October 14-15, 2009
Oct 14 00:06 The DFL's Lame Response Oct 14 08:33 Don't Bet On It, Sen. Baucus Oct 14 10:20 Let's Send A Message Oct 14 22:04 BCC NOTES Oct 15 00:38 Linda Berglin, MinnesotaCare & Sustainable Reform Oct 15 02:35 Mandates, Taxes and Subsidies
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
The DFL's Lame Response
After Gov. Pawlenty's news conference on his health care reform initiatives, the DFL released this statement :
"The Governor's efforts to protect HMOs and maintain the status quo on health care are neither new nor innovative, and would not work for the people of Minnesota. Governor Pawlenty's more-of-the-same attitude has become his trademark, and today's rehash of previously failed health-care initiatives shows no leadership, no courage, and no foresight, three qualities that are sorely lacking in this governorship. Sometimes you really can't teach an old dog new tricks."Mr. Melendez would be well-served if he let others issues policy statements. He clearly is just playing the political hack in issuing this statement:
Pawlenty's record on health care:
PAWLENTY HEALTH-CARE SOLUTION #1: Kick 34,000 Minnesotans off of state health programs, so he could hit the campaign trail.
Pawlenty Unilaterally Cut Health Care Services By $236 Million In 2009, Health Care Services For The Poor Were A Familiar Target For Pawlenty. In June 2009, the Star Tribune reported that "health care services for poor Minnesotans have been a familiar target in Gov. Tim Pawlenty's austerity exercises over the years, and they found themselves under the scalpel again [on June 16, 2009]. On [June 16], Pawlenty said health and human services will come in for $236 million in additional cuts as part of his unallotment strategy." [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/17/09]
PAWLENTY HEALTH-CARE SOLUTION #2: Drag public debate down to the lowest level by spreading lies and fear, and hoping the President will fail.
Pawlenty won't disavow 'death panel' claim. "Pressed repeatedly by host Joe Scarborough, Pawlenty, a possible 2012 presidential candidate, called death panel concerns "legitimate" and suggested the high cost of care would lead bureaucrats to start deciding who lives and dies." [The Hill Newspaper, 9/11/09]
PAWLENTY HEALTH-CARE SOLUTION #3: Use the 10th Amendment to opt-out of health-care reform and force Minnesotans to give up health coverage, veterans' benefits, and Medicare.
Pawlenty: 10th Amendment might let states sidestep health care changes ""Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the 10th Amendment may be a viable option but we don't know the details. As one of the other callers said, we can't get the president to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see. I would have to say that it's a possibility." [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/09]
Governor Pawlenty's more-of-the-same attitude has become his trademark, and today's rehash of previously failed health-care initiatives shows no leadership.Buying insurance across state lines has been outlawed for longer than I've been voting and I've been voting since 1974. Is this Chairman Melendez's idea of a "rehash of previously failed health-care initiatives"? If it is, then he's in desperate need of a new dictionary. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of rehashed:
1. To bring forth again in another form without significant alterationOr is it Chairman Melendez's contention that developing a new MinnesotaCare, complete with health reimbursement accounts and an EBT card to pay for the out-of-pocket expenses, is a rehash? If that's his contention, then I'd ask Chairman Melendez whether he knew this :
A Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) is an account authorized under Section 105(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. (and further defined in 2002 by Revenue Ruling 2002-41 and notice 2002-45) An HRA is a self-funded deductible account that enables employers to purchase high deductible health insurance policies, and self-insure a portion of the deductible so that employees are exposed to a more traditional deductible amount. Employers can deduct the self-funded part of the plan from taxes and it is a tax free benefit to the employee.As for Chairman Melendez's claim that "Pawlenty won't disavow 'death panel' claims", that myth is dispelled here :
PAWLENTY: Joe there is nothing in the legislation directly that says that. It's the indirect concerns that I'm trying to articulate that I think are at least worth raising.That sounds alot like Gov. Pawlenty saying, as he had repeatedly, that death panels weren't in the bill. What Gov. Pawlenty clearly was talking about was putting a government bureaucrat in charge of rationing health care should Obamacare not slow down the increase of health care costs:
PAWLENTY: Joe what if it becomes so expensive, and the trajectory of it is even close to what's being predicted 10 years out that they can no longer afford what they promised, and somebody has to scale back care, and the government is now empowered to do that.Guess what? The Democrats' health care bills all call for huge cuts in the Medicare budget, with the Finance Committee's bill calling for $404,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts over 10 years. That represents a 10 percent cut at a time when Medicare enrollment is projected to increase by 30 percent. Is it Chairman Melendez's belief that cutting Medicare by 10 percent while Medicare enrollment is increasing by 30 percent won't require rationing? If that's his belief I'm wondering how that can happen short of a miracle happening .
The DFL's statement is a perfect illustration of why it's best to let professionals handle messaging/communications.
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:06 AM
No comments.
Don't Bet On It, Sen. Baucus
When I read this statement from Chairman Max Baucus, I had to vehemently disagree:
The Finance Committee bill brings lot of momentum for regular order, the CBO report, saying we actually have a budget surplus and we are bending the cost curve in the right direction. I think all of those dynamics are going to encourage the Senate to want to pass a bill under regular order, not reconciliation, which is fraught with so many perils, more perils than trying to get 60 votes," he said.I wrote here that the CBO report wasn't reliable:
The income that the bill expects from the excise tax on "insurance plans with relatively high premiums" will be negligible because that provision will be killed by the unions. There's a better chance that I'll get struck by lightning twice while holding a winning lottery ticket than there is of that excise tax making it into the final bill.Comparatively speaking, the CBO's report looks is more questionable today than it was when it was released. The unions are fighting mad about the excise tax on so-called Cadillac policies. Insurance companies are fighting mad, too, because the guaranteed group of new, healthy customers won't materialize.
Let's take a look at the taxes that CBO was counting heavily on. The excise tax on Cadillac policies was projected to generate $201,000,000,000. The tax on medical device manufacturers was projected to generate another $121,000,000,000. Next, let's factor in the projected $404,000,000,000 of Medicare cuts. That's $726,000,000,000 worth of revenues and cuts that CBO was counting on for deficit reductions that won't happen.
CBO projected deficit reductions of $81,000,000,000 with the taxes and budget cuts.
First, let's factor in Sen. Klobuchar's bill that would eliminate the tax increase on medical device manufacturers. Next, let's factor in the Finance Committee entered into the record that the excise tax would cause insurance companies to effectively eliminate Cadillac policies. That's $322,000,000,000 of revenue disappeared, more than eliminating the mirage of $81,000,000,000 in deficit reductions. Coupling the $241,000,000,000 with $404,000,000,000 in Medicare means that the Baucus bill will INCREASE the deficit by $645,000,000,000 over 10 years.
That's before factoring in information from this Kevin Hassett article :
The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that tax payments would indeed rise. And it found that the middle class would be stuck with the tab.As damaging as that information is, this information is worse:
87 Percent
The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.
For all the rhetoric, the plan is quite easy to sketch, thanks in part to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. So here goes: Under the health-care plan advanced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, lower- and middle-class people who have insurance today are going to be taxed and squeezed in order to cover people who don't.In other words, this bill is almost as big of a target-rich environment as the other bills. I wrote here that Baucuscare was filled with targets, starting with the medicare cuts, the middle class tax increase on Cadillac plan health insurance and the unfunded mandates contained in the Medicaid expansion to the medical device manufacturers.
None of these things help President Obama's credibility, especially what he said on the campaign trail last year:
"And if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny, not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."NOT ANY??? It's true that that campaign promise outlived his other broken campaign promises, but that isn't a high bar to clear. Starting almost immediately, the Democrats' bills will come under attack. Then there's the New Jersey and Virginia elections the first Tuesday in November. If Republicans sweep those elections, alot of Blue Dogs will be more than a little hesitant to vote for another massively unpopular bill.
Is there SOME momentum? That's reasonable. Is there enough momentum to pass the type of bill that Speaker Pelosi and other progressives want. I'd bet against it.
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:41 AM
No comments.
Let's Send A Message
Today, we can help Michele Bachmann send a message to the DFL and to the elitists in Washington, DC. Andy Aplikowski scored a major get by having Michele write a post on his blog here . Here's something that Michele said that really got my attention:
The problem is that the proposals coming out of Washington, from cap-and-trade to bailout mania to socialized medicine, are simply bad public policy.No matter how we're characterized, the inescapable truth is that Cap And Tax and the Democrats' health care reforms are destructive policies. They're tax increases masquerading as environmental and health care policy bills.
