Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

By

Dems: No demon pass in the House

House leaders plan separate health vote, rejecting ‘deem and pass’

The House Rules Committee continued its session on the third floor of the Capitol, where the panel is tasked with setting the terms of Sunday’s floor debate. House leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate version of the health care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to “deem” the measure passed without an explicit vote.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said the House will take three votes on Sunday: First, on a resolution that will set the terms of debate. Second, on a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members. And third, on the Senate bill itself.

Van Hollen, an assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who has been working on the issue, said House leaders concluded that the reverse order — approving the amendments before approving the Senate bill — makes clear that the House is approving “a modified version of the Senate bill,” and not the Senate bill itself.

Paul Mirengoff

I think this means one of two things: (1) Pelosi has the votes to pass the Senate version or (2) she has concluded that there are no extra votes to be gained through “deem and pass.” It also means, of course, that “deem and pass,” having been the object of much ridicule, was inflicting collateral damage on the Dems.

Some ridicule remains fair because the Democrats voted against a Republican attempt to have “deem and pass” renounced.

Earlier today Byron York reported that the Rules Committee meeting had descended into chaos.

Outside, the protestors.

Share

By

The CBO’s Obamacare estimate

While the Dems would like you to believe that Obamacare will save money, the fact is that 98% of Spending in HC Bill Comes in Last 6 Yrs (h/t Matthew Continetti), which in graphic form looks like this:

That’s uploading revenues up front and costs at the back end of 10 years – and the first year is 2010, which means the estimate includes a time span predating the bill? From 2013 on, it’s all rising costs… forever.

Not surprisingly, the CBO itself stated they were pulling numbers out of their assess speculating as to what any real numbers would look like,

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

since they don’t have the final bill.

But there’s a lot that’s real. Maggie’s Farm posts,

The Republican leadership is still trying to decipher the fine print, but are quickly getting to the bottom line. Senator McConnell issued a press release saying: “They get there with even higher taxes and deeper Medicare cuts than the first Senate bill.

“Let’s start with Medicare cuts.

“The Senate bill that Speaker Pelosi said Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on cut Medicare by $465 billion.“This latest bill increases those cuts by about $60 billion more.

“How about taxes?

“The Senate bill that Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on raises taxes by $494 billion.

“This bill increases those tax hikes by at least $150 billion.

“So if you were worried about raising taxes in the middle of a recession, this bill raises taxes even more.

“If you were worried about cutting Medicare for seniors, this bill cuts it even more.

That’s real. There’s more that’s real and unreal. The $500-billion taken from Medicare is real in its impact on seniors’ health. That doctors will have their fees further reduced is not real, many already operating at a loss on Medicare business and losses being shifted on to private insurance plans. The tens of billions of spending in future years mandated upon the already near-bankrupt states for expanded Medicaid is real, though not counted by CBO. The negative impacts on employment and the economy are real.

Keith Hennessey has a starting (and startling) list of notes on this bill and its effects, such as,

Raise Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage points for individuals with income > $200K and couples with income > $250K. This means you and your employer pay a combined 3.8% payroll tax on wages above these amounts. (This is the President’s proposal.) This is what they mean by “taxing the rich.” It is also crossing a decades-old line separating Social Security and Medicare funding from the rest of the budget. I would not have expected Democrats to cross that line and violate what was for them an important principle of “social insurance program,” but they really needed the money.

And while you read Hennessey’s post, bear in mind that Obamacare will cost over $2 trillion, at least, in its current incarnation,

The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

Once it’s passed, it will not be undone.

But the Dems are willing to push it through because it’s not about healthcare. It’s about control.

UPDATE
John Hawkins has Why You Should Oppose Obamacare: 32 Quotes From Democrats, in their own words.

Share

By

Obama: Obamacare’s Louisiana Purchase will cover Hawaii earthquake. What earthquake? VIDEO

Obama apparently knows about something we haven’t been told, via Hot Air and Gateway Pundit,

From the Fox News transcript:

BAIER: Do you know which specific deals are in or out, as of today?

OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.

BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?

OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though.

Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.

What earthquake in Hawaii? The 1868 one, or the 1975 one?

Then there’s the question of the Slaughter rule,

BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: “the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care.” So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

OBAMA: Here’s what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they’ve got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.

We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you’ve got a good package, in terms of substance. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.

BlogProf

Good grief. This clip ought to put Obama’s supposed upholding of the US Constitution in the ground where it belongs.

