Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Urge Democratic Leader to Comply with Open Government Act of 2007
Jan 12 2010

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today joined 21 of their Senate Republican colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asking him to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending in the Senate health care bill, as well as in any future version of the health care bill that House and Senate Democrats might push to a vote.

Isakson and Chambliss have repeatedly criticized the lack of transparency throughout the process of drafting the $2.5 trillion health care bill, as well as the backroom deals that Reid made with certain Senate Democrats in order to secure their votes.

The text of the letter is below:

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

We write to express our concern over the inclusion of several provisions in the Manager’s Amendment to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since the nearly 400 page amendment was introduced, we discovered over half a dozen provisions that appear to have been included for the primary purpose of benefitting some states in particular. Though your office has referred to these provisions as “a normal part of the legislative process,” we are concerned that the inclusion of these items without appropriate disclosure may violate The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81) changed Senate rules to enhance transparency in the legislative process. The relevant change requires any amendment sponsor to publicly disclose each congressionally directed spending item and limited tax benefit included in that amendment. The design of this provision was to ensure that the American people know which lawmakers advocated for specific carve outs and earmarks.

It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. We request this information be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

Finally, we anticipate that in coming weeks you and Speaker Pelosi will introduce a bill combining the House and Senate health bills. Upon the introduction of that bill we request a similar list of provisions, as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

The American people deserve a transparent Congressional process. All Americans should know which States and entities will benefit from Congressional negotiations related to the health bills and amendments.

You gotta love the CBO. Okay, you don’t have to but they’re so cool they have been added to this blog’s resource list in the sidebar. Both the CBO and The Director’s Blog have a link. This reaction to the CBO could change at any time as with other links featured here. But certainly the work of the CBO in the current political climate deserves credit.

Both sides of the healthcare debate as well as other issues have frequently referred to the CBO’s analysis to make their case. But just like the one presented on this blog today you need to follow the link to make up your own mind and form an opinion.

The linked excerpts below highlight the business as usual aspects of the current healthcare debate on one aspect of the so-called reform. Proponents of the Democrats’ healthcare reform legislation love to say it will strengthen Medicare. Opponents, including this blog, say it will weaken it.

The title of the Director’s Blog post featured here describes the analysis presented. This particular one was published one day before Democrats in the Senate forced through ‘reform’ late at night on Christmas Eve.

Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the Federal Budget and the Balance in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

The permanent charade by politicians and program financing such as Medicare is highlighted in the next link.

The HI trust fund, like other federal trust funds, is essentially an accounting mechanism.

The effect of this accounting is explained as follows and again is nothing new.

However, because the government has used the cash from the trust fund surpluses to finance other current activities rather than saving the cash by running unified budget surpluses, the government as a whole has not been truly prefunding Medicare benefits.

Why this is important in the current debate is explained below.

Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits.

Clearly, those suggesting current healthcare reform strengthens Medicare are WRONG. With Social Security and Medicare and probably with the remainder of the staggering three fourths of the annual budget which is entitlements, it is all smoke and mirrors. But CBO was polite enough to simply call it an accounting mechanism. After pressure applied by the White House on the CBO it is understandable. That’s another reason CBO is cool.

This is not new or some sort of revelation. If one reviews the experience of government programs, the legislation that causes it as well as modifying it from time to time one fact remains clear. The costs always exceed the forecasts. Certainly at the outset Social Security and Medicare were never predicted to become insolvent. Nor were their proponents suggesting a continuous increase in the taxes needed to keep them from going broke.

The same applies to current healthcare reform. As an example, the CBO often reminds the public about the limitations of its analysis. Projecting outcomes over a ten year analysis has some uncertainty but appears manageable. However, analysis beyond the initial ten year window is all but meaningless. The variables of what may happen over that much time are too difficult to predict. No one can take into account all the events that may happen by then. Including more meddling by politicians that always occurs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As the Democrat parade assembled this week for a five minute news conference on healthcare with giddy exuberance Speaker Pelosi dodged real questions on the issue. Sharing her giddiness as well as offering no substance to the discussion were the committee chairs from the House. Rangel, Waxman, Miller and Slaughter are Pelosi’s expendable accomplices.

At the time it appeared reasonable to visit the websites of the fearful foursome to review their respective positions on the matter. Because this blogger has less familiarity with George Miller of CA the review started with him.