I'm proud that Michele represents me in DC, partially because I know that Washington won't corrupt her beliefs but mostly because Michele sets great policy priorities.
Today, Michele will be appearing on a number of nationally syndicated talk shows. These talk show hosts recognize Michele as being a principled leader and a rising star. Here's the list of shows and the times that she's scheduled to appear on the various shows:
Dennis Miller - noon (all times Eastern)Michele will be talking about how Washington isn't listening to We The People, that they're more interested in badmouthing us and telling us that they know better than us. Don't believe elitists like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and David Axelrod. They can't relate to our lives. PERIOD. Michele can because she's constantly listening to her constituents.
Michael Medved - 3 pm
Glenn Beck on Fox News Channel- 5
Sean Hannity - 5:15 (time might change)
Mark Levin - 8:30
The best way to send a message to Pelosi, Tarryl and the White House is by contributing to Michele's re-election campaign . Tell them that we're proud of Michele and she's going to get re-elected as a voice of sanity in DC.
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:20 AM
No comments.
BCC NOTES
This afternoon, I participated in a blogger conference call with Reps. Cathy McMorris-Rogers and John Shadegg on the upcoming fight over health care. Of all the noteworthy things mentioned, the most noteworthy, in my opinion, was Rep. Shadegg's mentioning Sally Pipes' article in the NY Post . After reading it, I now know why:
CBO makes clear that it's not dealing with the actual bill (there isn't one) but a summary. And it assumes Congress will actually make Baucus' unlikely cuts:As I've preached here consistently, these cuts are fiction. Unfortunately, the tax increases couldn't be more real.
Baucus also assumes that Americans will shell out $46 billion in new taxes to keep their current insurance. If any of these assumptions fails, the plan will produce large deficits.
- Radically reduce Medicare spending from current levels.
- Reallocate $162 billion over 10 years from fee-for-service Medicare Advantage to health care for others.
- Cut $45 billion from hospitals that now serve low-income Americans.
- Hold government payments to health-care providers below the rate of inflation when all modern experience tells us that payments will rise.
I mentioned that I'd written an LTE this morning in which I highlighted 4 things we should hammer the opposition on: the tons of tax increases in the Democrats' bills, the Medicaid unfunded mandates, that the tax increases would definitely cause health care spending to increase, not decrease and that the Medicare cuts would hurt the least able among us when they're depending on Medicare the most.
I told Reps. McMorris-Rogers and Shadegg that the logic behind this 4-pronged approach was to personalize things and talk in what might be called family language. Both said that people taking things personally is what caused people's intensity to spike in August. They'll be recommending that House Republicans highlight these points in the interviews they do.
Rep. Shadegg also highlighted the 'special considerations' that were used to satisfy Sen. Kerry and other influential legislators just to get the bill out of committee and to win Sen. Reid's approval. Rep. Shadegg then said that this is just the beginning of buying votes with pork or special considerations.
Rep. Shadegg said that it's easy to make a budget balance when you collect 10 years of revenues but only have 7 years of expenses. I haven't seen anyone from the fringe media talk about that yet.
Today's call was mostly about exposing the special deals that Democrats have already given to each other to get this bill moving. It also focused on highlighting the effects it would have on families. I've participated in alot of these BCC's and I've learned from each of them but this was the most informative BCC I've participated in.
Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:09 PM
No comments.
Linda Berglin, MinnesotaCare & Sustainable Reform
Wednesday midafternoon, I read MinnPost's post about Linda Berglin and her opinions of Gov. Pawlenty's health care initiative. Suffice it to say that she isn't impressed. Since Sen. Berglin was attacking MinnesotaCare, I turned to Rep. Steve Gottwalt for his reaction to Sen. Berglin's statements. First, here's Sen. Berglin's quote on Gov. Pawlenty's reform:
MPR's Tim Pugmire finds DFL Sen. Linda Berglin, the go-to legislator on health care unimpressed: "[S]he doubts that out-of-state insurance companies would be eager to do business in Minnesota. And she says the people enrolled in state-subsidized health care can't afford additional costs." He then quotes Berglin on Pawlenty's proposal to re-jigger MinnesotaCare: "When you have low-income people having higher out-of-pocket expenses, they tend to avoid seeking care. And the care ends up costing more, not less."Here's Rep. Gottwalt's reply:
As my Healthy Minnesota Plan bill ( HF1865) proves, MinnesotaCare is costing Minnesota taxpayers hundreds of millions too much for way too little in benefits. In 2007, as soon as they had both houses of the legislature, Berglin and her DFL cadre expanded eligibility for MinnesotaCare which put it on even worse financial footing.If HCAF runs out of money, it will be of the DFL's own doing. They were the ones who expanded eligibility for MinnesotaCare, which is why HCAF is going dry at a faster rate than when they took control of the House of Representatives.
By the DFL leadership's own admission, the Health Care Access Fund that finances MinnesotaCare will run out of money in two years, at which time they (not Governor Pawlenty) will end up kicking poor people off MinnesotaCare because state law requires disenrollment when state health care programs run out of money.
That's 'Count One' of the 'indictment' against Sen. Berglin and the DFL leadership. Count Two of the 'indictment' is their refusal to reform MinnesotaCare and save Minnesota's taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
A Pattern Emerging?
In 2007, the DFL didn't even put Gov. Pawlenty's budget up to a vote. Instead, they pretended that he was AWOL on the budget, mostly because he wouldn't spend money fast enough. The DFL's first set of budget bills sent to Gov. Pawlenty's desk would've increased spending for the 2008-09 biennium by more than 17 percent. Because the House GOP sustained Gov. Pawlenty's veto, spending for the biennium increased by 9.3 percent.
The difference between the DFL's initial budget and the state's final budget was approximately $2,500,000,000. Considering the fact that the economy was cooling down in 2007, the DFL's budget was downright irresponsible.
Last year, Rep. Gottwalt chief-authored the Healthy Minnesota Plan, which represented real reform to MinnesotaCare. According the financial note for HMP, it would've saved Minnesotans tens of millions of dollars annually. It would've provided a better set of coverages. Because it was private policy, it would've been portable.
Now Sen. Berglin wants to whine about Gov. Pawlenty for adopting Rep. Gottwalt's HMP legislation? Is she that opposed to saving the taxpayers' money or is Sen. Berglin that resistant to change? Or is it that she's lost touch with what her job is, which is to act in the best interests of her constituents and the state?
NEWSFLASH FOR SEN BERGLIN: YOU WORK FOR US!!!
Resisting thoughtful reforms isn't acting in the best interests of Minnesota. If Sen. Berglin isn't willing to vote for an improved MinnesotaCare option, then the only reasonable option for Minnesotans is to put the House and Senate in GOP control so they can start reforming how government services are delivered.
Berglin is too smart to believe her own simplistic evaluation of GovernorBy their own admission, the DFL knows that their spending isn't sustainable. Why on God's green earth aren't the DFL willing to change if it benefits Minnesotans? That just doesn't make a bit of sense.
Pawlenty's proposals. But it serves her purpose to belittle the real, sustainable reform ideas the Governor and others on our side of the aisle propose, and perpetuate a bloated and unsustainable status quo. That is not reform, and it jeopardizes health care coverage for the very people Berglin and her DFL cohort claim to champion. Minnesotans deserve better!
Then, too, that appears to be a pattern with the DFL. It isn't without reason that I say that they're the party of the status quo.
Posted Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:38 AM
No comments.
Mandates, Taxes and Subsidies
When everything is stripped away, that's what the Democrats' health care proposals consist of. The Cato Institute's Michael Tanner makes a compelling argument to start over in this USA Today op-ed . The first thing that caught my attention was this cautionary note:
Problematic as our system often is, it is possible to make things worse.Shortly thereafter, Tanner offers this 'multi-count indictment' against the Democrats' legislation:
All the bills making their way through Congress start from the same failed premise: They would put the government in charge of one-sixth of our economy and some of the important personal and private decisions in our lives.If you're ok with a government that's given you Katrina relief and the failed stimulus bill, then the Democrats' health care bills are for you. However, if you're expecting results for the taxes you pay, then it's time to stand up and be heard. Without your passionate and coherent arguments, the Democrats will ram this down our throats.
They would force people to buy a government-designed insurance package or face a penalty. They would establish incentives and structures that could eventually lead to the rationing of care. Some versions would force millions of workers into a government-run plan.