IMAO comments,

Maybe Obama thought the oath was to “preserve, protect, and ignore” the Constitution. That would explain a lot.

Read the entire Fox News transcript, and watch the interview, (via The Lid)

NRO calls Baier’s interview

the single best interview of President Obama in a year, by any reporter.

A couple of things are clear:

  • Obama did his best to stonewall and run down the clock
  • was impatient

Normally Obama is pretty good at giving non-answers, but under Baier’s pressure, his non-answers were quite apparent.

But the more troubling part of the entire interview is that, judging by his non-answers, Obama doesn’t know what’s in the bill. Maybe he’s taken Nancy Pelosi’s advice, “Let’s pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it“?

Day By Day looks for repairs.

Where is TOTUS when you need him?

Supposedly the bill will be voted on Sunday. When is it going to be posted?

The Democrats are hell-bent on passing this thing.

Share

By

Reconciliation: It’s what’s for dinner

Whether you want it or not, Obama’s going to feed you that socialized healthcare one way or the other, through
reconciliation

On Wednesday, Obama plans to call on Congress to bring the year-long debate to a swift close, and congressional leaders expect him to signal support for a strategy that includes a special budget maneuver known as reconciliation. Under that strategy, the House would adopt the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve and approve a separate package of fixes to reflect a compromise worked out between Democrats in the two chambers.

Under reconciliation rules, the fixes could not be filibustered and Senate Democrats could approve them with a simple majority vote — a move intended to bypass a Republican caucus that remains united in its opposition to the legislation. Republican leaders said Obama’s offer to adopt some of the ideas they promoted at last week’s health-care summit would do little to improve what they consider a fundamentally flawed measure.

Why am I not surprised?

Share

By

The Obama show VIDEO

Via Pundette,

According to Senate Republicans, President Obama spoke for 119 minutes, other Democrats for 114 minutes, and Congressional Republicans for 110 minutes.

Obama insisted that he could and did so because, well, because he can…

and he was going to rub it in,

and then this, via Instapundit,

This sort of thing is why many agree with Dennis,

Does anyone really think either Reid or Pelosi have the votes in hand to get the Obamacare hybrid House-Senate bill passed and into law? We are where we are precisely because Obama does not have, and never has had, enough votes amongst Congressional Democrats votes to pass health care reform. The Republicans have never been relevant to the process beyond potentially offering Democrats political cover for an unpopular vote.

The Republicans at the table yesterday understood perfectly who that health care summit was supposed to persuade: It wasn’t the public. It wasn’t Congressional Republicans. It was House and Senate Democrats. And given the fact that the Republicans did not implode, and the ground has not shifted under anyone’s feet, there is no reason to believe that those Congressional Democrats reluctant to commit lemming-like acts yesterday will be more inclined to commit them today.

Moe Lane has the Congressional Democrats still wondering who the sucker was at yesterday’s summit.

Imagine for a moment a world where the 112th Congress is not being run by Pelosi and Reid. Do you think that the President might end up with a health care reform bill that… forget ‘he can happily sign to show how bipartisan he is.’ At this point, the President will settle for a bill that he can actually sign. Which was the ostensible point of this summit to begin with; and the only event of real note there was a rather pointed refutation of the Democratic lie that Republicans have no health care ideas or plans. Not even David Gergen wants to run with that meme anymore.

While the summit gave the Republicans a chance to showcase their ideas on healthcare reform, Betsy called the summit Blair Bipartisan Baloney.

IBD has more, After Health Debate, Obama Threatens Dem-Only Strategy

I’m inclined to agree with James Joyner, though,

All in all, I’d say that the real winner were those of us who didn’t spend seven hours watch[ing].

Share

By

White House doesn’t read its own website

Dan Pfeiffer at the White House Blog Feed asks, Will the Republicans Post Their Health Plan… and When?.

Let me help you, Dan.

GOP has a one-page summary sheet and the legislative text of Republican proposals.

Which, by the way, Chris Frates at Politico noticed had been linked to by the White House website,

Turns out the House Republicans’ plan has been online since October and already has its own link on the White House website. The White House encourages readers to "read more about House and Senate ideas from both parties on their websites." The link sends readers to a House GOP website that includes a one-page summary sheet and the legislative text of their proposals.

