June 29-30, 2012
Jun 29 02:52 Which Minnesota politicians does the ACA hurt/help most? Jun 29 11:57 Holder's contemptible behavior, Part II Jun 29 14:48 Don't trust this administration Jun 29 19:05 Sen. McConnell: I'll repeal ACA with GOP majority Jun 30 00:27 Obama Truth Team: Separating ACA truth from fiction? Jun 30 14:56 Almanac's embarassing roundtable
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Which Minnesota politicians does the ACA hurt/help most?
I wrote here that the Roberts opinion, while fatally flawed, might turn into a blessing for Republicans. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion makes it official that DFL legislators in DC voted for a massive middle class tax increase, one of the biggest in US history.
Rest assured that Minnesotans will be repeatedly reminded of that through November.
This article includes quotes from Minnesota's congressional delegation. This quote is repulsive:
Democratic U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar: "This law is a beginning, not an end, and I believe that improvements still need to be made. Moving forward I will continue to work to ensure the law is implemented in a way that is consistent with Minnesota's high-quality, efficient health care system and ensure these reforms work for our state."
How dare Sen. Klobuchar talk about moving forward after voting for a massive middle class tax increase. How dare she talk about moving forward after voting for a massive excise tax on medical device manufacturers like Medtronic and Boston Scientific.
The ACA doesn't contain costs. It hides costs through subsidies. It doesn't increase access to health care because it's too reliant on Medicaid. That's the health care kiss of death because doctors, clinics and hospitals get ripped off through Medicaid payments, thus causing doctors to stop seeing Medicaid patients.
Sen. Klobuchar's votes for the PPACA set health care in Minnesota back at least a decade. Isn't it ironic that she's talking about moving forward? Thanks to the PPACA, it's impossible to go much further backward.
This quote jumped out at me, too:
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4th Congressional District): "It is now time for Republicans in Congress to end their vitriolic repeal campaign and work on effectively implementing this law to the benefit of the American people."
Rep. McCollum's statement jumps out because she's essentially said that the biggest middle class tax increase in my lifetime benefits "the American people."
Rep. McCollum, take a look at this abridged version of the tax increases you voted for. Please tell Minnesotans how they're helped by an annual tax on health care providers. Please tell middle class Minnesotans how they're helped by the excise tax on tanning sessions. Please tell Minnesotans how they're helped by the fees imposed on self-insured health plans.
Keith Ellison's disgusting email ranks right up there:
Even with MinnesotaCare, let's remember that many Minnesotan families suffered without health care coverage for decades. The Court's decision to uphold this law President Obama proposed and Congress enacted shows dramatic change can happen when the American people demand that change. Now we need to be vigilant in implementing the law. We have made an important step toward the goal of making sure all American families have the health care they need and deserve and I promise to continue working until that happens.
Despite today's victory, opponents of universal health coverage will continue their assault on health care access for the American people. Throughout this year, GOP lawmakers have tried to repeal or decrease health care benefits, including Medicare and Medicaid. We must continue to work together to protect vital reforms that will improve the health of every American.
It's a myth that we've achieved or ever can achieve universal health coverage. Medicaid is broken because the federal government rips off doctors, clinics and hospitals. In North Carolina and Virginia, rural hospitals shut their doors rather than participate in the Medicaid ripoff.
Unfortunately, what isn't myth are the gigantic tax increases that were included in the PPACA.
These Democrats, along with Sen. Franken, are the biggest losers through all this. That isn't a prediction that they'll lose their seats. Their votes, though, won't be easy to defend.
Republicans, though, should benefit from Thursday's ruling. First, they didn't vote for a health care plan that raised taxes on the middle class. They didn't vote for a health care plan that doesn't control costs. They didn't vote for a health care plan that doesn't insure the millions of uninsured.
Tags: Amy Klobuchar , Betty McCollum , Keith Ellison , Middle Class Tax Increase , Medical Device Manufacturers Tax , Excise Taxes , PPACA , SCOTUS , Medicaid , DFL , Health Care Reform , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 2:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Jun-12 07:44 AM
Roberts likes Romneycare. So what?
Will the local Repulicans be running against Romney?
Why would they do that?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Jun-12 09:22 AM
President Obama should start writing his concession speech because he's gonna get his a$$ kicked this November. Last night on Hannity, Joe Trippi said something profound when he said that "Tonight, the Democratic base is breathing a sigh of relief but the Republican base is breathing fire."
