Michael Steele's Reaction To Senate Health Care Bill Final Vote

(Published Dec. 23, 2009) Same Trojan Horse Just Under a Different Name


Tomorrow, early Christmas Eve morning, Harry Reid plans a final vote in the Senate to pass his government-run health care bill. One of the only reasons why Reid has been able to get this far was by dropping the “public option,” thus calming the fears of moderate Democrats who couldn’t defend to their constituents this measure as a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. (I.E. nationalizing America’s health care).

Below are passages from a piece that appeared in National Review Online this morning, written by my close friend Kay Coles James, a former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), discussing Reid’s new plan. Unfortunately, as Mrs. James writes, “given the statutory requirements, this arrangement seems to be a ‘public option’ in ‘private’ option disguise…”

Instead of a “public option” Reid’s new bill sets the OPM as the new proprietor for his government-run health care plan—the same Trojan Horse to a single-payer system, just under a different name.

Section 1334 of Reid’s bill calls on OPM to administer a new set of “multi-state” health plans for the general public. These plans, one of which must be non-profit, would “compete” against the other private health plans in the states. But given the statutory requirements, this arrangement seems to be a “public option” in “private” option disguise. Why? Because OPM would not merely serve as the umpire overseeing competition among private health plans. It would also become a health-plan sponsor, fielding its own team of players to compete against the existing private plans in every state. That’s a very different role for OPM and the inherent conflicts are obvious…

That’s worrisome indeed. It gives political appointees at OPM the means to manipulate rules for the benefit of the government’s “own team.” As a result, OPM could crowd out the private insurance providers, forcing millions of Americans to lose or be transitioned out of their existing health coverage...

Taxpayers worried about the dangers of the proposed “Public Option” should be no less alarmed by the Senate’s proposed new role for OPM.


Sources: GOP.com, National Review Online, Think Progress, Youtube, Zimbio

Obama Claims He Never Promised Public Option, Not True!...Here's Proof!

Obama Tries To Distance Himself From The Public Option


Now that the Senate has firmly rejected the public option, President Obama is trying his darnedest to distance himself from the controversial, and failed, proposal. But that may be harder than he thought.

In an American Urban Radio interview yesterday, he said, "this is not the most important aspect of this bill." And today he told The Washington Post, "I didn't campaign on the public option."

But that's not true. In a campaign position paper on health care, Obama mentions the public plan eight times. The Obama-Biden campaign wrote:


Through the Exchange, any American will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale tax credits will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an above-average premium increase to the Exchange. (h/t: Think Progress)

Candidate Obama also signed on to the principles set down by the Progressive group Health Care for America Now, the biggest proponent of a government-run plan. Those principles included support for a Public Option:

Everyone gets a choice of health insurance plans, including the right to keep your current insurance, choose another private plan or to join a public health insurance plan.

And while it's true that reform will include many of the reforms he ran on, it's not accurate for the president to claim he didn't run on passing a Public Option.








Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours


In recent days, there has been an uproar in the progressive community over the Senate’s decision to drop the public option from its health care bill in order to reach the crucial 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Given that many liberals backed a single-payer, Medicare-for-all system, the public option was seen as a political compromise.

“I didn’t campaign on the Public Option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in [a] new public plan.” [2008]

– During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges “needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market.” [6/15/09]

– While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that “any plan” he signs “must include…a Public Option.” [7/17/09]

– During a conference call with Progressive Bloggers, the President said he continues “to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go.” [7/20/09]

– Obama told NBC’s David Gregory that a public option “should be a part of this [health care bill],” while rebuking claims that the plan was “dead.” [9/20/09]

Despite all this overt advocacy for the public option, it appears that Obama was reticent to apply the political pressure necessary to get the plan in the final hours of congressional negotiation. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — who threatened to filibuster the creation of any new public plan or expansion of Medicare — told the Huffington Post that he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most ardent backers of public insurance, blamed the demise of the public option on a “lack of support from the administration.” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — perhaps the most visible defender of the public option in the entire health care debate — went even further, saying that Obama’s lack of support for congressional progressives amounted to him being “half-pregnant” with the health insurance and drug industries.

Update "All I'll say, I was surprised to hear this because I had assumed all along that the White House was pushing strongly for the public option," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said. "I just assumed that."

Update In response to a questionnaire from the Washington Post, then-candidate Obama said, “My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage.”


