by Obama and House Democrats through a separate measure.
That second bill would be passed under budget reconciliation rules requiring only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, bypassing the need for 60 votes to overcome Republican procedural hurdles.
Republicans have condemned the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare, although they often used the process themselves when they controlled Congress.
"The reason all this arm-twisting and deal-making and parliamentary maneuvering is going on is because the people hate this bill," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said.
The changes in the reconciliation bill include expanding subsidies to make insurance more affordable and extending more state aid for the Medicaid program for the poor.
They also would eliminate a controversial Senate deal exempting Nebraska from paying for Medicaid expansion costs, close a "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage and modify a January deal on a tax on high-cost insurance plans.
The House and Senate approved separate healthcare reform bills last year, but efforts to merge them into a final product collapsed in January when Democrats lost their crucial 60th vote in a special Senate election in Massachusetts.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan, Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Eric Beech and Sandra Maler)
By John Whitesides and Donna Smith
WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday delayed an overseas trip to focus on the final drive for healthcare reform as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the sweeping overhaul next week.
Obama pushed back a scheduled March 18 departure on his first overseas trip of the year to March 21 to help rally support in the days before the House vote.
The House Budget Committee will meet on Monday to take the first steps toward passage of the healthcare overhaul, Obama's top legislative priority, with final votes planned in the full House by the end of the week.
"I'm delighted that the president will be here for the passage of the bill," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "It's going to be historic." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Take a Look on healthcare [ID:nHEALTH] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Obama has been pushing hard for a quick final vote on the healthcare overhaul, which has ignited a long-running political brawl with Republican opponents and consumed the U.S. Congress for the last nine months.
Democrats hope to finish the legislation to expand coverage to more than 30 million of the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans and regulate insurance industry practices before leaving for a two-week recess on March 26.
Health insurer shares dropped on Friday even though the broader market was little changed. The Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor index .HMO ended 1.4 percent lower and the S&P Managed Health Care index .GSPHMO dropped 1.8 percent.
House Democrats said on Friday they have largely worked out the final changes to the healthcare overhaul and are awaiting final cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
They hope to keep the total cost in the same neighborhood as the Senate bill's $875 billion price tag over 10 years and deficit reduction of about $118 billion over the same period.
NO PUBLIC OPTION
The final package will include Obama's proposed revamp of the federal student loan program that would boost aid for needy students, Pelosi said, but will not include a government-run public insurance option. She said the public option does not have the votes to get through the Senate.
"I'm quite sad that a public option isn't in there," Pelosi said. The provision, designed to create more competition for insurers and choice for consumers, was included in a House bill passed in November but rejected by moderate Senate Democrats.
Pelosi faces a huge challenge in lining up 216 House votes for final passage among Democrats unhappy with key provisions -- particularly language on the ban on federal funding for abortion -- and nervous about November's elections in which Republicans could challenge their control of Congress.
But House Democrats, who passed their overhaul in November with only three votes to spare, said they were confident they could muster the votes for passage next week even if they lose support by a handful of anti-abortion Democrats.
"There has been a tidal change in the last 72 hours or so," Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner said. "The very idea that we are talking about the endgame tactical stuff is a sign there is increasing confidence we're going to get this done."
Under a two-step process, House Democrats plan to approve the Senate's version of the bill and make changes sought by Obama and House Democrats through a separate measure.
That second bill would be passed under budget reconciliation rules requiring only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate, bypassing the need for 60 votes to overcome Republican procedural hurdles.
Republicans have condemned the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare, although they often used the process themselves when they controlled Congress.
"The reason all this arm-twisting and deal-making and parliamentary maneuvering is going on is because the people hate this bill," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said.
The changes in the reconciliation bill include expanding subsidies to make insurance more affordable and extending more state aid for the Medicaid program for the poor.
They also would eliminate a controversial Senate deal exempting Nebraska from paying for Medicaid expansion costs, close a "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage and modify a January deal on a tax on high-cost insurance plans.
The House and Senate approved separate healthcare reform bills last year, but efforts to merge them into a final product collapsed in January when Democrats lost their crucial 60th vote in a special Senate election in Massachusetts.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan, Thomas Ferraro; Editing by Eric Beech and Sandra Maler)
Thursday, March 11, 2010
NO MORE POLITICS
NO MORE POLITICS!