After a few clicks to view various items related to the subject the last stop illuminated the puppet mentality of the four. Miller had what first appeared as a generous list of resources for review sporting titles that indicate a group of summarized and detailed references on healthcare legislation.

The most appealing referred to a list of those who support the legislation. Given every major and not so major poll for months has indicated most Americans oppose the legislation one could hardly resist taking a look.

Not a surprise that the link merely redirects one to Speaker Pelosi’s website. The list of supporters is dominated by labor unions and other special interests and agendas yet to be determined here.

One example of the support from a source unknown to this blogger stood out. Pay particular attention to the quote in the excerpt below that includes the word ‘ensure’. Then read the excerpt from the CBO director.

Barbara Kennelly, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
“The Affordable Health Care for America Act includes substantial benefits, improvements, and protections that are very important to our members…

“Contrary to the rhetoric heard from opponents, this bill does not cut Medicare; rather it includes provisions to ensure that we are receiving high quality care and the best value for our Medicare dollars.” [10/29/09]

from the CBO Director on November 18, 2009
Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the bill would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 2 percent during the next two decades—much less than the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

To emphasize the folly of either side of the debate suggesting absolute conclusions the more reasoned approach is found in the CBO Director’s letter to Harry Reid and repeated below:

Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.

The single feature of healthcare reform that was to garner support from one and all focused on the spiraling costs and reducing them. To bend the cost curve downward was a familiar expression over many months. There is no convincing evidence to support that notion in proposed legislation.

That collection of revenue for either the House or Senate version of healthcare reform would start in 2010 yet no claimed improvements would begin before 2014 should send up red flags for any observer. It’s the classic sucker punch from politicians. Pass legislation that increases revenue (taxes) immediately and promise outlays (expenditures) related to the revenue (taxes) at some point years in the future. This avoids the nasty repercussions of accountability by wearing down the public’s attention span as well as cementing bad policy and legislation for years to come.

It’s really simple math. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable programs. The only way to balance the books is increase revenue (taxes) or cut outlays (expenditures) or both.

Some of those supporting as well as some of those opposing currently proposed healthcare reform legislation do so for personal gain. They have chosen a position based on their own situation and not yours. The rest of us would like things to improve but have little confidence the current proposals will help. The speed of the process suggests those in the majority in Congress, etc., want passage before the scam completely falls apart. That’s another one of those red flags you should have noticed. Ignore them at your own peril (and unfortunately the peril of your fellow citizens)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Dec 24 2009

Dec 15 2009

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘we have to get rid of the profit-driven, insurance company-driven health insurance system that we have’…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There — there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the Congressional Budget analysis is correct on — on the increase in premiums. But the important thing here is that I hope we can all agree that we have to get rid of the profit-driven, insurance company-driven health insurance system that we have, where it’s insurance company bureaucrats, Senator Coburn, that are getting in between patients and their doctors.

To suggest that this bill will put government in between patients and their doctors is really disingenuous…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Debbie, a Representative from Florida; born in Forest Hills, Queens County, N.Y., September 27, 1966; B.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., 1988; M.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., 1990; aide to United States Representative Peter Deutsch, 1989-1992; member, Florida state house of representatives, 1992-2000; member, Florida state senate, 2000-2004; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005-present).

Any questions?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

update: related

The depths of Demcare demagoguery (Michelle Malkin) 

The liberals, the Democratic party POLS and others of a similar mindset would have you believe healthcare reform is a noble endeavor. President Obama has called for transparency and accountability and failed to deliver. Democratic party House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have promoted ‘a New Direction for America’ since the 2006 midterms and failed to deliver. In addition, a promise from Speaker Pelosi touted an end to the culture of corruption in Washington, DC. None of this has taken place.

As is the usual case with liberals they must find a villain to use in pursuit of their agenda. As with other items in their agenda they seek to convince you to pay for their power grab that includes diminishing your freedom, and in the case of healthcare reform, pay for their control over your health decisions and access. What was first described as healthcare reform has now been changed by the Dems to health insurance reform. As stated earlier, they must suggest a villain in an attempt to convince you they are fixing a problem. There real mission is to takeover healthcare in this country and your role in it.

This was the inspiration for this post. From the US Senate website regarding the ‘floor schedule.’