Sources: Politico, Think Progress, Washington Post, Health Care For American Now, AP, Whitehouse.gov, Youtube

AFL-CIO Threatens To Abandon Dems Over Weak Health Care Bill

AFL-CIO: Senate Health Care Bill "Inadequate"


Following emergency meetings yesterday to discuss the Senate health care bill, labor has finally weighed in.

After the Service Employees International Union issued a challenge to President Obama and lawmakers earlier today, the AFL-CIO has now released a statement calling the post-Lieberman-defection Senate bill "inadequate."

"The absolute refusal of Republicans in the Senate to support health care reform and the hijacking of the bill by defenders of the insurance industry have brought us a Senate bill that is inadequate: It is too kind to the insurance industry," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement just released this afternoon.

"The House bill is the model for genuine health care reform. Working people cannot accept anything less than real reform," Trumka said.

So labor has denounced the Senate bill, saying it will fight for changes. The AFL-CIO perhaps went a bit further than SEIU, in that it stated it "cannot accept" anything less than "real reform"--which is an indirect way of saying it "cannot accept" the Senate bill.

Labor is clearly displeased. It has, however, eschewed the tack of Howard Dean: it hasn't phrased its complaints as a call for Democrats to vote against the current bill.

See Trumka's full statement below:

The labor movement has been fighting for health care for nearly 100 years and we are not about to stop fighting now, when it really matters.

But for this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made. The AFL-CIO intends to fight on behalf of all working families to make those changes and win health care reform that is deserving of the name.

The absolute refusal of Republicans in the Senate to support health care reform and the hijacking of the bill by defenders of the insurance industry have brought us a Senate bill that is inadequate: It is too kind to the insurance industry.

Genuine health care reform must bring down health costs, hold insurance companies accountable, assure that Americans can get the health care they need and be financed fairly.

• That's why we are championing a public health insurance option: It is the way to break the stranglehold of the insurance industry over consumers that has led to double digit premium increases virtually every year.

• Employers must pay their fair share.

• And the benefits of hard-working Americans cannot be taxed to pay for health care reform--that's no way to rein in insurance companies and it's the wrong way to pay for health care reform.

Those are the changes for which we will be fighting in the coming days.

The Senate bill does some good things: It will provide health insurance to 30 million more Americans and provide subsidies to low income individuals and families. Benefits will have to meet minimum standards and insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or impose lifetime or unreasonable annual limits. The bill also includes some relief for plans with early retirees as well as delivery system reforms that may lead to lower costs over the long haul. And Senate leaders have made a commitment to close the Medicare prescription drugs donut hole which is so costly to seniors.

But because it bends toward the insurance industry, the Senate bill will not check costs in the short term, and its financing asks working people and the country to pay the price, even as benefits are cut.

The House bill is the model for genuine health care reform. Working people cannot accept anything less than real reform.







Nation's Largest Union: Change Health Care Bill Or Else


The nation's largest union group said Thursday that it will not support the Democratic health-care bill unless "substantial changes" are made to the current Senate version.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement to reporters that without a public option for insurance coverage or an employer mandate - and with a tax on high-end insurance plans that some union members get - the health care legislation supported by Senate Democrats falls far short of meeting his group's standards.

"[For] this health care bill to be worthy of the support of working men and women, substantial changes must be made," said Trumka. "The AFL-CIO intends to fight on behalf of all working families to make those changes and win health care reform that is deserving of the name."

The remarks are a strong indication that the coalition of pro-health-care-reform groups has begun to fray. Earlier in the day, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern penned a letter to his fellow union members in which he called out President Barack Obama for abandoning his own principles of reform.

"President Obama must remember his own words from the campaign. His call of 'Yes We Can' was not just to us, not just to the millions of people who voted for him, but to himself. We all stood shoulder to shoulder with the President during his hard fought campaign. And, we will continue to stand with him but he must fight for the reform we all know is possible," Stern wrote.

"Our challenge to you, to the President, to the Senate and to the House of Representatives is to fight," Stern continued. "Now, more than ever, all of us must stand up, remember what health insurance reform is all about, and fight like hell to deliver real and meaningful reform to the American people."

Stern, like Trumka, called for Democrats to make changes to the legislation as the process moves forward. And his rebuke of Obama - a staunch personal ally - was a telling sign of the growing frustration within the labor movement.

Both labor leaders were particularly incensed over the concessions made by the Senate's Democratic leadership to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the 60th member of their caucus. "The public option is declared impossible. Americans cannot purchase Medicare at an earlier age. The health insurance reform effort we have needed for a century is at risk," Stern wrote.