President Obama was fighting an uphill re-election fight prior to yesterday. What he's facing now is Mission: Impossible.
People hate the ACA. In poll after poll, 40% of the people accept ACA. In poll after poll, 55% of the people hate ACA. President Obama won't come close to getting 50% of the vote. Think more like 46-47%.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 29-Jun-12 09:28 AM
Republicans need to start trumpeting the message that Democrats raised your taxes and "voted to take AWAY your health care." I've already lost my employer-based insurance; it just got too expensive under all the mandates, and I'll bet I'm not alone. Thanks, you Dumbocrats! :-(
Comment 3 by Jethro at 29-Jun-12 09:49 AM
Shame on Justice Roberts for rewriting legislation. The people will truly be heard in November.
Comment 4 by IndyJones at 29-Jun-12 12:07 PM
For anyone hiring people this is like a monthly poll tax. You are punished over and over for having an employee. This economy is already on shaky ground, now it is on thin ice. I am considering voting for Obama just to make sure he is jabbering in front of the teleprompter as this financial ship hits the iceberg and goes down. I want him and the Dems linked directly to the economic albatross as the ship sinks. This is 1931...I suggest prepping the lifeboats. A Romney/Pawlenty ticket is a loser...I'll wait for the big government Dems and Repubs to go under...perhaps a tea party will emerge, something we can afford.
Comment 5 by eric z at 29-Jun-12 01:03 PM
Indy Jones
Hoover = Bush
You cannot rewrite the truth.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 29-Jun-12 01:51 PM
You cannot rewrite the truth.You just attempted to rewrite the truth. The facts are the facts. The unemployment rate under Bush was 3-4 points lower than it's been during President Obama's administration.
That isn't my opinion. That's the facts as reported by the BLS. That's reality, Eric.
These flights of fantasies of your's don't resemble the truth. Next time, come prepared to debate with verifiable facts, not this BS you're peddling.
Holder's contemptible behavior, Part II
The longer President Obama and Mr. Holder refuse to comply with a federal subpoena, the longer the American people will see their behavior as disgusting.
Yesterday, following the House's vote to hold him in criminal contempt of a congressional subpoena, Holder made this self-serving statement :
Holder was defiant in the face of the contempt votes Thursday, one criminal and one civil. He described it as "the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided and politically motivated investigation during an election year."
That spin is bullshit. The only reason this has become an issue during a presidential campaign is because Mr. Holder hasn't complied with this congressional subpoena since Oct. 12, 2011 :
Congressional investigators issued a subpoena Wednesday for communications from several top Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, relating to the discredited "Fast and Furious" federal gunrunning operation.
The subpoena, issued by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also covers communications from Holder's chief of staff, Gary Grindler, and from Lanny Breuer, head of the department's criminal division.
Had Mr. Holder complied with the congressional subpoena a month after it was issued, which was certainly possible, this wouldn't have become an election year issue.
Fast and Furious would've still been an issue this campaign. When an administration's policies lead to the cold-blooded murder of a law enforcement officer, it will be an election issue.
Thanks to Holder's reprehensible behavior, the gunrunning operation and the DOJ's behavior in hiding behind executive privilege, this will now be used as a billyclub against this corrupt, inept administration.
Fast & Furious is going away. Unfortunately, we won't put it behind us until after Romney defeats Obama this November.
Tags: Contempt of Congress , Operation Fast and Furious , Executive Privilege , President Obama , Eric Holder , Brian Terry , Subpoena , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 11:57 AM
No comments.
Don't trust this administration
This morning, Democrats showed why they shouldn't be trusted with anything anytime soon. During discussions on the ACA, most of which happened behind the locked doors of Nancy Pelosi's, Harry Reid's and Max Baucus's doors, Democrats, including President Obama, insisted that the individual mandate wasn't a tax.
When they got to court, both in the 11th Circuit and in the Supreme Court, this administration argued that the mandate was a tax.
Now that the ACA has been ruled constitutional because the mandate is a tax, Democrats have started shifting back to arguing that this isn't a tax :
A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax, despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.
"Don't believe the hype that the other side is selling," Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.
"This is a penalty," Patrick said. "It's about dealing with the freeloaders."