Floor Schedule

Monday, Nov 30, 2009

2:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.3590, regarding health care reform.

Here are some simple questions to ask yourself about the Democratic majority’s pursuit of healthcare control. Read the following and ask yourself why the Dems would do this?

H.R.3590
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.R.3780, S.1728
Latest Major Action: 11/21/2009 Senate floor actions. Status: Measure laid before Senate by motion.
Note: H.R. 3590 is expected to be the vehicle for the Senate health care bill - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See the draft amendment from democrats.senate.gov.

If you follow the link to the liberal Senate site you may find the news items highlighted when this post was prepared. If not, they are presented here with comments.

Momentum Continues To Grow In Support Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Not true. There is growing unrest, skepticism and polls indicating most people believe this agenda will be a failure and do nothing but add more debt and raise deficits for the future.

Health Reform Process Has Been Transparent

Not true. The bills were developed in closed door sessions shutting out the minority party. The documents were withheld from the public until outrage caused their release. Many voting for the bills never read them. In the Senate, Harry Reid bought the vote of Mary Landrieu with hundreds of millions in Medicaid dollars for her state. In the House, Rep Cao of LA voted for that version of the liberal bill for a similar reason. Obama promised him funds and other help for his state if he would. And you have to ask yourself why the Dems would use an unrelated bill as ‘the vehicle for’ their healthcare takeover legislation?

Reid: Supporters Of Reform Can See The Finish Line But Much Work Lies Ahead

If they can see the finish line they are hallucinating or have more funds to buy votes for this healthcare scam. Those funds belong to the taxpayer. The work that lies ahead is finding honest support for healthcare reform which the liberals renamed health insurance reform. These bills are neither.

Reid: Moving To Debate On Senate Health Proposal Shows The American People We’re Serious About Reform

Not true. It shows that Reid is serious about a sham takeover of Americans healthcare.

Reid, Baucus, Dodd and Harkin Introduce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Not true. While they may have had something to do with its introduction, there is nothing about the bill that protects patients or makes healthcare affordable. The CBO has shown many times that this bill and the others will raise premiums, the national debt and deficits when the real cost of the bills are included.

The Democratic party majority in Washington, DC is unleashing a disaster on our nation when it can least afford it. If you sit idly by and let it happen you share the responsibility for this mess. Continue to contact your elected reps to help stop this insanity. If you think healthcare has problems now, just wait and see what Congress does to it if you let them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Health Care Debate is Now Officially Underway (a text version)

related: The Vote Tonight (a text version)

related: 10 Things You Should Know About this Bill (a text version)

Just a short post for posterity to illuminate Senator Mary Landrieu’s price tag for a vote. If it weren’t so pathetic and typical of POLS it would be funny for one reason. Landrieu is so clueless she could not decide whether to admit or deny her vote was paid for with Medicaid dollars for Louisiana. $100 million for a vote on HarryCare. First she denies she was paid for her vote and then admits she would do it again.

After reports surfaced of $100 million for Louisiana was added to the Senate’s health care reform legislation, originally from ABC News, and subsequently commented upon by prominent lefties, like U.S. News and World Report’s Bonnie Erbe as my colleague Noel Sheppard pointed out, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., took the Senate floor on Nov. 21 to announce she would vote in favor to proceed forward with the Senate Democratic leadership’s bill.

First there was Blanco, then Nagin, now Landrieu. And the Army Corps of Engineers gets blamed for Katrina in court. Sometimes justice is illusive. Much of what caused the problems in NOLA comes from a long history that few are willing to review. And that mindset is alive and well with Landrieu and HarryCare.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes (Michelle Malkin) 

Nothing like political rhetoric to muddy the waters before a weekend stealth vote on so-called healthcare reform. Both major parties are guilty of playing politics. Within this rhetorical battle a few reminders should be stated. Currently the Democratic party is in the majority. They control the White House and Congress. With that political advantage comes power and responsibility. We already know the GOP misused that advantage their last time at bat. The Dems are doing the same now.

(RTTNews) - In advance of a crucial vote Saturday, leading Senate Democrats criticized their Republican opponents for seeking to stop health reform efforts without advancing an alternative.

