FatherGarage.com

With House Republicans planning to approve a bill on Wednesday that would repeal the big health care overhaul, Democrats on Tuesday ramped up their efforts to defend the law.

The secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, will hold a news conference on Tuesday morning to discuss a report by her agency showing that as many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have some pre-existing medical condition that could lead them to be denied health insurance coverage without protections included in the new law.

“Under the full range of policies in the Affordable Care Act to be in place by 2014, Americans living with pre-existing conditions are free from discrimination,” the assistant secretary of health and human services for public affairs, Richard Sorian, wrote in a blog post.

Mr. Sorian, in his post, also insisted that thanks to the law, Americans with pre-existing conditions “can get the health coverage they need at a price they can afford.”

That, of course, remains to be seen given that the main provisions of the law, including subsidies to help eligible uninsured Americans purchase coverage, do not begin until 2014. Even some supporters of the law have questioned if the subsidies will be sufficient to make insurance affordable.

Later on Tuesday, Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Joseph Crowley of New York, working with the Democratic National Committee, will hold another news conference to make the case that repealing the health care law would be “devastating” for the American public.

The two representatives will be joined by “individuals with personal stories of how they’ve benefitted from the Affordable Care Act.”

“Insurance companies would be free to pursue their profits without any accountability, leaving people with fewer choices, fewer options, and little recourse,” the Democrats said in a press release. “The effort by Republicans would allow insurance companies to discriminate against and deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when families get sick, and limit the amount of care Americans can get when they need it the most. Repeal would not only allow health insurance costs to continue to soar, but would kill tax credits that help small businesses offer employee health insurance coverage and the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program — which provides financial assistance for employer health plans offered to early retirees. The American public cannot afford to revert back to a health care system that does not have their best interest in mind. This press call will highlight the devastating affects repeal of the ACA will have on the American people and why we must protect the progress we’ve made.”

The new House Republican majority has made repeal of the health care law one of its top priorities, even though Democrats who control the Senate say they have no intention of taking up the measure, and President Obama would certainly veto it.

Republicans say the law is overly intrusive, giving the government too much of a role in the health care system, and that it will prove far more expensive than Democrats and independent Congressional budget analysts have suggested.

On a third front, Representative Henry Waxman of California, the senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, released an analysis showing the potential effects of repealing the health care law in individual Congressional districts.

In a letter to colleagues, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Pallone criticized Republicans for not holding hearings about undoing the health care law. “We believe many members, especially newly elected ones, may be surprised by the results,” they wrote. “Health care reform is already delivering important health benefits to your constituents.”

January 18, 2011

Dear Colleague:

This week, we will be considering legislation to repeal the historic patients’ rights, protections, and benefits already in effect as a result of the historic health care law. To assist members in understanding the ramifications of repeal, we asked the minority staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to analyze the impacts of repeal in every congressional district in the country.

Today, we are releasing these analyses. We have also prepared analyses on the impact of repeal in the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the country. The district-specific and metropolitan-area reports are online at http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/.

We believe many members, especially newly elected ones, may be surprised by the results. Health care reform is already delivering important health benefits to your constituents. As a result of the law, insurers have stopped discriminating against sick children in your district, seniors in your district are saving money on prescription drugs, small businesses in your district are receiving tax credits to provide health insurance, and insured individuals with individual or employer coverage are enjoying new rights and protections against insurance industry abuses. Repeal will roll back these benefits.

We regret that there have been no hearings on the implications of repeal. The failure to hold hearings denies members and the public an opportunity to understand fully what is at stake. This is especially a problem for freshmen members because they did not participate in any of the many hearings held last Congress prior to passage of the health reform law. Our Committee alone held over ten days of hearings and heard from over 100 witnesses before the House voted to enact health reform.

To give you an idea of what is at stake, here are some examples of the benefits the law provides in the districts of ten new members:

Protection for Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions. Under the health reform law, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. Freshman Rep. Joe Walsh, from Illinois, represents a district that has 10,000 to 47,000 children with pre-existing conditions. Freshman Rep. Nan Hayworth from New York represents a district with 128,000 to 324,000 non-elderly residents with pre-existing conditions. If repeal passes, these children and adults lose the protection afforded by the law and could be denied individual policies by insurance companies.

Protection Against Coverage Rescissions. The health reform law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage for individuals who become ill. Freshman Rep. Patrick Meehan from Pennsylvania represents a district in which 40,000 residents purchase individual health insurance. Repeal would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of rescinding their coverage after they get sick and need care.

Benefits for Young Adults. The health reform law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies up to age 26. Freshman Rep. Daniel Webster from Florida represents 4,000 young adults who have or are expected to take advantage of this benefit. If repeal passes, these young adults would lose their coverage.

Closing the Donut Hole. Beginning in 2011, the health reform law provides a 50% discount for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who enter the Medicare Part D “donut hole” and lose coverage for their drug expenses. The law then increases the discount to Medicare beneficiaries each year until 2020, when the donut hole is finally eliminated. Freshman Rep. Allen B. West from Florida represents 15,000 Medicare beneficiaries who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these seniors by over $500 in 2011 and over $3,000 in 2020.

Preventive Care and Other Benefits for Seniors. The health reform law improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 to 2029. Freshman Rep. Bill Johnson from Ohio represents 116,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for the seniors in the district.

Tax Credits for Families. Starting in 2014, the health reform law gives tax credits to middle class families with incomes up to $88,000 for a family of four. Freshman Rep. Reid Ribble from Wisconsin represents 186,000 families who could use these tax credits to lower the costs of their health insurance.

Tax Credits for Small Businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the cost of providing health insurance. Freshman Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania represents up to 18,100 small businesses that are eligible for this tax credit. Repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

Funding for Retiree Coverage. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. Freshman Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler from Washington represents 11,900 early retirees who could benefit from this assistance. Repeal would increase costs for the employers in the district and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving.

Coverage of the Uninsured. When fully implemented, the health reform law will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. Freshmen Rep. Daniel Webster from Florida represents a district in which over 100,000 uninsured individuals would gain coverage under the health reform law.

Hospital Savings. The health reform law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit. In the district of Freshman Rep. Charles Bass from New Hampshire, this would increase the cost of uncompensated care by $48 million annually for hospitals in the district.

The examples above illustrate the kind of benefits the health reform law provides in districts represented by freshmen members. But similar benefits occur in all of our districts. In Rep. Waxman’s district, 53,000 residents purchase insurance through the individual market and would lose protection against rescissions if the health care law was repealed; almost 12,000 seniors would be forced to pay more for prescription drugs under Medicare. In Rep. Pallone’s district, repeal would mean eliminating health care tax credits for up to 18,200 small businesses and 117,000 families.

The report for your district will explain the specific benefits the new law provides for your constituents. We hope this information is useful to you as you consider how to vote on repeal of health reform.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

Frank Pallone, Jr.

Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

9:43 a.m. | Updated

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are embracing the idea of seating lawmakers without regard to party for this month’s State of the Union address, officials said on Thursday.

The idea, proposed by Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, would end more than 200 years of tradition in which lawmakers are almost exclusively seated with members of their own party to listen to the president’s annual address.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, issued the following statement Thursday afternoon:

“I appreciate Senator Udall’s thoughtful suggestion and believe it is worth serious consideration. We need to look for more ways to be bipartisan. This morning I spoke with Democratic Whip Hoyer and Senator McConnell about the proposal and we will discuss it further next week. After this tragedy, it’s important for our country to see that we all stand together as Americans and this could be one way to demonstrate that.”

Representative Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip, said in a statement to be distributed Thursday that “a gesture like this won’t make partisanship disappear, nor should it — democracy is built on strong disagreements between the parties.” But he added that it would “help end the political theater of repeatedly seeing one side of the aisle rise in applause, as the other sits still.”

And Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, called the mixed-party seating “an interesting idea” on Thursday.

Spokesmen for Republican leaders seemed less eager about the idea, but did not indicate opposition either.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said the senator had no objections if his colleagues wanted to mix up the seating.

“We would not discourage something like that,” Mr. Stewart said. “People can sit wherever they like.”

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, similarly added, “Members of Congress choose where to sit during the State of the Union.”

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson and calls for greater civility in political discourse, the symbolic move could minimize the imagery of one side of the chamber’s standing en masse to applaud, while the other side sits on their hands.

Lawmakers would still be free to sit or stand in concert with other members of their party, of course. And some Republican aides said privately that they expect both sides to still do so regardless of the seating arrangements. But Mr. Udall said in a letter to leaders that having partisans sit side by side with their adversaries should make the atmosphere of the room less divisive.

“The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room — while the other side sits — is unbecoming of a serious institution,” he wrote. “And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the president is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two.”

Mr. Udall seized on the idea this week after it was floated by Third Way, a moderate Democratic policy group in Washington. In an open letter to members of Congress, the group had argued for what it called “mixed seating” to avoid “the spectacle of one side jumping up to applaud and the other sitting glumly.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press President Obama signing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 last March.

Democratic leaders in Washington plan to spend the next week doing what they all but refused to do during the 2010 midterm elections: mount a vigorous defense of President Obama’s health care legislation.

The “all fronts” plan is a response to the decision by the new House speaker, John A. Boehner, to schedule a vote next Wednesday on a complete repeal of the health care law that Mr. Obama signed last March.

Senior Democratic officials said their effort will be managed by a rapid response operation modeled after the ones Mr. Obama used during his presidential campaign. That team will monitor Republican claims, send out fact-checks and deploy a team of surrogates to get their views on television.

Paid television advertisements will be run “as warrants,” said one senior Democrat, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the program. Organizing for America, the president’s chief political apparatus, will host phone banks and will schedule events featuring people who would lose their benefits if the health care law were repealed.

“We will make clear to the American people, that as their first order of business, Republicans have decided not to focus on jobs and deficit reduction, but on re-litigating partisan battles — that, if successful, would eliminate help for our job-creating small business and explode the deficit,” said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

Earlier in the week, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the majority leader, vowed passage of what the Republicans have dubbed “Repealing the Job Killing Health Care Act.”

“The American people are expecting quick action from the Republican majority,” Mr. Cantor told reporters Tuesday. He downplayed predictions that the act would be stopped by the Democratic majority in the Senate, saying, “the important thing right now is to make sure we send a repeal bill across the floor.”

The president and his allies on Capitol Hill were criticized by liberals for failing to defend the health care legislation during the campaign. Democratic candidates rarely mounted a fiery defense of the law on the campaign trail. And some even ran ads against the legislation, fearful that Republicans had succeeded in turning the public against it.

But Democrats have concluded that the current situation is different. On the campaign trail, they say, Democratic candidates had to speculate about what Republicans might do if they got elected. Now, the repeal vote puts a big target on Mr. Boehner’s back, they said.

“We’re not talking about benefits which you may get down the road,” Mr. Sevugan said. “We are talking about taking away benefits you enjoy right now — tangible benefits with value. This puts us on offense.”

The initial volleys of the effort came even before Mr. Boehner was sworn in on Wednesday. In a mass e-mail message to the president’s supporters, Mitch Stewart, the director of Organizing for America, urged people to speak out.

“Organizing for America is pulling together a team of organizers and volunteers to defend reform — and we need you on this team,” Mr. Stewart wrote. “Together, we’ll show how our progress is already improving lives across the country — and take on those who are pushing for repeal.”

And three cabinet secretaries— Kathleen Sebelius, of health and human services; Hilda L. Solis, of labor; and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner — sent a letter to members of Congress on Wednesday, saying that a repeal would “set the nation back on a path to higher costs and skyrocketing premiums, less competition and fewer consumer protections.”

Mr. Obama’s own role in the effort is unclear. During his briefing with reporters on Wednesday, the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that Republicans know the repeal will not succeed in the Senate and called it “a bit of huff and puff” that is mostly symbolic. But he also said that a repeal would take the country back to “a health care system where insurance companies are in charge and call the shots.” Asked whether Mr. Obama would be making a major speech to that effect, however, Mr. Gibbs said no.

“Obviously the president is focused very much on the economy and on the job situation right now. He’s remarkably proud of the accomplishment of health care,” Mr. Gibbs said. “I don’t think that the American people want to go back to a health care system where those safety nets are in doubt, and that’s what the law is.”

Recent polling suggests that most Americans remain divided over the health care law and what — if anything — should be done about it now.

In a national poll conducted last month for the Kaiser Family Foundation, a fifth of the public said the new health reform law should be left as it is; another fifth said the law should be expanded. A quarter of those surveyed said lawmakers should repeal parts of the health reform law, and another quarter said the entire law should be repealed.

About half of the adults surveyed by ABC News and The Washington Post last month said they opposed the changes to the health care system that were enacted by Congress and the administration. Of these people, three in 10 said the health care reform law should be repealed altogether and another three in 10 said part of the law should be repealed. About four in 10 said the best approach was to “wait and see before deciding.”

In her final remarks as speaker before literally handing over the gavel to Mr. Boehner, Nancy Pelosi of California used the spotlight to highlight the benefits of the health care legislation. Her pointed message: these are the things Republicans want to take away.

And, she said, the legislation was designed by Democrats to reduce federal health care spending. “Taken together,” she said, “it will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion.”

Republicans have spent the better part of a year hammering against those arguments, with very little response. Now, Democrats promise at least a week of fighting back.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The conventional political wisdom is that the results of the 2010 census, announced Tuesday, are a big win for Republicans, who are largely dominant in the states where population increased.

But Democratic officials in Washington are cautiously optimistic that the population shifts will still give them the opportunity to win new seats in Congress, especially in places where minority populations have exploded.

In Nevada, where population growth significantly outpaced the nation, officials say the new voters are concentrated in heavily Democratic Clark County. With Democrats in control of both chambers of the state legislature, party leaders are hopeful they will secure the state’s additional lawmaker.

In Texas, where growth has been largely in the Hispanic and African-American populations, Democrats say they should pick up at least two of the state’s four new seats – even with Republicans controlling the legislature.

And while party officials are bracing for the loss of Democratic seats in some states in the Northeast and through the Rust Belt, they say Republican delegations should also shrink in places like Iowa, Louisiana, New York and Ohio.

“Today’s release of U.S. Census data pours cold water on Republican’s hype that redistricting is a disaster for Democrats,” Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement Tuesday.

Republican Party officials in Washington point to the overall shift of population to the South as evidence that the census numbers will be an overall benefit to Republicans. And they said that even in states which are not gaining or losing seats, the recent Republican victories in statehouses and governors’ races give them an edge.

In North Carolina, for example, Republican officials said they expect to redraw districts in ways that could make it tough for Democratic incumbents like Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre to run for re-election.

“A lot of power is shifting to the South,” said one Republican official, noting the battles that are likely to ensue over the next months over redistricting. “But even in the states that aren’t gaining seats, it doesn’t mean we don’t still have an opportunity.”

Democratic officials said they were bracing for battles in state legislatures across the country.

“Democrats are prepared, organized and ready to fight any attempts to disenfranchise voters,” Mr. Israel said, recalling the redistricting efforts of former Speaker Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, which got him into trouble. “Never again will we allow Republicans to be ‘Tom DeLayed’ and illegally game redistricting for political advantage.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

The conventional political wisdom is that the results of the 2010 census, announced Tuesday, are a big win for Republicans, who are largely dominant in the states where population increased.

But Democratic officials in Washington are cautiously optimistic that the population shifts will still give them the opportunity to win new seats in Congress, especially in places where minority populations have exploded.

In Nevada, where population growth significantly outpaced the nation, officials say the new voters are concentrated in heavily Democratic Clark County. With Democrats in control of both chambers of the state legislature, party leaders are hopeful they will secure the state’s additional lawmaker.

In Texas, where growth has been largely in the Hispanic and African-American populations, Democrats say they should pick up at least two of the state’s four new seats – even with Republicans controlling the legislature.

And while party officials are bracing for the loss of Democratic seats in some states in the Northeast and through the Rust Belt, they say Republican delegations should also shrink in places like Iowa, Louisiana, New York and Ohio.

“Today’s release of U.S. Census data pours cold water on Republican’s hype that redistricting is a disaster for Democrats,” Steve Israel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement Tuesday.

Republican Party officials in Washington point to the overall shift of population to the South as evidence that the census numbers will be an overall benefit to Republicans. And they said that even in states which are not gaining or losing seats, the recent Republican victories in statehouses and governors’ races give them an edge.

In North Carolina, for example, Republican officials said they expect to redraw districts in ways that could make it tough for Democratic incumbents like Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre to run for re-election.

“A lot of power is shifting to the South,” said one Republican official, noting the battles that are likely to ensue over the next months over redistricting. “But even in the states that aren’t gaining seats, it doesn’t mean we don’t still have an opportunity.”

Democratic officials said they were bracing for battles in state legislatures across the country.

“Democrats are prepared, organized and ready to fight any attempts to disenfranchise voters,” Mr. Israel said, recalling the redistricting efforts of former Speaker Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, which got him into trouble. “Never again will we allow Republicans to be ‘Tom DeLayed’ and illegally game redistricting for political advantage.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Senate Democrats on Thursday pulled a measure that would allow illegal immigrant students to earn legal status through education or military service after Republicans refused to allow a vote on a version of the legislation that had cleared the House on Wednesday.

Rather than try to break a Republican filibuster against the Senate’s so-called Dream Act, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, instead forced a vote to call off the attempt, presumably so he could try again later. Democrats prevailed on the motion to table the legislation, 59-40.

Were the Senate able to win approval of the bill, it would go straight to President Obama in the final days of the 111th Congress and represent a significant win for advocates of immigration law reform.

But that outcome seems doubtful since Senate Republicans have taken a hard line against the bill, which would allow high school graduates to gain legal status over 10 years by serving in the military or graduating from college.

Democrats are maneuvering to force the bill through now, because once Republicans take control of the House in January, it is unlikely that they would advance any measure to improve access to legalized status for those who are in the country illegally.

When the House approved its bill on Wednesday night, just eight Republicans joined 208 Democrats in backing it. But of the eight, six are leaving Congress at the end of the month.

Backers of the measure, led by Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said the legislation was needed to assist children who were brought into the country illegally by their parents and find themselves without a country through no fault of their own.

“These are the most energetic, idealistic young people you could meet in your life,” Mr. Durbin said Wednesday. “They’re tomorrow’s lawyers and doctors and engineers.”

“We can give them a chance to serve,” he added. “We can put them on a road where it will be difficult but no more difficult than what they’ve gone through in their lives. Or we can say, no, wait for another day.”

Opponents of the measure said it amounted to a grant of amnesty and that the measure had loopholes that would make it too easy to become eligible for legal status or qualify for legal status through fraud.

“A person illegally here can receive indefinite legal status as long as they have a G.E.D, the alternative to a high school diploma,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama. “They can receive permanent legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they then complete two years of college or trade school.”

Mr. Durbin, however, said the process was far from easy. “It will be a hard process and a difficult road for them to follow, but in the name of justice, in the name of fairness, give these young people a chance,” he said.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.