First, calling people freeloaders because they don't have the type of health insurance that the government is mandating is reprehensible. Second, it isn't just "the other side" that's "selling" the ACA as a major tax increase. It's the Supreme Court that's saying it's a major tax increase. Third, and most importantly, whether the mandate is a tax or not, the ACA has more than $675,000,000,000 worth of taxes in it.
I wrote here that DFL lawmakers from Minnesota and Democrats from across the nation gave the American people "a 21-tax salute" when they passed the ACA.
Democrats imposed
- a 40% excise tax on the Cadillac health insurance policies that the UAW negotiated for their members
- a "new 2.3% excise tax on certain medical devices" when they passed the ACA
- "a new 10% tax on indoor UV tanning services"
. Those are verified facts, Gov. Patrick. They aren't "hype that the other side is selling." This AFP ad settles the point on whether it's a tax or not: If the solicitor general in a Democratic administration argues that a bill passed against bipartisan opposition contains a tax, then it's certain that this bill contains a huge regressive tax increase that hits the middle class hard. This thinking should frighten people:
But Patrick said that it was about keeping people from getting care in expensive emergency room settings rather than private care settings. Further, he said that it would affect about one to two percent of Americans. "By whatever name, it's a solution," Patrick said, still insisting that it wasn't a tax.
How is a system that increases health care costs, that raises taxes on America's middle class and that doesn't appreciably shrink the number of uninsured "a solution"? That type of thinking isn't stupid. It isn't spin. It's a bald-faced lie. That's why Americans need to reject the Democrats this November. They're disgustingly dishonest. They're totally devoid of solutions that help the middle class. They're utterly undeserving of positions of authority over anything.
Tags: President Obama , Deval Patrick , PPACA , Tax Increases , Excise Tax , Medical Device Manufacturers Tax , Tanning Tax , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 2:48 PM
No comments.
Sen. McConnell: I'll repeal ACA with GOP majority
This morning, Sen. Mitch McConnell told Laura Ingraham that he'd repeal the ACA if he's the majority leader next January :
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared Friday that repealing the health care law would top his priority list if he controls the chamber come 2013.
'If [Mitt] Romney is in the White House and I am the majority leader of the Senate, I assure you repeal of Obamacare is the first item on the agenda,' McConnell on Laura Ingraham's radio show Friday.
By using a budget process called reconciliation, a theoretical Senate GOP majority could successfully vote to repeal the law with just 51 votes, rather than a filibuster-proof 60. Republicans need to pick up four seats to win control of the Senate, or three if Romney wins the White House.
'We need to start all over and not make things worse, and I think that's the message for the fall election,' McConnell said. 'Give us a chance to repeal this monstrosity and we will start all over with much more modesty, much more respect for the federal system."
Reconciliation is what Democrats used to pass the ACA. It'd be poetic justice to see Republicans use reconciliation to repeal the ACA.
The minute the ACA is repealed, Republicans must start hearings on replacing the ACA. Those hearings must include debate on how to contain costs, something that the ACA isn't able to do. These hearings must also improve accessability to and portability of health insurance.
Eliminating the law that says you can't buy health insurance across state lines would be a major help. Having state legislatures pass laws that limit the number of mandates would make it easier for consumers to buy competitively priced policies from other states' insurance companies.
Another option is having governors sign compacts with other states that allows for the purchase of health insurance is another way of getting around legislatures passing health insurance reform.
There's been a total sea change since the SCOTUS ruling. While I'm not thrilled with Chief Justice Roberts' ruling, I'm thrilled at conservatives' and TEA Party activists' reaction to it.
I told a friend earlier today (or perhaps it was last night?), Chief Justice Roberts' ruling essentially eliminated all of the public's apathy on this subject. People are fired up, as evidenced by Mitt's fundraising totals in the past 30 hours.
If you want more information on fundraising, check out this article is fantastic:
The Romney campaign claims to have raised $4.6 million after Romney promised to repeal 'Obamacare' even though the Affordable Care Act is patterned after a plan Romney put into effect as governor of Massachusetts.
And money is moving from Macau to Main Street-U.S.A. Las Vegas-based casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has pledged $10 million to the Koch brothers. The oil billionaires are vowing to raise $395 million to support Romney and Republican candidates.
The Democrats better prepare for a tidal wave of epic proportions this year. They shoved the ACA down Americans' throats in 2010. Now they're paying the price for telling the American people that their opinions didn't matter.