“Senate Republicans want to talk about the number of pages in this bill; we want to talk about the number of people who will get affordable care,” Durbin said. “Our bill is two thousand pages long and it helps hundreds of millions of people.”

He added, “The Republican bill is zero pages long and helps no one. The choice is clear. It’s time to pass this health reform bill.”

Let’s be clear. The GOP may not have introduced a bill in Congress as an ‘alternative’ to the several submitted by the Democrats. Just as John Boehner touts CBO scoring of a GOP alternative proposal Dick Durbin and other Dems suggest the GOP has no proposal. Here’s a link to the CBO scoring of a GOP proposal the Dems say does not exist.

Most bills introduced in Congress never see the light of day. If they make it to committee that is where they die most of the time. That’s the upside. Those that survive the introduction may not pass. Those that do pass become law. Of those that become law the debate continues as to their benefit for the public. The Democratic party is responsible for the current healthcare reform proposals in Congress. The GOP is currently in the minority status and as such has few tools available to advance alternative proposals.

But what they have suggested makes sense. We should do this thing, healthcare reform, in smaller more manageable steps. That is contrary to the Democratic plan to pass legislation that is huge, restrictive, manipulative, debt raising, deficit increasing, budget busting and an overall hijacking of personal freedom. Say all you want about that not being true but nearly every report from the CBO to the MSM documents the dangerous effects of what they propose.

Once again it is time to contact your elected reps and demand a sensible approach to reform and that is not included in the current proposals being advanced by the liberal majority. The manipulation of the legislative process and the speed with which the Dems seek passage should be warning enough. Let’s back up and start over before any more damage is produced.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

Click here.

Betsy McCaughey knows a thing or two about this issue. Legislators who haven’t read the bill and anyone interested in how this bill will hurt you should follow the link for the complete story. It’s a jaw dropper. McCaughhey covers more than 12 sections in her WSJ article.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you are not motivated to pour over thousands of pages of legislation to determine for yourself how healthcare reform will affect you here’s an alternative. On October 29, 2009 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi unveiled the latest bill aimed at passage in the House of Representatives in order to pursue President Obama’s political agenda. Her announcement reflected in a press release available on her website provides insight into an impossible dream.

According to Pelosi……

“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lower costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year.

Translation::

Every item in the quote above suggests the cost to the patient for healthcare will be reduced or limited from whatever it is now. If the patient is not going to pay the increasing costs for their own healthcare, who will? You might want the answer to that question. And even if you believe the insurance companies are the villains as the liberals suggest, you cannot be so naive as to think there are no legitimate costs to providing healthcare insurance. And those costs are rising.

If you do nothing to lower the actual cost of providing healthcare how do you lower the cost to the patient? You get someone else to pay it for them. And that may include the patient themselves in terms of new taxes on their income, etc. In addition, if you expect the insurance company to absorb the increasing costs of healthcare with no mechanism for actually lowering the costs, they will go out of business.

Another claim by Pelosi…..

“That said, the bill is fiscally sound. It will not add one dime to the deficit as it expands coverage, implements key insurance reforms, and promotes prevention and wellness across the health system. The bill will expand coverage, including a public option to boost choice and competition in the health insurance reform.

Translation:

The key here is Pelosi claims it will ‘expand coverage’ and yet magically ‘not add one dime to the deficit’. So the Speaker claims costs will be reduced for patients and coverage will be expanded yet there will be no increase in the deficit. You have to ask yourself how that is possible? She says reform will ‘rein in premiums, co-pays and deductibles’. Out of pocket expenses will be lowered and insurance coverage will be expanded. How does she do that without someone else to pay for it? The math does not work. And don’t think for a minute that the wealthy in this country can cover the entire tab for what the liberals propose.

And yet another claim by Pelosi…..

“Good morning. It is with great pride and with great humility that we come before you to follow in the footsteps of those who gave our country Social Security and then Medicare, and now universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

This may be the only true statement in the Speaker’s press release. Remember how Congress dealt with Social Security and Medicare in terms of the budget. Sometimes it was on the budget. And sometimes it was off budget. The reason was its drag on government accounting. As the baby boom grew the population and the ratio of those paying for benefits versus those receiving benefits headed toward insolvency. Deficits were hidden by taking the costs off budget.

What? You thought Nancy could make the costs go away by waving her magic wand?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

source: http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1424