And they would do so at enormous cost to the American people in terms of higher taxes, greater debt and increased insurance premiums. Even the cheapest bill costs more than $800 billion ($2 trillion if off-budget costs are included) over the next decade. Americans would end up paying more, but getting less.
If you're ok with higher individual taxes on the middle class and small businesses, then the Democrats' plan is for you. If you're ok with higher medical expenses, then the Democrats' plan is for you. If you're ok with getting penalized because you didn't buy the things that Big Brother's told you to, then the Democrats' plan is for you.
If, however, you're upset that the Democrats are making the most personal decisions of your life for you, then it's time we expressed our rage. If you're upset with the fact that the Democrats are about to turn a good system into a terrible system, then you can't sit idly by. It's time to stand up and let Washington know that you aren't apathetic anymore, that you won't tolerate the Democrats' ignoring you.
Do nothing if you aren't bothered by this statistic:
Government regulations add more than $169 billion annually to the cost of health care.I'm not suggesting total deregulation but this is just plain nuts. Experts predict that prices would drop if we got rid of the regulations that haven't been well thought out.
But the problems facing our health care system stem not from too little government control, but too much. Government regulations add more than $169 billion annually to the cost of health care. Other regulations limit competition between insurers and providers by, for instance, prohibiting people from buying insurance across state lines. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are trillions of dollars in debt and are models of waste, fraud and inefficiency.I've said for days now that deficit neutrality wasn't the right benchmark to measure the Democrats' legislation by, that it was important to consider what the total cost of the legislation is and to find out if the Democrats' legislation does anything to reduce costs to families, companies and insurers.
And our current tax laws penalize people who don't receive insurance through their work, meaning that if you lose your job, you lose your insurance.
The bills now before Congress don't fix these problems. They simply pile on new mandates, regulations, taxes and subsidies. No amount of tinkering, or budgetary sleight of hand, can make them better.
I can state with total certainty that that won't happen with this legislation. Unfortunately, I can state with total certainty that each of the Democrats' bills will raise taxes on the middle class as well as the rich, on the small businesses and on manufacturers.
If you can enthusiastically support that type of ill-conceived legislation, then you're reading the wrong blog. If, however, you insist on fewer regulations in exchange for being personally accountable for your health insurance and health care outcomes, then it's time to stand up and fight the intelligent fight.
If you're opposed to the Democrats cutting $404,000,000,000 from the Medicare budget over the next decade, then you need to stand up and take the fight to corridors of power in Washington, DC. You need to melt the Capitol Hill switchboard down. You need to tell the people who work for us that they'd better start paying attention to us or they can start planning their retirement.
Posted Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:43 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 15-Oct-09 11:57 AM
Things like this post would be more credible if you spoke out forcefully about military spending, the foreign bases draining tax money to others, and the Iraq and Afghan fiascos - by your party.
Trying to make Afghanistan "Obama's War" is as false as saying Saddam was in league with Al Quaida. He was in league with Rumsfeld and Reagan, during the Iran - Iraq war, after all, again, your party.
Get realistic about the Reagan and Bush deficits and it could go beyond your talking to your self, Ewing, and Hansen.
I have to give Ron Paul and the Paulistas credit for intellectual consistency, Gary, have a look.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Oct-09 12:18 PM
Excuse me, Eric, but President Obama kept emphasizing the fact that Iraq diverted our attention away "from the real war on terror", aka Afghanistan. Are you now saying that President Obama was lying through his teeth when he made all the bold statements about winning the real war on terror? You're better than that.
I don't have a problem with either war because national security is what our Constitution demands of the federal government.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans take that responsibility seriously.
When you whine about the Reagan/Bush deficits, does that mean that you're horrified by the megadeficits that the Obama administration & the Democratic Congress is racking up?
I've spoken out against excessive spending whenever it's happened on both the state & fed level. Just because you haven't noticed doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Next time, pay attention & gather the relevant facts before shooting your mouth off.
You're better than that.
BTW, I strongly agree with much of Rep. Paul's economic policies. As a matter of fact, Rep. Bachmann agrees with him & is just as consistent on those issues as Paul is. Does that mean you're going to start supporting Michele? After all, that's the intellectually consistent thing to do, right?