It’s time for a good start on comprehensive health care reform
President Obama hit the nail on the head when he said “the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform.” With both chambers having already passed legislation that would rein in corporate greed and help people get the care they need, we shouldn’t have to wait any longer.
While the American people are tired of the bickering in D.C., they want the reforms President Obama proposes. In fact, contrary to opponents’ claims, dozens of polls show that the great majority of people support the reforms that are actually in the reform bill.
We want good, affordable health insurance that works for all of us, not just the fortunate few. We want small businesses to get help making sure all of their employees have affordable health coverage. We want insurance companies to stop denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and cutting people off when they get sick. Our seniors need affordable medicine. We want our premium dollars spent on health care, not CEO salaries and profits. Most of us value all of these things, and all of these things are in the reform bill.
Granted, the reform legislation doesn’t go as far as some would like. But let’s not sacrifice the good at the altar of the perfect. Bringing quality, affordable health care to all is like climbing a mountain: we must secure every foothold along the way. That’s the way it works in any successful national campaign.
Reminiscent of efforts to take on Big Tobacco, the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations that profit most from our bloated, unregulated health care system have waged a relentless propaganda campaign to block us from climbing this mountain.
Many thought the David v. Goliath struggle pitting public health against Big Tobacco was over in 1963, when the Surgeon General published the first report citing the dangers of smoking. But in the face of an intense high-priced lobbying and PR onslaught by the tobacco industry, the tipping point took another 15 years before smoking rates began to steadily decline. And it wasn’t until 2005 that Washington state voters banned smoking in public places. Today, people are healthier because of that campaign and smoking rates are the lowest they’ve been in 70 years. We will not change health care overnight, but we must continue to move forward step by step. Change takes time.
While health reform opponents claim they want “better reform,” past attempts illustrate that those siding with the insurance companies really just want to stop reform. Their delay tactics are just that.
The fact is we can’t wait. Our health care system is failing. Over 46 million Americans have no heath care coverage today and that number will rise to as much as 57 million in the next six years. This means that if we do nothing, more people will end up getting their care in emergency rooms and having their illnesses discovered when it is too late to help.
It’s time to stop whining about government involvement in health care. The government is already the biggest health insurance company in our nation. One out of every three Americans, 100 million of us, are already insured through Medicaid, Medicare, military and federal worker plans. Even the conservative legislators that hate government regulation of health care are insured by a health plan regulated by our government.
We can’t afford to wait. Insurance rates are steadily climbing, with rates threatening to go up 35 to 39 percent in some plans in California. As we slowly get out of our recession, health care costs will continue to be a major source of financial ruin. The sad fact is that 78 percent of those declaring personal bankruptcies due to health problems had health insurance at the beginning of their illness. You can go bankrupt from an illness even if you have insurance, because many policies don’t cover enough expenses and often expire when you become ill and unemployed.
Like many of my patients, and millions of other Americans, I live with a chronic disease. This means health insurers can refuse to cover me or price their plans out of reach. President Obama has listened to people like me, my patients and our neighbors. In last week’s bipartisan summit he demonstrated, once again, how well he understands our concerns. While I am not totally pleased with the present bill, it is a major step in the right direction.
It has taken 18 years from the last time we tried to make our health care system work for all of us. If we delay now, it may be another 20 years before we get back to the table. In the meantime, middle class Americans will be gouged by ever increasing costs, more businesses will drop coverage for employees, and more people who experience major illnesses will die because they cannot afford care.
We’ve had enough of insurance companies’ denied claims, inflated profits and soaring premiums. Health care costs are crushing our families and businesses. We need reform now. No excuses. No more politics. We need good health care we can count on now.
Robert Jaffe is a family physician in Seattle. He has been a leader in state and national tobacco control campaigns.
It’s time for a good start on comprehensive health care reform
President Obama hit the nail on the head when he said “the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform.” With both chambers having already passed legislation that would rein in corporate greed and help people get the care they need, we shouldn’t have to wait any longer.
While the American people are tired of the bickering in D.C., they want the reforms President Obama proposes. In fact, contrary to opponents’ claims, dozens of polls show that the great majority of people support the reforms that are actually in the reform bill.
We want good, affordable health insurance that works for all of us, not just the fortunate few. We want small businesses to get help making sure all of their employees have affordable health coverage. We want insurance companies to stop denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and cutting people off when they get sick. Our seniors need affordable medicine. We want our premium dollars spent on health care, not CEO salaries and profits. Most of us value all of these things, and all of these things are in the reform bill.
Granted, the reform legislation doesn’t go as far as some would like. But let’s not sacrifice the good at the altar of the perfect. Bringing quality, affordable health care to all is like climbing a mountain: we must secure every foothold along the way. That’s the way it works in any successful national campaign.
Reminiscent of efforts to take on Big Tobacco, the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations that profit most from our bloated, unregulated health care system have waged a relentless propaganda campaign to block us from climbing this mountain.
Many thought the David v. Goliath struggle pitting public health against Big Tobacco was over in 1963, when the Surgeon General published the first report citing the dangers of smoking. But in the face of an intense high-priced lobbying and PR onslaught by the tobacco industry, the tipping point took another 15 years before smoking rates began to steadily decline. And it wasn’t until 2005 that Washington state voters banned smoking in public places. Today, people are healthier because of that campaign and smoking rates are the lowest they’ve been in 70 years. We will not change health care overnight, but we must continue to move forward step by step. Change takes time.
While health reform opponents claim they want “better reform,” past attempts illustrate that those siding with the insurance companies really just want to stop reform. Their delay tactics are just that.
The fact is we can’t wait. Our health care system is failing. Over 46 million Americans have no heath care coverage today and that number will rise to as much as 57 million in the next six years. This means that if we do nothing, more people will end up getting their care in emergency rooms and having their illnesses discovered when it is too late to help.
It’s time to stop whining about government involvement in health care. The government is already the biggest health insurance company in our nation. One out of every three Americans, 100 million of us, are already insured through Medicaid, Medicare, military and federal worker plans. Even the conservative legislators that hate government regulation of health care are insured by a health plan regulated by our government.
We can’t afford to wait. Insurance rates are steadily climbing, with rates threatening to go up 35 to 39 percent in some plans in California. As we slowly get out of our recession, health care costs will continue to be a major source of financial ruin. The sad fact is that 78 percent of those declaring personal bankruptcies due to health problems had health insurance at the beginning of their illness. You can go bankrupt from an illness even if you have insurance, because many policies don’t cover enough expenses and often expire when you become ill and unemployed.
Like many of my patients, and millions of other Americans, I live with a chronic disease. This means health insurers can refuse to cover me or price their plans out of reach. President Obama has listened to people like me, my patients and our neighbors. In last week’s bipartisan summit he demonstrated, once again, how well he understands our concerns. While I am not totally pleased with the present bill, it is a major step in the right direction.
It has taken 18 years from the last time we tried to make our health care system work for all of us. If we delay now, it may be another 20 years before we get back to the table. In the meantime, middle class Americans will be gouged by ever increasing costs, more businesses will drop coverage for employees, and more people who experience major illnesses will die because they cannot afford care.
We’ve had enough of insurance companies’ denied claims, inflated profits and soaring premiums. Health care costs are crushing our families and businesses. We need reform now. No excuses. No more politics. We need good health care we can count on now.
Robert Jaffe is a family physician in Seattle. He has been a leader in state and national tobacco control campaigns.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Obama Pledges U.S. Aid to Haiti
Obama Pledges U.S. Aid to Haiti
By JEFF ZELENY
WASHINGTON — As the United States military steadily reduces its presence in Haiti, President Obama pledged on Wednesday to remain committed to providing financial assistance and humanitarian relief to help Haitians rebuild and recover from their devastating earthquake two months ago.
“The situation on the ground remains dire and people should be under no illusions that the crisis is over,” Mr. Obama said after meeting with President René Préval of Haiti. With spring rains ahead, he added, “the challenge is now to prevent a second disaster.”
The two leaders stood side by side in a ceremony in the Rose Garden, after a private meeting in the Oval Office, where Mr. Obama received an update on conditions in Haiti. The Navy said the hospital ship Comfort left Haiti on Wednesday for its home port, Baltimore.
Mr. Préval offered his gratitude to the United States for its “massive, spontaneous, generous help” after the earthquake on Jan. 12 that killed more than 230,000 people and left more than one million homeless. He said the tragedy should serve as a warning for the world that the effectiveness of relief efforts “must be improved.”
The Haitian government is devising a long-range reconstruction and development plan before a donors conference set for March 31 at the United Nations. Mr. Préval embraced the need for decentralization and shifting government and private facilities away from the battered capital, Port-au-Prince, and also urged the creation of a team at the United Nations that would be the disaster equivalent of peacekeepers.
The Pentagon said Wednesday that about 10,000 American military service members were still in Haiti, down from the peak of 22,000. About 4,700 are based on land, and 5,300 are on ships. The decreasing presence of the military was not a signal, Mr. Obama said, that the commitment of the United States was easing.
“America’s commitment to Haiti’s recovery and reconstruction must endure and will endure,” he said. “This pledge is one that I made at the beginning of this crisis, and I intend for America to keep our pledge. America will be your partner in the recovery and reconstruction effort.”
The Comfort was among the most visible symbols of aid in Haiti, although it could deal with only the most urgent cases among the countless thousands of Haitians needing medical care. The ship provided the most sophisticated medical care available and treated 871 patients, but Navy officials said that it had not had any patients for more than a week.
“The situation on the ground in terms of the medical situation has improved,” said Jose Ruiz, a civilian spokesman for the United States Southern Command. “Demand for medical care is not exceeding the capacity of facilities on the ground.”
Mr. Ruiz said the duties of the remaining American forces included distributing aid, removing rubble and completing engineering assessments of damaged structures. With the Haitian government and police, as well as United Nations peacekeepers, reasserting control, he said that the American forces were largely in a supporting role.
“As you declared during last month’s national day of mourning, it is time to wipe away the tears,” Mr. Obama said. “It is time for Haiti to rebuild.”
Mr. Obama lingered in the Rose Garden, as the sun poked out of the clouds, to shake hands and sign autographs for members of the search and rescue teams that worked in Haiti. He knelt down to pat a dog from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, whose team also traveled to Haiti after the earthquake.
It remained an open question how much aid the United States would provide in the months ahead. During his visit here, Mr. Préval also met with Congressional leaders from both parties. They are expected to decide upon a new aid package, the size of which is expected to be more than $1 billion.
“The international community can pledge the resources that will be necessary for a coordinated and sustained effort,” Mr. Obama said. “And working together, we can ensure that assistance not simply delivers relief for the short term, but builds up Haiti’s capacity to deliver basic services and provide for the Haitian people over the long term.”
Thom Shanker contributed reporting.
By JEFF ZELENY
“The situation on the ground remains dire and people should be under no illusions that the crisis is over,” Mr. Obama said after meeting with President René Préval of Haiti. With spring rains ahead, he added, “the challenge is now to prevent a second disaster.”
The two leaders stood side by side in a ceremony in the Rose Garden, after a private meeting in the Oval Office, where Mr. Obama received an update on conditions in Haiti. The Navy said the hospital ship Comfort left Haiti on Wednesday for its home port, Baltimore.
Mr. Préval offered his gratitude to the United States for its “massive, spontaneous, generous help” after the earthquake on Jan. 12 that killed more than 230,000 people and left more than one million homeless. He said the tragedy should serve as a warning for the world that the effectiveness of relief efforts “must be improved.”
The Haitian government is devising a long-range reconstruction and development plan before a donors conference set for March 31 at the United Nations. Mr. Préval embraced the need for decentralization and shifting government and private facilities away from the battered capital, Port-au-Prince, and also urged the creation of a team at the United Nations that would be the disaster equivalent of peacekeepers.
The Pentagon said Wednesday that about 10,000 American military service members were still in Haiti, down from the peak of 22,000. About 4,700 are based on land, and 5,300 are on ships. The decreasing presence of the military was not a signal, Mr. Obama said, that the commitment of the United States was easing.
“America’s commitment to Haiti’s recovery and reconstruction must endure and will endure,” he said. “This pledge is one that I made at the beginning of this crisis, and I intend for America to keep our pledge. America will be your partner in the recovery and reconstruction effort.”
The Comfort was among the most visible symbols of aid in Haiti, although it could deal with only the most urgent cases among the countless thousands of Haitians needing medical care. The ship provided the most sophisticated medical care available and treated 871 patients, but Navy officials said that it had not had any patients for more than a week.
“The situation on the ground in terms of the medical situation has improved,” said Jose Ruiz, a civilian spokesman for the United States Southern Command. “Demand for medical care is not exceeding the capacity of facilities on the ground.”
Mr. Ruiz said the duties of the remaining American forces included distributing aid, removing rubble and completing engineering assessments of damaged structures. With the Haitian government and police, as well as United Nations peacekeepers, reasserting control, he said that the American forces were largely in a supporting role.
“As you declared during last month’s national day of mourning, it is time to wipe away the tears,” Mr. Obama said. “It is time for Haiti to rebuild.”
Mr. Obama lingered in the Rose Garden, as the sun poked out of the clouds, to shake hands and sign autographs for members of the search and rescue teams that worked in Haiti. He knelt down to pat a dog from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, whose team also traveled to Haiti after the earthquake.
It remained an open question how much aid the United States would provide in the months ahead. During his visit here, Mr. Préval also met with Congressional leaders from both parties. They are expected to decide upon a new aid package, the size of which is expected to be more than $1 billion.
“The international community can pledge the resources that will be necessary for a coordinated and sustained effort,” Mr. Obama said. “And working together, we can ensure that assistance not simply delivers relief for the short term, but builds up Haiti’s capacity to deliver basic services and provide for the Haitian people over the long term.”
Thom Shanker contributed reporting.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Why Doctors Are Afraid of Health Care Reform
Why Doctors Are Afraid of Health Care Reform
By : Robert Palmer
Doctors are afraid of healthcare reform hurting their practices so badly that many feel they may be forced to quit medicine.
According to David Mitchel, a marketing consultant for healthcare companies, doctors are already being hammered by lower fees from managed care companies and rising malpractice insurance premiums. Healthcare reform may shrink those revenues even further, while doing nothing to reduce malpractice insurance rates.
"Doctors are outright scared," said Mitchel, VP of Norton Mitchel Marketing (www.nortonmitchel.com). "Since the dawn of managed care, they haven't really caught a break. The costs of operating their practices have done nothing but rise over the last two decades, while their potential revenues continue to drop because managed care companies keep slashing what they pay doctors."
Mitchel said doctors have five basic issues with healthcare reform:
• Government Involvement - The vast majority of physicians oppose government involvement in their businesses. They are not pleased with VA, Medicare/Medicaid, as these patients do not optimize revenue and profits for practices. Practitioners need private insurance patients to offset costs of treating these patients. Further government involvement would dissuade more doctors from practicing.
• Quality of Care - Many physicians are considering quitting or retiring if the proposed health care reform becomes law. This is especially true amongst practitioners aged between 55 and 65. This age group of physicians makes up some of the best physicians. Retiring two to five years ahead of schedule seems like a preferable option as compared to working under a new order. With fewer doctors available and more demand for medical services, quality of care will drop.
• Costs - Medical school is an expensive proposition. Schooling for specialists particularly is so expensive that they are fearful that if they charge what the government will pay, they will never recoup school expenses. Under the best of circumstances, doctors are saddled with huge debts for at least the first 10-15 years of their careers.
• Malpractice - The health care reform bill does nothing to address one of the biggest complaints of doctors: the cost of malpractice insurance. The cost of malpractice insurance is rising rapidly, driving up healthcare costs, and discouraging new doctors from entering the field.
• Taxes - Doctors are taxpayers, just like everyone else. Most are skeptical that this bill
will produce cost savings. They see a world of higher medical costs and poorer health outcomes. They do not want the additional tax burden of paying for a system that won't be beneficial. Higher taxes also hamper their ability to make a living.
"As Americans continue to age and live longer because of medical science, we cannot afford to lose skilled physicians while at the same time reducing the pool of new physicians entering the field," Mitchel said. "Unless healthcare reform can address these issues, it may just be a recipe for disaster." Author Resource:- Tony Panaccio is a staff writer at News & Experts.