When the last votes are counted this November, President Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al, will have wished that they'd listened instead of following their political ideology into political ruin.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of tyrants.
Tags: Laura Ingraham , Mitch McConnell , Interview , Talk Radio , ACA , Repeal , Fundraising , Mitt Romney , GOP , John Roberts , SCOTUS , Chief Justice , Election 2012
Posted Friday, June 29, 2012 7:05 PM
No comments.
Obama Truth Team: Separating ACA truth from fiction?
President Obama's Truth Team is 'setting things straight ' about the ACA:
#1 Republican distortion : 'The President promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that's been proven false now.'
The facts : President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts to the American Opportunity Tax Credit, a tax credit worth up to $10,000 to help families pay for four years of college, the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.
President Obama's 'Truth Team' is omitting a bunch of facts, which I wrote about here :
- New tax on individuals who do not purchase government?approved health insurance
- New tax on employers who fail to fully comply with government health insurance mandates
- New 40% excise tax on certain high?cost health plans
- Increase the Medicare tax on wages and self?employment income by 0.9%
- New annual tax on health insurance
- New 2.3% excise tax on certain medical devices
- New 10% tax on indoor UV tanning services
- New tax on insured and self?insured health plans
That's almost $400 billion in tax increases that either are levied on the middle class or that affect their employers. That's the cold, harsh fact of the matter. Apparently, President Obama's "Truth Team" isn't firmly tethered to the truth. Here's another "Truth Team" distortion:
#2 Romney distortion : Romney said Obamacare meant 'a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor.'
The facts: This is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn't about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation's private health care system. Second, here's what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums on overheads and big bonuses for CEOs. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more control over health care. These rules will make sure that you and your doctor, not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat, have control over your health.
Here's reality :
- Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
- Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
- Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
- Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
- Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
- State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
- Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
- Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
- Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
- Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
- State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
- State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
- Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
- Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
- Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
- Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
- Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
- Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
- Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
- Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
- Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
- Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
- Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
- Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
- State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
- Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
- Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
- Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
- Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
- Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
- Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
- Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
- Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
- Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
- Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
- Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
- Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
- Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
- Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
- Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
- Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
- Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
- Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
- Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
- Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
- Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
- Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
- Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
- Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
- Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
- Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
- Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
- Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
- National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
- Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
- Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
- Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
- Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
- Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
- Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
- Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
- Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
- Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
- Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
- Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
- Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
- National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
- Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
- Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
- Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
- Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
- Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
- Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
- Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
- Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
- Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
- Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
- Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
- Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
- Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
- Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
- Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
- Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
- Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
- Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
- Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
- Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
- Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
- Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
- Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
- Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
- Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community-based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
- Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
- Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
- Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
- Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
- National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
- Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
- Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
- Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
- Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
- Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
- Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
- Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
- Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
- Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
- Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
- Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
- Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
- National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
- Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
- CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
- CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
- CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
- Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
- Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
- Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
- Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
- Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
- Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
- Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
- Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
- Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
- Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
- Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
- Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
- Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
- Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
- Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
- Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
- Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
- Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
- Advisory committee for young women's breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
- Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
- Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
- Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
- Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
- Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
- Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
- Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
- Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
- Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
- Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)
- Office of Indian Men's Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)
- Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)
- Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)
- Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)
- Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)
- Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)
- Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)
- Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)
- Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)
- Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)
So much for the ACA not growing government. President Obama's "Truth Team" is apparently quite adept at telling whoppers. That's about all that they're good at, IMHO.
Tags: President Obama , Truth Team , Tax Increases , PPACA , Bureaucrats , Agencies , Middle Class , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 12:27 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 30-Jun-12 09:41 AM
Gee Gary. I am impressed. Putting that all together all by yourself. Not anyone's canned talking points, since if that were the case you would credit your source.
It must have taken you 110 hours to do that. All by yourself.
Oh, wait. It is Project WorldAwareness. Or Project World Awareness. Or whatever the astroturfers behind it want to call their propaganda mill.
Who are they? How did you find them?
Linked to from the ALEC website? An emailing from the Koch brothers? Romney's people, shifting to being critical of Romneycare?
BOTTOM LINE: Who originated the talking points often is more telling than what they are collected to say.
Do you know, Gary, the ultimate people behind this?
Karl Rove's SuperPac? Who?
Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Jun-12 09:50 AM
My error. Your's too, in a sense, Gary.
I looked at that secondary posting source you linked.
It told me this entire listy thing is from GOP.gov
Now I understand.
As I said, know who you are dealing with - the primary source for posted things often speaks clearly, once identified.