Officials at both unions met late into the night on Wednesday in emergency sessions to discuss the Senate bill. Aides say the conversations were lengthy and, at times, emotional. The labor community, while privately angry with the White House and Democrats in Congress, still needs the support of these lawmakers on other legislative priorities. Meanwhile, having poured millions into advertisement and man-hours in order to get health care passed, they have watched in horror as the principles they worked for were abandoned in a matter of days.

Officials are also aware of how much would be lost by simply scrapping the bill altogether. Stern noted that under the Senate's bill 30 million additional people would be covered, pre-existing conditions would no longer be an excuse to deny coverage, and people who get sick would no longer lose their insurance. Trumka, likewise, pointed to "good things" in the Senate bill, including the fact that "insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or impose lifetime or unreasonable annual limits."



View Larger Map


Sources: The Atlantic.com, Huffington Post, AFL-CIO, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama & John Conyers: "Stop Demeaning Me"

John Conyers vs. Barack Obama


So President Barack Obama now thinks that Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) is "demeaning" him by calling him out on issues such as health care and job creation, particularly as they impact the black community?

Good.

After the 2008 elections, I wondered how progressive black pols from majority black districts would deal with the President when time came for them to stand up for the interests of their constituents, and I think Conyers is doing a pretty good job of remaining true to what he considers to be the biggest concerns of poor and working-class Detroiters. And in truth, he's not being demeaning at all -- just brutally frank.

No, I wasn't crazy about Conyers' apparent move away from supporting single-payer health care, but he's definitely won me back over by going at Obama with both guns blazing as he has urged the President to pay closer attention to the struggles in cities like Detroit.

Now, on the flip side, I also get where Obama is coming from. He may be (part) black, but he's the President of the entire US, not just of black America. I voted for the man, and I no more expect him to harp on only "black" concerns anymore than I'd have expected Bill Clinton to just focus only on issues relevant to Irish-Americans.

Conyers, however, is in DC to represent Detroit and Detroiters--and all the issues they care about, "black" or otherwise.

But the truth is, these "black" issues -- from massive unemployment to the need for an economic bailout of "Main Street" — are, in fact, American issues. And as Americans, black folks have as much right to make demands of the President as anyone else.

What's also just as true is that the Democrats rode a huge black turnout back into the White House and to the majority of the seats in Congress. Given this, I expect black people's issues to be addressed not because Obama is black, but because blacks have been the most loyal part of his base. I don't expect -- or want -- him to pander to black voters. But I don't expect him to ignore us or give us short shrift either.

Feels good to know that, whatever else Barack Obama may say about Conyers, the Congressman from Detroit at least has the President's attention.





President Obama told me to stop "demeaning" him, says Rep. Conyers


President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.

In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.

According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.

Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left. Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

Sitting in the Judiciary Committee’s conference room two days after Obama delivered his speech on Afghanistan, the 23-term lawmaker said he wasn’t in the mood to “chat.”

Obama’s move to send in 30,000 troops to Afghanistan by the summer of 2010 has clearly disappointed Conyers.

He said he intends to press his case in writing soon.

“I want something so serious that he has to respond in writing, like I am responding in writing to him,” he said.

“Calling in generals and admirals to discuss troop strength is like me taking my youngest to McDonald’s to ask if he likes french fries,” Conyers said.

Many on the left have argued that military leaders routinely respond to crises by calling for more troops.

“I’ve been saying I don’t agree with him on Afghanistan, I think he screwed up on healthcare reform, on Guantánamo and kicking Greg off,” Conyers said, referring to the departure of former White House counsel Greg Craig.

Craig was a leading proponent in the White House of closing the terrorist detention center at Guantánamo Bay and releasing photos of detainees undergoing torture. Closing the military prison has proven to be politically difficult, and Obama reversed field on the photos, opting not to make them publicly available.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The liberal Conyers has been an outspoken proponent of a single-payer healthcare system and a critic of U.S. involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He has also been at odds with White House policy on extending expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, crafting legislation that is to the left of the Senate’s version.

Obama and Conyers have a complicated and nuanced relationship.

Conyers was the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Obama over then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

Conyers earlier this year noted that he spent most weekends in 2007 and 2008 on the campaign trail trying to get Obama elected.

“I did whatever was necessary to be done to win. I met with ministers, I met with unions, I met with lawyers, I met with community activists, I met with healthcare people,” Conyers explained in early April.

The 80-year-old lawmaker, who participated in the civil rights movement alongside Martin Luther King Jr., does not shy away from saying what is on his mind.