Of course Dan can’t believe that the Republicans are serious about their proposed items,

What you can’t do just yet is read about the Republicans’ consensus plan – because so far they haven’t announced what proposal they’ll be bringing to the table. To be sure, there are many Republicans who share the President’s conviction that we need to act on reform, and there are several pieces of Republican health care legislation out there. Previously we were told this was the House Republican bill. Is it still? We look forward to hearing whether this the proposal they’ll bring. The Senate Republicans have yet to post any kind of plan, so we continue to await word from them. As of right now, the American people still don’t know which one Congressional Republicans support and which one they want to present to the public on Thursday.

considering that the Democrats have been debating healthcare on their on for nearly a full year and the President came out with his yesterday.

UPDATE
Daniel Foster on The Democrats’ Orwellian Talking Point

Of course, Pfeiffer moves the goal posts on Republicans — calling for a grand, unified plan instead of “a collection of piecemeal & sometimes conflicting ideas.” But that doesn’t scan. At issue is precisely whether health-care cost and access problems are best addressed by a massive new entitlement structure that would socialize costs and guarantee access by mandate and price controls, or by a series of smaller, targeted reforms and incentives. It won’t do for Pfeiffer to say the Republican plan isn’t a plan at all because it isn’t more like Obamacare.

To their credit, the mainstream media couldn’t pass up reporting on Pfeiffer’s glaring disingenousness, and Twitter was alive this morning with D.C. correspondents forwarding links to the GOP plan. Ironically, this is perhaps the most exposure the Republican plan has so far received, and all it took was the Democrats saying that it didn’t exist.

Thank goodness for small favors.

While you’re at it, notice that

unlike the president’s plan, which can’t be scored by the CBO due to its lack of detail, the Republican plan will lower health-care premiums by 10 percent.

Share

By

The President’s $1 trillion health bill

White House Unveils $950 Billion Health Bill To Bridge Differences Between House And Senate Legilsation.

One question:
How are we going to pay for this?

To finance the changes, President Obama proposes raising taxes even more than the Senate plan does. Under Obama’s proposal, higher income workers would see their portion of the Medicare payroll rise even higher. The tax would create a marriage penalty by applying to individuals earning over $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000. When the original version of the Senate health care bill was produced, the Medicare tax on those earning over $200,000 was supposed to be 0.5 percent. In the version that passed in December, the tax had been raised to 0.9 percent. And though it hasn’t even been made law yet, Obama is raising the Medicare tax for the third time, by assessing an additional 2.9 percent tax on income “from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents…” This follows the historical pattern of payroll taxes, which have increased 20 times since first introduced in 1935, going from a combined total of 2 percent (including employer/employee contributions) to 12.4 percent today.

The Obama proposal would also raise the proposed tax on drug makers by $10 billion, to a combined $33 billion over 10 years, while delaying enactment by a year. It also delays enactment of the tax on medical devices and health insurers.

The Senate bill’s version of the individual mandate taxes those without health insurance by charging them either a flat dollar amount, or a percentage of income — whichever is higher. The Obama proposal lowers the flat dollar tax slightly (to $695 from $750 when phased in), but raises the percentage of income. This would result in even higher taxes for many individuals for whom the percentage of income is higher. For instance, when fully phased in, somebody earning $40,000 who chooses to go uninsured would be subject to a tax hike of $1,000.

And, may someone please explain to me how will giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, which are overburdened by government-ordered mandates to cover every thing including hangnails, make health care more competitive and affordable?

For instance,

What is most disturbing about the President’s latest proposal, and similar ones in Congress, is the apparent lack of understanding that one of the most basic purposes of insurer financial regulation is not to prevent “price-gouging,” but rather to prevent the problems that occur if insurers under-price their products. Specifically, if an insurer fails to charge enough in premiums to cover its expected claims costs, then it is at risk of being unable to make good on the promises made to its customers. That can leave policyholders with worthless coverage or spark demands for government bailouts that impose on taxpayers the cost of covering the losses.

Be assured of this:

Government determining insurance premiums is the same as government determining what services can be offered.

While the government mandates what services can be covered now, the limitation on rate increases means the rationing of care. The insurance companies will cease providing coverage, which will mean the government will be the sole provider of medical coverage.

And for starters, it’ll cost $1 trillion.

Now, how much did they say Medicare was going to cost?

UPDATE
Just how much will the Obama Administration’s Health Care Proposal cost?
Your guess is as good as any. The Congressional Budget Office cannot provide a cost estimate for the proposal.

Share