So, Gary, in that context why exactly did you not simply link to the actual, original source? It's simpler to do.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 30-Jun-12 10:10 AM
The list came from the ACA language itself. It was compiled by House GOP research but the data itself came from the ACA itself.
I'm just curious why you're questioning the compilers of the list rather than defending the Truth Team's BS. They made some deceitful allegations. I exposed them as BS in short order. That I use information that the GOP has compiled, I'm guilty as charged.
That doesn't mean I'm not right. If you want to argue that I just parrot the things that the GOP tells me to say, have at it.
That accusation would be BS, too. I've told airheaded progressives before that, more often than not, I'm the person that generates talking points that the GOP adopts.
When I do occasionally use the eeevil GOP's talking points, it's because I've found them to be compelling arguments. It isn't because I'm a mind-numbed robot programmed to follow the GOP braintrust's commands.
I would've hoped you could've figured that out before. Apparently, I overestimated your ability to think for yourself.
Comment 4 by IndyJones at 01-Jul-12 11:52 AM
The only people in Indiana getting the big tax breaks are the illegals who are filing tax returns and getting back money they never paid in to start with. After being reported by the Indianapolis TV stations the IRS has declined to do anything about it so it must be a part of motor/voter that the Dems are so proud to support. Nothing like buying votes with OPM. Whats sad is that the tax credits are based on dependent children and they're living in Mexico. Indiana is now sueing the Feds for 131 million for costs associated with illegals. Will the fun never end.
Comment 5 by IndyJones at 01-Jul-12 12:10 PM
The last few items on that list refering to indians reminds me of Russel Means comments on Youtube, "We're all on the Reservation".
Comment 6 by Oshow at 16-Jul-12 09:12 AM
IndyJones- How are illegals getting tax returns without an SSN? If they do have an SSN then they would have taxes withheld. Your statement doesn't make sense. The truth is more likely the opposite, employers are withholding taxes for these illegals but they not able to apply for a refund. So, they are paying taxes with little chance of reaping very many benefits, which causes your tax burden to decrease.
Almanac's embarassing roundtable
Last night's Almanac roundtable featured a trio of campus-based idiots. Chief among the idiots was David Schultz. Early in the discussion, Eric Eskola asked St. Olaf's Prof. Hofrening if the ruling would rally the GOP base. Eskola also asked if Thursday's ruling turned the election into a referendum on the ACA. Here's Prof. Hofrenning's response:
Well, I think that's the big question. To what degree will this rally the base. The question is 'what will this decision do to the conservative movement today'? Clearly, it will rally some TEA Partiers but I think we have to keep a close watch on the intensity of that rally.
Prof. Hofrenning, this ruling didn't rally just the TEA Party wing of the GOP. It rallied independents. It rallied 'establishment' Republicans, too. Joe Trippi got it right on Hannity the other night when he said "This ruling has the Democrat base breathing a sigh of relief. It has the Republican base breathing fire."
After that exchange, Mary Lahammer asked Kathryn Pearson what the ramifications of the ruling would be on congressional races. Here's Prof. Pearson's response:
Well, the congressional elections of 2012, each member will be fighting for his or her own seat and we're already seeing some glimpses of this. Democrats not going to the Democratic National Convention, they're looking out for themselves first. We'll see the same thing from Republicans as well.
But Republicans are saying 'Just give us a Republican president and a Republican congress' but it isn't that easy. One of the dangers of that message is that it moves away from the economy because the economy is the #1 issue in the election.
Another of the problems is that they aren't offering an alternative plan. So if you look at many of the individual items, they're quite popular
First, this will be another wave election. This won't end well for Democrats. The ACA ruling just intensifies the disgust for the ACA amongst TEA Party activists, independents and establishment Republicans.
Second, while we see proof that Democrats aren't attending the Democratic National Convention, there's no proof that Republican legislators and candidates will stay away from Tampa.
That's because Republicans, while many of us aren't thrilled with Mitt, won't treat him like toxic waste. Democrats like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill are treating President Obama like toxic waste. Anyone who didn't notice that shouldn't be a political science teacher at a major university.
Third, while it's true that the economy, specifically creating jobs and growing the economy, is a high priority, it's equally true that the ACA has jumped up to being Issue 1A to the economy's status as Issue 1.
I hope Mitt and congressional Republicans put out an alternative plan. That said, I don't think it's that important to offer an alternative plan at this point. Most people's first priority after Thursday's ruling is ridding ourselves of the ACA albatross.
Later, Mary Lahammer said that the GOP base "was lukewarm about Romney", to which Schultz replied "That's exactly the point is whether this translates into support for Mitt Romney in terms of they'll really get behind him."
Schultz then asked if Republicans would get behind the man who provided the model for the ACA:
This becomes a problem for Romney. How does he play this issue and I'm not sure he has alot of maneuver room on this one.
First, the fact that Mitt raised $5,000,000 in the 36 hours after the ruling should be more than an indicator to these geniuses that the base, and many independents, are steadfastly behind Mitt, especially since most of these contributions a) came through the internet and b) were small-dollar amount contributions.
Second, Mitt Romney has said repeatedly that he'll repeal the ACA. Yesterday, Sen. Mitch McConnell said that he'd "repeal Obamacare" if he was the majority leader and Mitt was President.
He didn't say that repeal would be a priority. Mitch didn't say that they'd work on it. Mitch McConnell said that they'd repeal it.
Think of this as Mitt Romney's and Mitch McConnell's equivalent of Bush 41's Read my lips moment. If they don't repeal the ACA, history will record them as political failures. Their legacies will be tarnished.
A strong majority of the American people want the ACA repealed. That hasn't changed since President Obama signed the bill into law. It's consistently been that 55% of the people want the bill repealed. It's consistently been that 40% of the people want it kept in place.
This will affect women's reaction to the Obama administration. The townhall meetings of August, 2009 featured women who said that they'd never paid attention to politics before. That was the unofficial 'birthplace' of Sarah Palin's Momma Grizzlies.
Health care reform awakened a sleeping giant. Most of the people in that sleeping giant were women that worried government-run health care would cost more while delivering lower quality care, which it will do.
Later in the roundtable, these 'geniuses' said that President Obama had to do a better job defending the ACA. That's impossible. It's impossible to defend the indefensible. It's impossible to defend the 21-tax salute Congress and President Obama gave to the American people. It's impossible to defend the massive growth in the federal government .
The problem isn't that President Obama hasn't done a good job selling the ACA. It's that the ACA is a crappy product that a) the American people have rejected, b) was shoved down America's throat despite the many monstrous TEA Party rallies and c) overpromises and underdelivers.
People will lose their health care plan because employers will drop people and pay the fine rather than continue covering their employees. Health insurance premiums will continue rising faster than the rate of inflation .
The first 50 hours after the ACA ruling shows that the intense opposition to the ACA hasn't diminished since August, 2009. That's a major problem for President Obama, Democrats running for re-election to the Senate and for House Democrats.
Prior to Thursday's ruling, I'd said that I was confident Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama, partly because Democrats aren't thrilled with him. Remember the convicted felon getting 42% of the vote in West Virginia? I do. Remember Undecided getting 41% of the vote in Kentucky? I certainly do.
Each election has 2 tracks in terms of polling. Daily tracking polls will reflect the blips covered during the news cycle. The weekly polling, however, shows the undercurrent that determines elections. People are frightened about the economy, the exploding national debt and dealing with the ACA.
That's what these political science professors missed entirely. They don't have a clue about what's happening this election.
Tags: Almanac , David Schultz , Hamline , Kathryn Pearson , U of M , Dan Hofrenning , St. Olaf , President Obama , ACA Ruling , SCOTUS , Joe Manchin , Claire McCaskill , 21-Tax Salute , Democratic National Convention , Mitt Romney , Mitch McConnell , Repeal , Reconciliation , Republicans , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, June 30, 2012 2:56 PM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 30-Jun-12 03:10 PM
Any survey asking about "the good parts" of the ACA needs to also ask, "How much are you willing to pay to provide the features you like to someone else?"
Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Jun-12 05:35 PM
That decision is how many days old now?
There are how many days until the general election?
And yes, some GOP regulars do face a primary, where this Romneycare issue will not come up.
In terms of rallying a base, do not overlook Citizens United, as one thing that stands out as disdained boneheadedness, almost beyond believability.
Yes, current talk is the GOP pundit-factory believes it can make something of this. But really, that actually only an admission they know they have been so obstructionist (not merely negligent but willfully obstructionist) on job relief that they want to distract from jobs as the real issue - where their only answer to anything is "Give more tax cuts to the wealthy."
You believe that will play? Or that Karl Rove's superpac and Rumert's propaganda mill can come up with a sufficient shell game patter to distract all the folks feeling economic hurt from tracking the pea?
Good luck, to you and Karl. It will fail, but give it a try, along with Andy Parrish doing his bigotry stint.
It's the economy, and the GOP's constant will to impede any meaningful government action to help folks out of the hole Bush dug them is what will be seen as fact.
Unless your guys do one hell of a good propaganda job, (you have the money for it - more than enough), you lose.
So, will money work magic?
We'll see, eh? But, really, tax cuts for the rich ...
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jun-12 08:06 PM
Eric, I could argue that tax cuts for the rich isn't nearly as offensive as tax increases for the middle class but I won't. I'll just repeat the facts. President Obama signed into law a lengthy list of massive middle class tax increases.
I'll also highlight the fact that the ruling that the federal government can't punish states for not expanding their Medicaid rolls is the biggest ruling of the whole thing. That means this administration's shell game is about to get exposed. The "deficit-neutral" spin wasn't possible if the 30,000,000 extra people getting health insurance wasn't getting paid for by the states.
Now that states can say no to expanded Medicaid, they will.
But really, that actually only an admission they know they have been so obstructionist (not merely negligent but willfully obstructionist) on job relief that they want to distract from jobs as the real issueEric, your ignorance is stunning. Republicans have passed over 2 dozen bills in the House that Harry Reid refuses to even acknowledge. Considering the fact that Reid's Senate has broken the law 3 years running in not passing a budget blueprint, there's only one direction that the finger can be pointed. I'd triple-dog dare you to explain how not doing your legal duty of passing a budget blueprint isn't obstructionism in the first degree.
Second, your BS about Republicans giving "tax cuts for the wealthy" is sickening. Republicans are poised to offer true tax reform. Reform patterned after the TEFRA deal struck between Dan Rostenkowski & Ronald Reagan, which featured lower marginal rates & fewer corporate welfare provisions. If you'd paid attention to reality rather than buy the dishonest DFL's BS, you'd know that.
Apparently, that's asking too much.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 01-Jul-12 08:33 AM
Great response to Eric Z's blathering. People like Eric couldn't give a rats behind about what the real truth is about ACA or the economy so long as their message of disinformation and smoke screening for the democrats is accomplished.
Comment 4 by IndyJones at 01-Jul-12 10:26 AM
There is an article at American Conservative by Leo Lembeck that pretty much makes government healthcare irrelevant. Medicare is unfunded by 84 trillion dollars. Thats 300,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child. Now you can mandate any damn thing you want but unless you are on a steady diet of utopiates there is no way to consider this program survivable. None. Zero chance. If they really buckle down there is a small chance they can save a part of social security if its reformed. And if its not reformed soon it too will go under the bus.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 01-Jul-12 12:35 PM
Eric:
If you want to call Citizens United boneheaded keep in mind there is this thing called the first amendment that Congress couldn't make a law restricting speech. That's why the same day that Obamacare was upheld the court struck down a law that said you didn't have the right to say you're a veteran who won an award if you haven't.
Thanks to this bonehead ruling which you like Congress can say you have to drive a certain car and enforce it by charging a tax on cars which they don't like.
By the way Eric this ruling only took place because Roberts called it a tax. Why don't you and Obama call it a tax since it's a tax.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by Bob J. at 02-Jul-12 12:16 PM
"That's because Republicans, while many of us aren't thrilled with Mitt, won't treat him like toxic waste."
For the first time in my adult life, I will watch no part of the Republican National Convention this year. A Republican Party controlled by Romney will not stand for conservative values. It is grossly unfortunate that he is the main alternative to Obama, even if in name only.
However, it's said that you get the government you deserve, and if it's Romney we deserve, then we've fallen to the point where we can no longer get up. What a shame.
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-12 01:09 PM
Bob, I don't give a shit if you watch the convention. I just care that you'll vote for the only presidential candidate that'll repeal the ACA.
Comment 8 by IndyJones at 02-Jul-12 03:42 PM
The house and senate are the key to repeal or to defunding that albatross. I'm just not into Romney either.
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 02-Jul-12 04:54 PM
Without the president signing the repeal law, it's getting implemented. Lord knows I wasn't a fan of Romney's but I'll vote for him over implementing the ACA & I'll do it without hesitation.