Article From Acme Articles
By : Robert Palmer
Doctors are afraid of healthcare reform hurting their practices so badly that many feel they may be forced to quit medicine.
According to David Mitchel, a marketing consultant for healthcare companies, doctors are already being hammered by lower fees from managed care companies and rising malpractice insurance premiums. Healthcare reform may shrink those revenues even further, while doing nothing to reduce malpractice insurance rates.
"Doctors are outright scared," said Mitchel, VP of Norton Mitchel Marketing (www.nortonmitchel.com). "Since the dawn of managed care, they haven't really caught a break. The costs of operating their practices have done nothing but rise over the last two decades, while their potential revenues continue to drop because managed care companies keep slashing what they pay doctors."
Mitchel said doctors have five basic issues with healthcare reform:
• Government Involvement - The vast majority of physicians oppose government involvement in their businesses. They are not pleased with VA, Medicare/Medicaid, as these patients do not optimize revenue and profits for practices. Practitioners need private insurance patients to offset costs of treating these patients. Further government involvement would dissuade more doctors from practicing.
• Quality of Care - Many physicians are considering quitting or retiring if the proposed health care reform becomes law. This is especially true amongst practitioners aged between 55 and 65. This age group of physicians makes up some of the best physicians. Retiring two to five years ahead of schedule seems like a preferable option as compared to working under a new order. With fewer doctors available and more demand for medical services, quality of care will drop.
• Costs - Medical school is an expensive proposition. Schooling for specialists particularly is so expensive that they are fearful that if they charge what the government will pay, they will never recoup school expenses. Under the best of circumstances, doctors are saddled with huge debts for at least the first 10-15 years of their careers.
• Malpractice - The health care reform bill does nothing to address one of the biggest complaints of doctors: the cost of malpractice insurance. The cost of malpractice insurance is rising rapidly, driving up healthcare costs, and discouraging new doctors from entering the field.
• Taxes - Doctors are taxpayers, just like everyone else. Most are skeptical that this bill
will produce cost savings. They see a world of higher medical costs and poorer health outcomes. They do not want the additional tax burden of paying for a system that won't be beneficial. Higher taxes also hamper their ability to make a living.
"As Americans continue to age and live longer because of medical science, we cannot afford to lose skilled physicians while at the same time reducing the pool of new physicians entering the field," Mitchel said. "Unless healthcare reform can address these issues, it may just be a recipe for disaster." Author Resource:- Tony Panaccio is a staff writer at News & Experts.
Article From Acme Articles
Monday, March 8, 2010
A furious health care push _ but what about jobs?
A furious health care push _ but what about jobs?
by: Ben Feller
President Barack Obama's furious, final push to get a health care bill passed threatens to shove aside the message he promised would top his list this year: creating jobs.
Even as the White House juggles several enormous issues at once, the public takes its cues about the president's chief concern from how he spends his time, energy and capital. As Obama himself put it on Wednesday, from now until Congress takes a final vote on a health care overhaul, "I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."
by: Ben Feller
President Barack Obama's furious, final push to get a health care bill passed threatens to shove aside the message he promised would top his list this year: creating jobs.
Even as the White House juggles several enormous issues at once, the public takes its cues about the president's chief concern from how he spends his time, energy and capital. As Obama himself put it on Wednesday, from now until Congress takes a final vote on a health care overhaul, "I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Officers: Pakistan arrests American-born al-Qaida
KARACHI, Pakistan – The American-born spokesman for al-Qaida has been arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government official said Sunday, the same day Adam Gadahn appeared in a video urging U.S. Muslims to attack their own country.
The arrest of Gadahn is a major victory in the U.S.-led battle against al-Qaida and will be taken as a sign that Pakistan is cooperating more fully with Washington. It follows the recent detentions of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi.
Gadahn — who has often appeared in al-Qaida videos — was arrested in the sprawling southern metropolis in recent days, two officers who took part in the operation said. A senior government official also confirmed the arrest.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
Gadahn grew up on a goat farm in Riverside County, California, and converted to Islam at a mosque in nearby Orange County.
He moved to Pakistan in 1998, according to the FBI, and is said to have attended an al-Qaida training camp six years later, serving as a translator and consultant for the group. He has been wanted by the FBI since 2004, and there is a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction.
The 31-year-old is known by various aliases including Yahya Majadin Adams and Azzam al-Amriki.
He has posted videos and messages calling for the destruction of the West and for strikes against targets in the United States. The most recent was posted Sunday, praising the U.S. Army major charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, as a role model for other Muslims.
A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years. He could face the death penalty if convicted. He was also charged with two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Gadahn has appeared in more than half a dozen al-Qaida videos. The video released Sunday appeared to have been made after the end of the year, but it was unclear exactly when.
Dawud Walid, the executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Southfield, Mich., condemned Gadahn's call for violence, calling it a "desperate" attempt by Al-Qaida's spokesman to provoke bloodshed within the U.S.
Walid, a Navy veteran, said Muslims have honorably served in the American military will be unimpressed by al-Qaida's message aimed at their ranks.
"We thoroughly repudiate and condemn his statement and what we believe are his failed attempts to incite loyal American Muslims in the miltary," he said.
Imad Hamad, the senior national adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, based in Dearbon, Mich., condemned al-Qaida's message and said it would have no impact on American Muslims.
"This a worthless rhetoric that is not going to have any effect on people's and minds and hearts," he said.
Al-Qaida has used Gadahn as its chief English-speaking spokesman, and he has called for the destruction of the West and for strikes against targets in the United States. In one video, he ceremoniously tore up his American passport. In another, he admitted his grandfather was Jewish, ridiculing him for his beliefs and calling for Palestinians to continue fighting Israel.
___By ASHRAF KHAN, Associated Press Writer Ashraf Khan, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press Writers Patrick Quinn and Maamoun Youssef in Cairo and Rick Callahan in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
The arrest of Gadahn is a major victory in the U.S.-led battle against al-Qaida and will be taken as a sign that Pakistan is cooperating more fully with Washington. It follows the recent detentions of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi.
Gadahn — who has often appeared in al-Qaida videos — was arrested in the sprawling southern metropolis in recent days, two officers who took part in the operation said. A senior government official also confirmed the arrest.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
Gadahn grew up on a goat farm in Riverside County, California, and converted to Islam at a mosque in nearby Orange County.
He moved to Pakistan in 1998, according to the FBI, and is said to have attended an al-Qaida training camp six years later, serving as a translator and consultant for the group. He has been wanted by the FBI since 2004, and there is a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction.
The 31-year-old is known by various aliases including Yahya Majadin Adams and Azzam al-Amriki.
He has posted videos and messages calling for the destruction of the West and for strikes against targets in the United States. The most recent was posted Sunday, praising the U.S. Army major charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, as a role model for other Muslims.
A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years. He could face the death penalty if convicted. He was also charged with two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Gadahn has appeared in more than half a dozen al-Qaida videos. The video released Sunday appeared to have been made after the end of the year, but it was unclear exactly when.
Dawud Walid, the executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Southfield, Mich., condemned Gadahn's call for violence, calling it a "desperate" attempt by Al-Qaida's spokesman to provoke bloodshed within the U.S.
Walid, a Navy veteran, said Muslims have honorably served in the American military will be unimpressed by al-Qaida's message aimed at their ranks.
"We thoroughly repudiate and condemn his statement and what we believe are his failed attempts to incite loyal American Muslims in the miltary," he said.
Imad Hamad, the senior national adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, based in Dearbon, Mich., condemned al-Qaida's message and said it would have no impact on American Muslims.
"This a worthless rhetoric that is not going to have any effect on people's and minds and hearts," he said.
Al-Qaida has used Gadahn as its chief English-speaking spokesman, and he has called for the destruction of the West and for strikes against targets in the United States. In one video, he ceremoniously tore up his American passport. In another, he admitted his grandfather was Jewish, ridiculing him for his beliefs and calling for Palestinians to continue fighting Israel.
___By ASHRAF KHAN, Associated Press Writer Ashraf Khan, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press Writers Patrick Quinn and Maamoun Youssef in Cairo and Rick Callahan in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)