In mid-November, Conyers said on the Bill Press radio show that Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have been “bowing down” to “nutty right-wing” healthcare proposals in a desperate effort to get legislation passed.

The Michigan Democrat, a friend of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, said he was “getting tired of saving Obama’s can in the White House,” after progressive Democrats were forced to vote for a healthcare bill that did not call for a “robust public option” and includes language opposed by abortion-rights supporters.

Since the House narrowly passed its healthcare bill, Conyers has grown increasingly frustrated with what he sees as the White House’s willingness to weaken the role of the government in administering the proposed new benefits.

Conyers also said last month that Obama was “getting bad advice from … clowns” on Afghanistan, according to a report in the Detroit Free Press.

At times, Conyers has shown his pragmatic side. For example, he has abandoned hope of moving his legislation calling for a commission to review whether the U.S. government should pay reparations to descendants of slaves. He has called his measure too controversial.

On the morning following Obama’s landmark speech on the war in Afghanistan, Conyers sent around a “Dear Colleague” letter to Democratic and GOP lawmakers interested in joining his newly formed “Peace and Progress in Afghanistan Caucus.”

In the letter, Conyers explained that the caucus “will serve as an informal bipartisan group of members dedicated to reorienting the United States’ commitment to the Afghan government and people by emphasizing indigenous reconciliation and reconstruction strategies, rigorous regional diplomacy, and swift redeployment of the U.S. military.”



View Larger Map


Sources: TIME, The Hill, Photobucket, Google Maps

Senate Medicare Buy-In Plan Hits A Wall...Bad Deal For Voters

Medicare Plan meets resistance

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wealth over health in reform bill? Wendell Potter, former CIGNA Vice President, explains a loophole in the Senate health care reform bill, which bans insurance companies from putting lifetime limits on coverage but not annual limits.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Medicare Buy-In Plan runs into resistance


A plan to let people as young as 55 buy into Medicare, heralded as a breakthrough in the Senate's health care debate, ran into resistance Sunday from lawmakers who can make or break Democrats' efforts to reshape the nation's health insurance system.

Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut declared the early Medicare buy-in a bad deal for taxpayers and the deficit. He pleaded with Democrats to start subtracting expensive proposals from the overhaul, saying, "We don't need to keep adding onto the back of this horse or we're going to break the horse's back and get nothing done."

Government accountants are poring over the latest compromise proposals to see how much they would cost, and some lawmakers are reserving judgment until that plays out this week. Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said she would "absolutely" vote against the package if it seemed destined to increase people's out-of-pocket costs and the national debt.

In the meantime, only a few moderates have come out against the Medicare plan. But in a legislative struggle that is a game of inches, Democrats need all 60 votes in their caucus, and they don't yet have them.

"I think it's going to pass out of the Senate before Christmas," President Barack Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview airing Sunday night. Lieberman said there was a chance, if Democrats "bring in some Republicans who are open-minded."

But Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said no way: "With the American people as overwhelming opposed to this bill as they are, for the Democrats to basically arrogantly take the position that we're going to ignore public opinion and jam this through before Christmas, I think that's really a stretch," said McConnell, R-Ky.

Forerunner of Single-Payer?

The early Medicare buy-in was part of a compromise reached last week when Senate Democrats dropped the idea of setting up a federal health insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Many Democrats who had favored that public option only grudgingly let it go, in return embracing the Medicare proposal as an appealing way to help people 55 to 64 — a group often vulnerable to losing employer-based health insurance when it's needed the most.

Under the compromise, private nonprofit plans overseen by the federal government would be offered in the marketplace.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he was working with Lieberman and others on controlling Medicare costs, and he voiced confidence fellow Democrats can get past their divisions. Party leaders, resuming the debate Sunday, are pushing hard to finish the Senate overhaul legislation before Christmas and to begin negotiations with the House, which has passed its plan.

But while saying "I want to be a friend of the process," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., sounded distinctly down on the Medicare proposal.

"I'm concerned that it's the forerunner of single-payer — the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option," he said. By single-payer, he meant national health insurance run by Washington.

Nelson already says he won't support the bill unless fellow Democrats establish a firewall to ensure no public money goes toward abortion coverage.

Lieberman was a firm opponent of the bill's original plan for a public insurance option. Even with it out, he said he would find it hard to vote for the bill if it contains the Medicare buy-in as written. "The opposition to it has been growing as the week has gone on," he said. Lieberman, Nelson, McConnell and Rockefeller spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation." McCaskill was on "Fox News Sunday."




View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps