• Home
  • About Us
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Notice

The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

  • Home
  • Truth In Reporting
  • Hypocritical Politicians
  • Eroding Freedoms
  • Stoopid People
  • Do Something!

Their Criticism Is That We Dare To Do The Math

July 26, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Last week, Jake Tapper interviewed Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), who just this week released a report on the whopping potential federal obligation of the bailout and other programs the Obama administration is using to jumpstart the economy. This is a transcript of the podcast.

Jake:  Hello, and welcome to the ABC News shuffle.  I’m Jake Tapper in the White House booth and joining us today for a very special podcast is Neil Barofsky; he is the SIGTARP.  SIGTARP stands for “Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program”. That’s the hundred of billions of your tax dollars going to help shore up the financial system, and he is charge of making sure those dollars are spent wisely and with accountability.  So Mr. Barofsky, thank you for joining us.

Neil:  It’s a pleasure to be here.

Jake:  You, this week, testified that the bailout could reach far more than $700 billion, but actually $23.7 TRILLION dollars. How did you arrive at that figure?

Neil:  Well, basically what we did is, you know my oversight responsibility is over the TARP.  And the TARP, which started out to be a $787 billion program, it itself has expanded.  It’s now with other programs; the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, covers about $3 trillion.

Jake:  How did that happen?  How is it $3 trillion all of a sudden?

Neil:  Well, basically, what happened was is that the TARP money was the seed money for other programs.  So, for example, you have a program called the TALF, which is used to buy asset-backed securities and it’s a program that’s run by the Federal Reserve, but up to $100 billion of it is going to be TARP money and then the Federal Reserve is going to kick in the other $900 billion.  Similarly…a guarantee of Citibank’s assets, that’s about a $300 billion asset guarantee.  TARP money is about $5 billion, the rest is going to be chipped in by the FDIC or the Federal Reserve.  So programs like that, they sort of expanded our initial oversight of $700 billion so now we’re looking at, if everything goes as expected, to almost $3 trillion.

SIGTARPtable3-5sm

Jake:  And when you say “we”, how many people are in your office? 

Neil:  We have about 70 people on board right now; we’re building, with a target of about 160 by early next year.

Jake:  So, $23.7 trillion; I didn’t even know $23.7 trillion existed?

Neil:  They may not, so what we did, we thought it was necessary because so many of the financial institutions that participated in the TARP also participated in other, non-TARP programs. Things like guarantees of debt from the FDIC, or they borrow money from the Federal Reserve, so we thought it was important in bringing transparency to summarize all these programs.  And it is an alphabet soup of programs, every one has a different acronym and I think there’s a lot of confusion.  So what we decided to do in our most recent quarterly report is put them all together in one section, and we lay out approximately 50 different programs that have been announced by the federal government and what we thought would be helpful is to put down 3 numbers with respect to each program. One, how much money is currently oustanding under the program; two, what the high-water mark has been since the inception of the bailout; and then three, what is the total amount that the federal government has said they’re willing to commit to each program.  And at the end we add them all up, and that’s where the $23.7 trillion number comes from.  It’s what the federal government has said would be the maximum number for each of the apprximately 50 programs that we detail in our report if they were all subscribed to, if they were all maxed out, all at the same time.  Now, that doesn’t mean that that’s what the taxpayer’s currently on the hook for; we’ve never said that.  We just wanted to put it in perspective, of what all the different programs were and that is a very accurate number as to what the total commitment and support the federal government has pledged the financial system.

 SIGTARPtable3-4

Jake:  Now, the Treasury Department called your figure of $23.7 trillion “inflated”.  Not only that, but they’ve questioned how you reached the numbers, your methodology; even, in a way, you’re credibility.  What’s your response to that?

Neil:  I think the Treasury Department ought to read the report before they make comments. At least the spokesperson’s office.  Because the Treasury itself did read the report before it went out. We vet our reports with the Treasury and the other federal agencies involved before they go out.  We take their comments, we incorporate their comments.  So it’s a little surprising, having had a chance to comment on the report before it went out and not using words like “inflated” or “misleading”, that now they’re saying that.  As far as their criticism of our methodology, our methodology is laid out in black and white in the report.  It’s actually kind of funny, some of their criticisms are actually pulled from our methodology, where we explain some of the limitations of this number.  We explain what I just explained to you right now, that we’re not saying that this is the total amount of money that’s outstanding right now, this was all laid out in black and white.  As far as the numbers being “inflated”, where do you think we got the numbers from?  We got it from the Treasury Department, we got it from the Federal Reserve.  We got it from their websites,from statements they’ve made to Congress.  If these numbers are inflated, it’s because they inflated them when they put them out in the public.  Not because of us. All we’ve done is gather the 50 programs, put them in one place, and told the American people what the government has said about the maximum of each of these programs.  You know, we joke, I don’t think the Treasury’s really criticizing our attempt to gather these all in one place, and I can’t think they can really criticize the fact that we’re saying what the maximum number is, so perhaps their criticism is that we dare to do math?

Jake:  The President, and I don’t know, I imagine you’re a non-partisan?  Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

Neil:  Well, it’s been reported and it’s true I’ve been a registered Democrat since I turned 18.

Jake:  Ok.  Is it fair to say that you voted for President Obama?

Neil:  It’s been in the press reports and on my thing, I actually contributed to the President’s campaign.

Jake:  Ok.  So you’re not rooting against President Obama and you’re not an opponent of his, one would say.  He promised unprecedented transparency and accountability.  From what you have seen, from your perch as Special Inspector General for TARP, is he abiding by that promise?

Neil:  I can’t really assess him individually but from the Treasury’s perspective, no. Treasury is not being transparent with respect to the TARP.  They failed to adopt some very basic recommendations we’ve had towards transparency and, frankly, this recent attack on my report is really, in many ways, an attack on basic transparency.  Of not wanting the American people in a certain way to see exactly what’s going on in their government, as included in our report. So I think no, they’ve not met, at least in the Treasury Department and at least with respect to this program, they’ve not met their claim that this was going to be “unprecedented transparency”.

Jake:  As somebody who contributed to President Obama, is this disappointing on any sort of personal or professional level?

Neil:  You know, you can’t really do the job that I have and let any sort of personal feelings or really any political feelings enter into your thought process.  The job we’re entrusted to do by the American people doesn’t have anything to do with Democrat, Republican, and left, right, or middle.  It’s just a question about bringing the truth to the surface, pushing for maximum transparency, providing the necessary oversight for these programs.  So I don’t really engage in those types of thoughts because they’re not really helpful.

Jake:  Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, was asked this week about your report and he said the TARP is, and the Treasury Department are, transparent and accountable, they do make reports, and one of the issues he said is that these dollars are fungible, that you can’t necessarily “trace”, his argument would be, you can’t necessarily trace a dollar as it goes from the Treasury Department to a bank and then out into the world. What would your response to that be?

Neil:  Well, this is what his response was when we made this recommendation last December and first we tried to convince Treasury that they were wrong, that although money is certainly fungible, banks can and should be required to report on their use of funds.  When Treasury refused, we took matters in our own hands and we sent out a voluntary survey and just asked the banks a simple question, “Hey, can you tell us how you use the money?”  And the response was overwhelming.  We put an audit report out this week with the results and the answer is yes, they CAN say what they did with the money.  And we put out the report and what did we see?  We saw the banks used it to shore up lending, some increased lending; a lot of them said they would have had to reduce lending significantly absent TARP funds, but that’s not all.  They explained, a certain percentage explained how they used it to make investments and others talked about how they used the funds to acquire other banks, or just kept it on their books as a cushion for future losses. So my response to the White House, and my response to Treasury is that you don’t believe what I have to say, if you don’t believe, really, a common sense approach to fungibility of money, look at the audit report.  Look at the responses from the individual banks who’ve told us how they’ve used that money.  This is a basic form of transparency and it’s going to be helpful, I think. Helpful to the administration to know what’s going on, how these banks are using the money.  It’s going to be helpful, also, to give the American people some  degree of comfort that somebody, their government, is going out and bringing this transparency, is looking to see how these funds are being used.  The money’s not being thrown into a black hole.

Jake:  You got into…I don’t know if “tiff” is the right word? But a disagreement with the Treasure Department a few months ago that came to light a few weeks ago about seeking some information.  I believe it was information about AIG.  What can you tell us about that and why do you think Treasury was pushing back on giving you the information you sought?

Neil:  I think the dispute that’s really percolating right now is a lot more about our independence and where we fit within the government.  I think that is a serious concern for us.  Ultimately, the question about the particular documents or having access to particular individuals, I think that’s long resolved.  Treasury has committed and they have, in fact, given us access to the necessary documents that we sought and they’ve given us access to the people that we need to speak to.  But what is still percolating is Treasury seeking an opinion from Department of Justice that we are subject to the supervision of the Secretary, and implicit in that is that the Secretary would have the ability to shut down an audit or an investigation.  And that’s obviously something that we’re very, very concerned about.  If the Secretary decided, let’s say, that this recent report that we put out, that he didn’t like the fact that we were going to be diclosing numbers of $23.7 trillion, that we’re going to sum up all these programs and put this information out there, if they had this authority, would he order us not to do it?  I don’t know the answer to the question but I don’t want to find out the answer to that question and I think that Congress made it very clear that they intended for us to be an independent agency and not subject to such supervision.  So we’ll see what happens.

Jake:  So when the Obama administration referred this to the Justice Department to have them weigh in, can you interpret that as anything other than them challenging your independence and then saying they want Secretary Geithner to be able to squash your reports if he sees fit?

Neil:  You know, I think to now we’ve provided to Congress and they’ve made it public, the back and forth as far as the written submissions to the Department of Justice, but it certainly seems that wanting to seek to have supervisory authority over us, there has to be some reason behind it.

Jake:  About that $23.7 trillion, I’m wondering, since the Congress only authorized $700 billion of it, and the last, as you know, $350 billion of it was somewhat under duress; in fact President Obama issued his first veto threat before he was even president for that $350 billion. Do you see the fact that the taxpayers are now theoretically on the hook for almost $24 trillion, even though the Congress only authorized $700 billion?  As a kind of circumvention of the system, of going behind closed doors, using what has been authorized to put taxpayers on the hook, even if the goal is ultimately a lofty one, to put taxpayers on the hook for much more than that, and if you DO see it that way, is that inappropriate?

Neil:  You know, I don’t think that we’ve seen anything illegal or contrary to law.

Jake:  No, no, I’m not saying that. Certainly I’m not impugning anybody’s…I’m not saying anybody broke the law, but do you think it’s a “legal way” of circumventing Congress’ appropriate role?

Neil:  I hate to get too far outside of my lane, outside of the world of the TARP, but I think it’s a really important question that you’re asking, and I think that when we get criticized for putting this information together in our report, this is our response as to why we did it.  Because these are important questions that people should be able to ask, and the only way you can ask these questions and raise these very significant issues about whether there is technically getting around rules is if the information is out there. And that’s why we do it, that’s why we try to bring transparency to this level, so the people can have this discussion and have this debate.

Jake:  Back to the survey you just did of the banks and how they are spending the TARP money; do you think that taxpayer funds were misused with TARP funds?

Neil:  That’s a hard question to answer because the conditions that were put on these funds when they went out were so minimal.  There’s nothing we see coming back from the survey that would be in any way a violation of their contract with Treasury, in that sense, that would be a misuse.  The other question is, though, whether from a policy perspective policy makers should or should not be pleased with the fact that TARP banks are using the funds to acquire other institutions or maintaining capital cushions; those are important policy questions and I hate to sound like a broken record on this but that’s why we think it’s so important, so that policy makers can make informed decisions about what’s going on, so they can decide if they want to put on certain conditions.  I’ve heard arguments on both sides that I think are pretty credible about why acquisitions, why acquiring other banks is a good use of TARP funds and I’ve heard arguments of why it wasn’t what it was intended to be and is not a good use.  But to have this debate you need to have the information and that’s why we keep pushing for this expanded transparency.

Jake:  Congress is holding a hearing today and you’ll be there, along with the Congressional oversight panel and a Treasury official to look at how the government is going to sell back stock warrants to banks that participated in the original bailout program and some analysts say the Treasury’s process for selling them is flawed; one analyst even said the Treasury could cost taxpayers $9 billion by not getting good enough deals on these warrants.  What’s your view?

Neil:  My view is, again, I think that it’s important that, and GAO actually made this recommendation and I agree with them wholeheartedly, that the process has got to be more transparent.  I thought the Congressional oversight panel in their recent report raised some very interesting and provocative issues regarding this.  We, ourselves, actually have an ongoing audit looking into the process, so I don’t want to jump ahead of the audit, until we’ve gathered the necessary facts, but there certainly is concern and increased transparency, being more upfront and laying out there exactly how the process works, again, I think will give a lot more coverage to what’s actually going on, so some of these accusations, and I’ve heard them, too, that they’re cutting sweetheart deals, that there’s some sort of backroom dealings; we can know the answers to those questions a lot better if more is put out into the public realm.

Jake:  One last question for you and then I know you have a busy day ahead of you.  Does this take a personal toll on you at all?  The reason I ask is because as a White House reporter doing a much…I don’t want to compare what I do to what you do, but asking questions of powerful people is not always comfortable, and certainly when you have a president with high personal approval ratings, even if his job approval ratings are going down a little, you can be put in a position where you’re made to feel like you’re being a pain just for being a pain’s sake and that what you’re doing has no worth, and asking questions is nothing more than being an irritant.  And I know I get this, all my colleagues here at the White House get this on occasion, but you are doing it much more so than any of us are.  What kind of personal toll does it take on you?

Neil:  It’s never fun to be personally attacked by the Department of Treasury.  I mean, obviously that’s not something you look forward to or enjoy, but on the flip-side, Jake, you know, I never thought that I would have an opportunity to serve my country in the way I’m now being given the option and every day, while there are certainly some very, very difficult days, I’m so thankful that I get an opportunity to really make a difference, to protect this historic outlay of American taxpayer dollars; to root out and seek those who are trying to steal or take advantage and to make these recommendations, to try to make them better, more resilient to fraud, to bring that transparency to the American people. I really am truly thankful I have this opportunity and it more than outweighs the unpleasantness that also comes with this job.

Jake:  All right, then.  Thank you so much for the that you do, we hope that we can continue to bring you back on the podcast here, check in with you, this money is, as you say, unprecedented and its important that people are keeping an eye out for it.  So thank you very much for joining us.

——

Key issues from the report:

Transparency in TARP Programs

Although Treasury has taken some steps towards improving transparency in TARP programs, it has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill Treasury’s stated commitment to implement TARP “with the highest degree of accountability and transparency possible.” With one new recommendation made in this report, there are at least four such unadopted recommendations:

Use of Funds Generally:   One of SIGTARP’s first recommendations was that Treasury require all TARP recipients to report on the actual use of TARP funds.  Other than in a few agreements (with Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG), Treasury has declined to adopt this recommendation, calling any such reporting “meaningless” in light of the inherent fungibility of money. SIGTARP continues to believe that banks can provide meaningful information about what they are doing with TARP funds — in particular what activities they would not have been able to do but for the infusion of TARP funds. That belief has been supported by SIGTARP’s first audit, in which nearly all banks were able to provide such information.

Valuation of the TARP Portfolio:   SIGTARP has recommended that Treasury begin reporting on the values of its TARP portfolio so that taxpayers can get regular updates on the financial performance of their TARP investments.  Notwithstanding that Treasury has now retained asset managers and is receiving such valuation data on a monthly basis, Treasury has not committed to providing such information except on the statutorily required annual basis.

Disclosure of TALF Borrowers Upon Surrender of Collateral:   In TALF, the loans are non-recourse, that is, the lender (Federal Reserve Bank of New York) will have no recourse against the borrower beyond taking possession of the posted collateral (consisting of asset-backed securities (“ABS”)). Under the program, should such a collateral surrender occur, TARP funds will be used to purchase the surrendered collateral. In light of this use of TARP funds, SIGTARP has recommended that Treasury and the Federal Reserve disclose the identity of any TALF borrowers that fail to repay the TALF loan and must surrender the ABS collateral.

Regular Disclosure of PPIF Activity, Holdings, and Valuation:   In the PPIP Legacy Securities Program, the taxpayer will be providing a substantial portion of the funds (contributing both equity and lending) that will be used to purchase toxic assets in the Public-Private Investment Funds (“PPIFs”).  SIGTARP is recommending that all trading activity, holdings, and valuations of assets of the PPIFs be disclosed on a timely basis. Not only should this disclosure be required as a matter of basic transparency in light of the billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, but such disclosure would also serve well one of Treasury’s stated reasons for the program in the first instance: the promotion of “price discovery” in the illiquid market for MBS.  Treasury has indicated that it will not require such disclosure.

Treasury has declined to adopt one of SIGTARP’s most fundamental recommendations — that Treasury should require imposition of an informational barrier or “wall” between the PPIF fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the PPIF and those employees of the fund management company who manage non-PPIF funds. Treasury has decided not to impose such a wall in this instance, despite the fact that such walls have been imposed upon asset managers in similar contexts in other Government bailout-related programs, including by Treasury itself in other TARP-related activities, and despite the fact that three of the nine PPIF managers already must abide by similar walls in their work for those other programs.

April Quarterly Report Recommendations

In the April Quarterly Report, SIGTARP observed that many aspects of PPIP (Public-Private Investment Program) could make it inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, identifying four areas of particular vulnerability:

Conflicts of Interest:   PPIF managers might have a powerful incentive to make investment decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. By their nature and design, including the availability of significant leverage, the PPIF transactions in these frozen markets will have a signifi cant impact on how any particular asset is priced in the market. As a result, the increase in the price of such an asset will greatly benefi t anyone who already owns or manages the same asset, potentially including the PPIF manager who is making the investment decisions.

Collusion:   A closely related vulnerability is that PPIF managers might be persuaded, through kickbacks, quid pro quo transactions, or other collusive arrangements, to manage the PPIFs not for the benefit of the PPIF (and taxpayers), but rather for the benefit of themselves and their collusive partners. The significant non-recourse, Government-financed leverage presents a great incentive for collusion between the buyer and seller of the asset, or the buyer and other buyers, whereby the taxpayer may be exposed to a significant loss while others profit.

Money Laundering:   Because of the significant leverage available and the inherent imprimatur of legitimacy associated with PPIP and TALF, these programs present an ideal opportunity to money-laundering organizations, which are continually looking for opportunities to make their illicit proceeds appear to be legitimate, thereby “laundering” those proceeds.

Interaction with TALF:   In announcing the details of PPIP, Treasury has indicated that PPIFs under the Legacy Securities Program could, in turn, use the leveraged PPIF funds to purchase legacy MBS through TALF, thereby greatly increasing Government exposure to losses with no corresponding increase of potential profits. This leverage upon leverage would magnify the incentives for conflicts of interest and collusion and could severely undermine the validity of the methodology that the Federal Reserve has used to build the haircut percentages in TALF. 

To address these vulnerabilities, SIGTARP made a series of recommendations in the April Quarterly Report. In summary form, SIGTARP recommended the following:

Treasury should impose strict conflicts-of-interest rules upon PPIF managers that specifically address whether and to what extent the managers can (i) invest PPIF funds in legacy assets that they hold or manage on behalf of themselves or their clients or (ii) conduct PPIF transactions with entities in which they have invested on behalf of themselves or others.

Treasury should mandate transparency with respect to the participation and management of PPIFs, including disclosure to Treasury of the beneficial owners of all of the private equity stakes in the PPIFs, public disclosure of all transactions
undertaken in them, and reporting to Treasury on any and all holdings and transactions in the same types of legacy assets on their own behalf or on behalf of their clients.

Treasury should require PPIF managers to provide PPIF equity stakeholders (including TARP) “most-favored-nations clauses,” requiring that the fund managers treat the PPIFs on at least as favorable terms as given to all other parties with whom they deal and acknowledge that they owe the PPIF investors — both the private investors and TARP — a fiduciary duty with respect to the management of the PPIFs.

Treasury should require that all PPIF managers have stringent investor-screening procedures, including comprehensive “Know Your Customer” requirements at least as rigorous as that of a commercial bank or retail brokerage operation, and require that the identities of all of the beneficial owners of the private interests in the fund be disclosed to Treasury so that Treasury can do appropriate diligence to ensure that investors in the funds are legitimate.

Treasury should not allow Legacy Securities PPIFs to invest in TALF unless significant mitigating measures are included to address the increased dangers presented by the interaction, such as prohibiting TARP lending if the PPIF invests through TALF or proportionately increasing haircuts for PPIFs that do so.

 

This is how our federal government operates, folks.  “A few good men” standing up against above-it-all know-it-alls who think that we, the people, are too stupid to understand how they do what we’ve charged them with doing for us.  “Transparency”, “accountability”, and even “bipartisanship” are words that mean something.  Kudos to people like Neil Barofsky and Gerald Walpin, who fight for them.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Truth In Reporting Tagged With: Federal Reserve, Neil Barofsky, obama hypocrisy, SIGTARP, TARP, U.S Treasury

Health Insurance Is Not Health Care

July 25, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

After spending the time necessary to digest the initial draft of H.R. 3200, that bastardizing socialization of American medicine the U.S. House is calling “health care reform”, not only do I find I have a severe case of heartburn, I am even more deeply angered at the state of this great nation under the current adminstration.  I am also flabbergasted at the depths of ignorance calculatingly displayed by those unrepresenting representatives in Washington and dismayed at the ignorance unintentionally displayed by Americans in general.

When you strip away all the rhetoric, a truth is that we are each responsible for our own lives.  You can’t spin the fundamental fact that, with the extreme exceptions of abortions and executions, no one makes our choices for us; all they do is offer us various options.  It remains up to us to take something or to leave it, or to take something else instead.  Speaking philosophically and literally, even choosing nothing is still having made a choice.

When it comes to our health, our choices in this country are nearly endless.  Every breath we take (or do not take), everything that enters our bodies through our mouths, our ears, our eyes, every movement or non-movement (as with tv-slothing or sleep) is a health-affecting choice on our part.  Sure, some things like breathing are, in the main, unconscious choices but remember the last time you caught yourself holding your breath in eagerness, anticipation, or fear and reminded yourself to breathe again?

Truly, all bodies are marvels in and of themselves.  They are an ultimate machine, capable of both creation and destruction even when simply existing, and such is mirrored every second through continuous regeneration at the cellular level.  But, like all machines, each one of our bodies was apparently designed for a limited period of service and as we age our regenerative abilities slow down until, in the end, it stops altogether and so we die.

There is nothing bad, nothing shameful in all of this.  It is, as in popular vernacular, the circle of life.  But Man sees himself in the mirror and believes that the recognition of Self somehow makes him superior to other species.  Yet the whispers of his instincts can never be suppressed for long, and it is those whispers – ever-reminding him that man, too, is ruled by natural law –  that cause him to vainly create a phantom, parallel world within his own species.  A world where his physical inferiority is replaced by some pseudo-intellectual or material superiority.

Life will never be anything more than a competition, a survival of the fittest.  Certainly, as a species man is more willing than some to assist others, to assist the collective but this latest Obamanation of forced equality, particularly this religious zealotry aimed at the idea of health care reform, will fail.  As it has forever failed.  For it goes against natural law and no matter how “smart”, or how much techology we can create, we are now and will be forever subject to our humanness.

Ask the antelope in the jaws of the jaguar if life is fair.  We would be better off to accept our place in this world and enjoy the fact we get a life at all.  Return to the foundations upon which this country was birthed and let its inherent support of natural law take care of things like the auto industry, the banks, people who bit off more mortgage than they can chew, and also take care of “health reform”.  Anything else will simply accelerate our inherent propensity for self-destruction.

If you take the time to read and to understand what is being proposed in H.R. 3200, it is clear that the Obama administration intends to wholly assume not the business of health insurance but to flat-out control every aspect of the practice of medicine in the United States.  The campaign rhetoric endlessly spewing forth vaccilates and confuses care with insurance and perhaps this is done on purpose, but without understanding the difference it is easy to get swept up in its destructive fervor.

It is well-known that health CARE in the United States is the best in the world.  As a result of our capitalistic, free-market economy, innovations in the field of medicine have resulted in understandings of human health and the manifestation of health CARE that allows us to live far more comfortably and far more productively than anywhere else in the world.  We have the best doctors, the best facilities, and the best equipment.  Period.

But everything comes with a price and medical technology is no different.  Whether it is a Viagra capsule that gives an old man past his reproductive prime the ability to pursue nothing more than simple carnal gratification or the MRI machine that gives doctors the ability to diagnose the presence and extent of a tumor in a young child, each and every thing we use or do has cost someone time and money to create.  They pursue these things out of a combination of altruistic and financial motivations and…you know what?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

With the help of more and more technology, the collective mindset of the modern era has served to steer us further and further away from the basic understanding of nature’s cycles and somehow given rise to a belief that we, humans, have a fundamental right to, for lack of a better term, physical immortality.  Or at least the right to die in a body that looks like a plasticized 20-year old.  Fearing death, we cling to the notion we are immune from the processes of aging, that we may exist above the mandates of natural law. 

But, again, the truth is that we are not now, nor will we ever be.  And the sooner we let go of this dangerous belief, the better off we will find ourselves. 

Now, this does not mean that if we get sick, we shouldn’t bother going to see a doctor.  It doesn’t mean that medical CARE should never be provided.  What it means is that medical CARE can only do so much for us and the responsibility to choose that CARE is entirely our own.  And this is where the business of health INSURANCE enters the picture. 

Health INSURANCE is simply a financial risk agreement between two parties.  It’s a lot like a bet.  One person bets that they’ll need expensive medical care at some point and the other is betting they won’t.  If the payer stays healthy, the insurer keeps their money; otherwise the insurer shells out what is needed to get the payer back on their physical feet.  Frankly, it’s a rather nifty and interesting arrangement.  The problem is that over time the payer has come to believe that the sum they pay to the insurer is a replacement for the choices that they make for themselves in terms of what they put into and how they treat their body.  Like les enfants terrible, it’s come to be expected that everything needed will simply be provided, promptly and without question.

Nice thought, but dangerously naive.  Everything comes with a price, remember?  If, for example, you ask me to watch your house while you’re away and agree to pay me to do so, the cost for me to stop by every day and bring in the mail is going to be a lot lower than asking me to spend additional time to water your plants, feed your cat, scoop its litterbox, etc.  If you travel a lot and want to keep the costs down, well, you won’t keep either houseplants or a cat, will you?  Health insurance works very much the same way.  If you want me to pay your doctor(s) for every little thing you want done, you’re going to have to pay me more money.  Now, it makes sense for me to help you pay for preventative-type screenings, those early warnings that you, the individual, need to change your couch potato, greaseburger, fries, and beer gut ways.  But if you choose to do or continue to do things proven risky to you, with your unique historical combination of DNA, then you’re going to have to pay me more to cover your body’s sooner-than-later eventual breakdown.

What we need in America is, in my mind, not health CARE reform but to take another look at health INSURANCE.  Medical CARE is available and, for the most part, guaranteed.  Sure, there are situations like in Chicago, where Michelle Obama’s infamous “Urban Health Initiative” was found to be turning away the poorer, less-insured patients in favor of the well-heeled genteel folks, but that’s a business and a moral problem, not a medical CARE problem.

Bottom line:  it’s more than time for the federal government to just get out of the way.  It’s time to stop unsustainable federal medical programs, cut out all the pork-funding taxes, and let Americans look for different and better ways to take care of themselves.  Let Americans place their own bets on what kind of medical care they may need; one thing that comes to mind is having more walk-in clinics or small general practices for all the garden-variety cuts-scrapes-sore throats and even preventative-type care (there is one here in my area that even without any insurance is affordable).  These old-fashioned, less-expensive, priced to pay-as-you-go practices could be combined with health insurance to cover only catastrophic illness, the kinds of illnesses that most of us never experience but that hurt families the most.  And then have a menu of available coverage running the gamut between the two for the more cautious and the hypochondriacs.  I suspect that tort reform would have to accompany such an idea since our sue-happy society has yet to get a grip and stop blaming everyone but themselves for their individual stupidity, but I know from talking to them that there’d be far more general practioners/family doctors if it wasn’t for all the stinkin’ government-related paperwork and the price of insurance against the constant threats of lawsuits.  It would also be good to quit advertising drugs on television with the insistent, cheery message that people should “ask their doctor” about them.  Someone savvy could easily set up an information clearinghouse that provides a searchable list containing all the same caveats as the commercials.  (Am I the only one who’s noticed that for some of the advertised drugs, the list of side-effects takes longer to read than the actual “buy me” part of the commercial?!)

I look at it this way:  doctors (and lawyers) practice.  To expect guarantees from their efforts, then, is ridiculous.  But they do serve a purpose, for the probability of healing as a result of their efforts remains higher here than anywhere in the world.  We should be encouraging doctors by taking back ownership of our health and working with them as our counsel, our partners, not handing the responsibility for our medical care over to the federal government and its proven track record of program administration failures.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: * Featured Posts *, Stoopid People Tagged With: health care reform, HR 3200, Obama administration

HR 3200: A Deadly Swamp Of Socialized Medicine

July 25, 2009 By Joan of Snark

5
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The actual text of health care reform legislation is starting to percolate up from the depths of the committees, and it contains a plethora of hard stops on the freedoms that Americans are guaranteed and have come to expect.  President Obama remains inordinately fond of continuing to campaign about all the “choice” he wants us to see in his vision of health care reform, but what’s in this House version of the bill contains anything but.

Since our unrepresenting representatives can’t be bothered to do so, let’s put on our waders and tiptoe through the alligator-infested swamp and take a gander at it, shall we?

The Biggest and Baddest provision turns President Obama into a bald-faced liar.  The party line is that if you currently have health insurance, sure, you can keep it.  They call this “grandfathering” in your plan.  But Section 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE doesn’t protect anything except the government-run “gateways” and “exchanges” because the day you decide to give up your current plan, it’s all over but the shouting because unless you enroll in an employer-provided plan (that must provide no less than exactly the same benefits as the government’s plan), it’s straight into the machine for you.

These are the key excerpts:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(Notice that this is the sum total of verbiage in “this paragraph”.  There are NO exceptions.  Health insurers may no longer enroll new plan participants.)

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

This means that if a health insurance company wants to stay in business, it must get in bed with the government.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

How very kind of them.  Separate insurance policies will be “permitted” by the government.  If you didn’t ask “What are excepted benefits?” then you deserve the government we’ve got today and don’t come crying to us when Pater Obama tells you that your life isn’t worth the cost of saving it.  But because I’m feeling generous today, I’ll ask the question for you.  What are these “excepted benefits”?  Well, basically anything except what we all think of as common medical treatments, such as:

  • Coverage only for accident, or disability income insurance, or any combination thereof.
  • Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance.
  • Liability insurance, including general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance.
  • Workers’ compensation or similar insurance.
  • Automobile medical payment insurance.
  • Credit-only insurance.
  • Coverage for on-site medical clinics
  • Other similar insurance coverage, specified in regulations, under which benefits for medical care are secondary or incidental to other insurance benefits.

Not exactly the “choice” the President, Pelosi, Reid, and those other generous progressives (gag) are leading you to believe, is it?

So just what happens to your “health care” once the government gets their guaranteed hold of it?  Pull out your airsickness bag and read on.

What is covered:

From section 122 (Essential benefits)

(b) Minimum Services To Be Covered-

(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients’ homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES- There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

This is the 2008 list of those “preventative services” from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force:

Grade A:

  • Cervical cancer screening for women
  • Colorectal cancer screening for men and women over 50
  • Discuss aspirin chemoprevention with adults who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease
  • Screening for high blood pressure in adults aged 18 and older
  • Screening for chlamydial infection for all sexually active non-pregnant young women aged 24 and younger and for older nonpregnant women who are at increased risk
  • Prophylactic ocular topical medication for all newborns against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum
  • Screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
  • Screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) all adolescents and adults at increased risk for HIV infection
  • Screening all pregnant women for HIV
  • Screening persons at increased risk for syphilis infection
  • Screening all pregnant women for syphilis infection
  • Screening all adults for tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation interventions for those who use tobacco
  • Screening all pregnant women for tobacco use and provide augmented pregnancy-tailored counseling to those who smoke
  • Rh (D) blood typing and antibody testing for all pregnant women during their first visit for pregnancy-related care
  • Screening for sickle cell disease in newborns

Grade B:

  • One-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 who have ever smoked
  • Genetic counseling and evaluation for women whose family history is associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes (breast & ovarian cancer)
  • Chemoprevention for women at high risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse effects of chemoprevention
  • Screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older
  • Screening for chlamydial infection for all pregnant women aged 24 and younger and for older pregnant women who are at increased risk
  • Screening all sexually active women, including those who are pregnant, for gonorrhea infection if they are at increased risk for infection (that is, if they are young or have other individual or population risk factors)
  • Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse (go to Clinical Considerations) by adults, including pregnant women, in primary care settings
  • Screening adults for depression in clinical practices that have systems in place to assure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and followup
  • Intensive behavioral dietary counseling for adult patients with hyperlipidemia and other known risk factors for cardiovascular and diet-related chronic disease.  Intensive counseling can be delivered by primary care clinicians or by referral to other specialists, such as nutritionists or dietitians
  • Routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant women
  • Routine iron supplementation for asymptomatic children aged 6 to 12 months who are at increased risk for iron deficiency anemia
  • Screening all adult patients for obesity and offer intensive counseling and behavioral interventions to promote sustained weight loss for obese adults
  • Screening women aged 65 and older routinely for osteoporosis. The USPSTF recommends that routine screening begin at age 60 for women at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures
  • Structured breastfeeding education and behavioral counseling programs to promote breastfeeding
  • Primary care clinicians prescribe oral fluoride supplementation at currently recommended doses to preschool children older than 6 months of age whose primary water source is deficient in fluoride
  • Screening to detect amblyopia, strabismus, and defects in visual acuity in children younger than age 5 years

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION-

Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

Pay particular attention to this.  It’s your annual out-of-pocket expenses for for anything not included in the Grade A or Grade B list of “preventative items and services”.  So although a preventative test may be covered, you’ll still be liable for co-pay expenses to walk in the door to get it.  And just like with most plans today, you’ll still be liable to share the costs of fixing anything found wrong with you by those tests.

Of course we have to have a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.”  This will be chaired by the Surgeon General and will have “9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President”, “9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General”, and an “even number of members (not to exceed 8 ) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.”  A committe with up to 27 members, 18 of whom are picked by the President.  The bill says these people will “reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies, and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health”.  But with no checks and balances on the selection of this group, you can bet they will reflect the President’s personal opinions and/or especially those to whom he owes campaign favors.

And, of course we have to have a Health Choices Administration and a Health Choices Commissioner.  At least the commissioner will be appointed by the President “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”.  This will be an independent agency that will audit and enforce compliance for all “qualified health benefit plans”, whether or not the plan participates in the government’s “exchange”.  They will be able to levy financial penalties and shut down plans that fail to make their grade.  The Commissioner will appoint a “Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman” to help people stuck in the maze of government’s plan find their way out, but must do so “in a linguistically appropriate manner” (read:  “press 1 for English”).

Section 1173a of the bill discusses “Standardizing Electronic Administrative Transactions”.  Everything from enrollment to payment for services will be automated.  A good thing?  The bill allows up to 5 years to implement it so in the meantime we may look forward to not only the lumbering pace of bureaucracy, but utter chaos and confusion.

Section 164 outlines a “Reinsurance Program For Retirees”.  The government intends to pick up some of the tab for “participating employment-based plans” in order to lower the costs to the plan’s participants.  It includes the word “temporary”, but in the interim it is your tax dollars that will go to cushion employers who perhaps bit off more than they could chew with regards to retiree health benefits.  (Why do unions immediately come to mind?)

The “Health Insurance Exchange” is such a behemoth that it gets its own title within the bill.  It’s essentially the “Obama Does Costco”, one-stop shopping center where you can go to choose from the various government-seal-of-approval plans, including the government’s “public health insurance option”.  Meaning you can choose between vanilla and vanilla via “culturally and linguistically appropriate communication”.

Section 205, “OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN”, is interesting.  It defines “outreach” as informing and educating “individuals and employers about the Health Insurance Exchange and Exchange-participating health benefits plan options. Such outreach shall include outreach specific to vulnerable populations, such as children, individuals with disabilities, individuals with mental illness, and individuals with other cognitive impairments.”  Nice.  But down in (d)(1) we reach “COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NEWBORNS” and weasel words that are sure to have the hearts of La Raza going pitter-patter with excitement.  And I don’t mean just the closing, “In carrying out this section, the Commissioner shall establish effective methods for communicating in plain language and a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner.”

(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of a child born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage, for the period of time beginning on the date of birth and ending on the date the child otherwise is covered under acceptable coverage (or, if earlier, the end of the month in which the 60-day period, beginning on the date of birth, ends), the child shall be deemed–

(i) to be a non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual (as defined in subsection (e)(5)) for purposes of this division and Medicaid; and
(ii) to have elected to enroll in Medicaid through the application of paragraph (3).

Since the bill makes is mandatory for every American to have health insurance, I’ll let you figure out how a child will be born here without being covered.

To pay for the “Health Insurance Exchange”, we’ll have a “Health Insurance Trust Fund”.  And where will we get the money for it?  Easy!

Section 207 (c)(1) DEDICATED PAYMENTS- There is hereby appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent to the following:

(A) TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE– The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).

Yes, Harry & Louise, if you choose to not buy health insurance or want to pay for a plan that is structured differently than the government wants a health insurance plan to be structured, the IRS is going to make you pay for it anyway.

(B) EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS NOT PROVIDING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE– The amounts received in the Treasury under section 3111(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to employers electing to not provide health benefits).

(C) EXCISE TAX ON FAILURES TO MEET CERTAIN HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS– The amounts received in the Treasury under section 4980H(b) (relating to excise tax with respect to failure to meet health coverage participation requirements).

(2) APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS– There are hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Trust Fund, an amount equivalent to the amount of payments made from the Trust Fund under subsection (b) plus such amounts as are necessary reduced by the amounts deposited under paragraph (1).

Numerous other “trust funds” are also embedded in the bill  for enormous and far-flung entire government-run programs  to fund the education of doctors and nurses and all kinds of research, which is essentially a huge step smack into the middle of the private sector.

Sections 241-245 are essentially premium subsidies for those who fall “below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of the size involved” and individuals; this also includes subsidizing “unaffordable employer coverage”, which is defined as “full-time employees for which the cost of the employee premium for coverage under a group health plan would exceed 11 percent of current family income”.

In the “Employer Responsibility” part of the bill, a nice double-dip can be found in section 311:  “if an employee declines [their employer’s plan]but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee”.  What this is saying is that employers will be penalized 8% of the employee’s average salary if their employees don’t want what they offer.  The employer isn’t paying the employee’s premiums, either.  This money goes right into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund.

Small businesses get hit with this double-dip penalty, too, though “only” up to 6% on a sliding scale up to an annual payroll of $400,000.

Employers will be held liable for “civil penalties” if they do not provide health insurance; to the tune of $100/day up to $500,000.  Interestingly, the money collected “shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States” instead of funding the government’s snake-oiled medicine machine.  The IRS will also be involved, collecting employment taxes on employers who “fail” to participate – 10% of what should have been paid up to $500,000.

Section 2793 addresses what’s required if an employer wants to use the government’s plan.  “Such election shall be treated as the establishment and maintenance of a group health plan” and because, say, Joe’s Plumbing & Heating is now Joe’s Plumbing & Heating Health Insurance Plan, the now-infamous “Secretary shall regularly audit…and conduct investigations and other activities…so as to discover noncompliance with the health coverage participation requirements….”  Anything wrong will be sent to the “Secretary of the Treasury and the Health Choices Commissioner. The Secretary shall take such timely enforcement action as appropriate to achieve compliance.”  The same civil and IRS-driven penalties noted above will also apply if Joe’s Plumbing & Heating Health Insurance Plan fails to “satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with respect to any employee.”

Of course, complying is going to be as easy as filing with the IRS, because the “Secretary” is given the authority to make up “such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this section”.  Section 6050X spells out how information will be provided to about everyone that Joe’s Plumbing & Heating Health Insurance Plan covers; provided both to the IRS and Joe’s employees, of course.

Because the federal government intends to not just reform health care for Americans, but to control it from birth to (early) death, section 324 has to spell out that cooperation between “the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Health Choices Commissioner” will insure that everyone is singing from the same songbook when it comes to “enforcing” adherence to this sweeping new law of the land.

Title IV of the bill amends the already impossible tonnage of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.  Here is where individuals without coverage will be forced to pay a 2.5% tax, except for non-resident aliens and anyone living outside the United States, or folks who have a “religious exemption” on file.  If Joe’s Plumbing & Heating decides not to provide any kind of health insurance for its employees, Joe will pay a tax equal to 8% of his employee’s salaries, though if his business is very small and his payroll is less than $400,000, he’ll pay on a sliding scale up to 6%.

And just in case you were wondering, go ahead and substitute “state” for “Joe’s Plumbing & Heating”.  In a behind-the-scenes look at the crafting of this bill, the House Energy & Commerce Republicans reported that:

An amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-GA., would prohibit the Federal government from taxing or withholding benefits from States whose health plans don’t comply with the new arbitrary essential benefits mandates that the HHS Secretary is authorized to make under this legislation. These could include mandated coverage of abortion or Botox injections, and if States don’t comply they would face an 8% tax on their employee payroll or drastic cuts in Federal grants.

The issue was outlined starkly in questions posed by the ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, to the committee’s chief Democratic staff counsel:

Barton: “Is it true that if we don’t strike this and the bill stays as is, the federal government could withhold grants from states if they didn’t comply with some of the mandated requirements for health coverage of their state employees?

Democratic counsel: “Yes.”

Barton: “Is it true under the provisions of the bill if not struck or amended that if the federal government required abortions to be covered, a state would have to do that or lose grants?

Democratic counsel: “If the secretary, acting on advice of the benefits advisory commission, had made abortion a minimum benefit for any acceptable insurance package, yes, sir. They could withhold that.”

“We can’t tell states what to do directly,” Waxman said later, explaining why withholding funding would be necessary. “We have to use whatever leverage we have over them.”

Deal pointed out that the requirement seemed at odds with the Democrats’ long-stated intention to enact health care reform in order to cover people without insurance. “If the thrust of this bill is to cover the uninsured, state employees are not uninsured,” Deal pointed out. “Local municipal employees are not uninsured.”

However, Health Subcommittee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., stuck with the story that states might require federal intervention, “All we’re doing here is saying the state has to act like other employers.”

Nice, eh?  Anything the “Secretary’s” black little hole-where-the-heart-should-be desires will be funded by your hard-earned tax dollars.  Including abortions.

In Section 45R, “Health Coverage Expenses”, the smallest “qualified” businesses will get a 50% tax credit on the cost of providing health insurance, and there’s a sliding scale that decreases the credit based on the number of employees and their pay.  Starting in 2012.

Gee whiz.  Such generosity, eh?

In “Subtitle C—Disclosures to Carry Out Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies“, it states that the “Secretary” can “disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit”.  Just what information about you will be made available?

  • Taxpayer identity information
  • Filing status
  • Modified adjusted gross income
  • Number of dependents
  • Such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
  • The taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or,if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

The government will spend $750 million to tell you just how you should raise your children.  Section 1904: GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN, subpart 3: Support for Quality Home Visitation Programs, Section 440: HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN intends to provide parents with a “one size fits all” —

  • knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners);
  • knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;
  • knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;
  • modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices;
  • skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development;
  • skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and
  • activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children

If you’re a woman pregnant with your first child or have a child under the age of 2 and use the government’s plan the government is going to monitor you.  And don’t be surprised to find someone knocking at your door to check on you, in part to increase “birth intervals between pregnancies”.  (Can’t have poor people reproducing too quickly, can we?)

Other invasions of privacy are found in Section 2521, NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY, where private sector health-related electronic data (such as pharmaceutical purchase data and health insurance claims data) will be gathered to “facilitate analyses of postmarket safety and patient outcomes for devices.”  It is intended to be viewable by the general public but, of course, “in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians, and scientists.”

The government intends to spend $88 billion for a “PUBLIC HEALTH INVESTMENT FUND” (Section 2002) to pay for

  • Community health centers
  • The National Health Service Corps Program
  • The National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs
  • Primary care loan funds (including funds appropriated for schools of medicine or osteopathic medicine under the authority of section 735(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 292y(f))
  • Primary care education programs
  • Nursing workforce development
  • The National Center for Health Statistics
  • The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

So how do we pay for all this?  Subtitle D—Other Revenue 8 Provisions cuts out the heart of the American dream so that the federal government can River Dance on it until it resembles British comfort food.

  • SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
    1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000
  • 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000
  • 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000

In 2013, the amounts go up from 1% to 2%, and from 1.5% to 3% unless the “excess Federal health reform savings is more than $150,000,000,000 but not more than $175,000,000,000”.  If the “excess Federal health reform savings” is more than $175,000,000,000, then this tax won’t apply.

From what we’ve seen so far, I’m not going to hold my breath on those “savings” happening.  (And we’re only up to page 199.)  Not when section 4 of this Subtitle states, “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax….”

DIVISION B—MEDICARE AND MEDICAID IMPROVEMENTS has a 7-page table of contents.  Suffice it to say that is bodes ill for those who use the systems.  Skimming through it find that home infusion therapy will be reassessed, as will the effectiveness of “bone mass measurements”.  Hospitals with high readmission rates will see their Medicare payments reduced, and hospitals will be “monitored” to insure they aren’t turning people away.  The bill will control a hospital’s growth (number of beds, procedure or operating rooms, etc.)  but research will be conducted and a “demonstration program” deployed to find out “the extent to which Medicare service providers utilize, offer, or make available language services” so that “on-site interpreters, including interpreters who work as independent contractors and interpreters who work for agencies that provide on-site interpretation…could directly bill Medicare”.

And how about seeing if  “contracting directly with agencies that provide off-site interpretation including telephonic and video interpretation” so they, too, could directly bill Medicare?  Including “languages not frequently encountered in the United States”.  The participants providing language services in the “demonstration program” can use up to 10% of the “grant money” for their “administrative expenses”.

Maybe it’s just me, but it’s a little disconcerting to read that these “demonstration program” grantees “must ensure that their network providers receive at least 50 percent of the grant funds to pay for the provision of competent language services to Medicare beneficiaries who are limited English proficient, including physicians and pharmacies.”  Does anyone else wonder how a United States-licensed doctor or pharmacist functions without being proficient in English?  The bill itself defines “limited English proficient” as “an individual who speaks a primary language other than English and who cannot speak, read, write or understand the English language at a level that permits the individual to effectively communicate with clinical or nonclinical staff at an entity providing health care or health care related services.”

There are lots more outlays included as well (explaining in part why what doctors do is called “practice”?).

I’d say here’s the kicker in the Medicare portion of the bill, but that sounds almost cruel.  Section 1233 ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION actually spells out a 5-year doctor-patient talk that must include:

  • An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
  • An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
  • An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
  • The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
  • An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—

  • the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes
  • the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
  • the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy)

An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently…if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

…the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate.  Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

And to top it off, they’ll update the “MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK” so it contains information about:

  • Living wills
  • Durable power of attorney
  • Orders of life-sustaining treatment
  • Health care proxies
  • A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including—
    • Available State legal service
    • Organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning
    • Wbsite links or addresses for state-specific advance directive forms
    • Any additional information, as determined by the Secretary

I don’t know about you, but as insane as this whole bill reads, this is among the worst of it.  The government has no business mandating that my doctor to stick his or her nose into my personal life nor mandating how someone manages their personal affairs or how they want their life to end.

Now let’s run through some more of the laundry list of federal expenditures:

SEC. 1301. ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION PILOT PROGRAM

SEC. 1302. MEDICAL HOME PILOT PROGRAM

SEC. 1304. INCREASED REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR CERTIFIED NURSE-MIDWIVES

SEC. 1305. COVERAGE AND WAIVER OF COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES

SEC. 1306. WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE FOR COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING TESTS REGARDLESS OF CODING, SUBSEQUENT DIAGNOSIS, OR ANCILLARY TISSUE REMOVAL

SEC. 1308. COVERAGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES (80% covered)

Under TITLE IV:

SEC. 1181. (a) CENTER FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH ESTABLISHED
COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH TRUST FUND; FINANCING FOR THE TRUST FUND.—For provision establishing a Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund and financing such Trust Fund, see section 1802.

Subtitle B—Nursing Home Transparency
PART 1—IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION ON SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES AND NURSING FACILITIES
SEC. 1411. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP AND ADDITIONAL DISCLOSABLE PARTIES INFORMATION.

In a nutshell, if you own, operate, serve on the board of, provide services to, or simply work in any kind of managerial position for a nursing home, the government wants your name made available to the general public.  (The better for ACORN to march outside your home, my dear.)

The government is also going to supervise nursing home operations with an even bigger magnifying glass than it does today, down to the level of requiring reporting of even the staff’s qualifications, the hours they work, and their tenure, and there are civil fines waiting for those who fail to comply.  The feds even mandate how states can impose fines.  All of which results in yet another “pilot program”:  SEC. 1422. NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MONITOR PILOT PROGRAM

Let’s not forget government training:  SECTION 1431. DEMENTIA AND ABUSE PREVENTION TRAINING.  But then we have to figure out just what should be required:  SEC. 1432. STUDY AND REPORT ON TRAINING REQUIRED FOR CERTIFIED NURSE AIDES AND SUPERVISORY STAFF.

And, of course, “The Secretary shall establish and periodically update, not less frequently than triennially, national priorities for performance improvement.”  To the tune of $2 million each year.

We’ll spend $5 million a year for SECTION 1192. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW QUALITY MEASURES, which is intended to be done with a broad cross-section of “stakeholders” and includes the word “transparency” and states that public input will be allowed, too.  Kinda like recovery.gov and allowing 5 days for public viewing of bills, I suppose?

Subtitle D—Physician Payments Sunshine Provision makes into law similar ethical constraints under which the private sector normally operates and puts it all out for public viewing.  (SECTION 1451. REPORTS ON FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF COVERED DRUGS, DEVICES, BIOLOGICALS, OR MEDICAL SUPPLIES UNDER MEDICARE, MEDICAID, OR CHIP AND PHYSICIANS AND OTHER HEALTH CARE ENTITIES AND BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND OTHER HEALTH CARE ENTITIES.)

TITLE V—MEDICARE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION, SEC. 1501. DISTRIBUTION OF UNUSED RESIDENCY POSITIONS is where the government will allocate how many residents a hospital may have.

The Secretary shall give preference to:

  • Hospitals with 3-year primary care residency training programs, such as family practice and general internal medicine
  • Hospitals insofar as they have in effect formal arrangements (as determined by the Secretary) that place greater emphasis upon training in Federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and other nonprovider settings
  • Hospitals that receive additional payments under subsection (d)(5)(F) and emphasize training in an outpatient department
  • Hospitals that place greater emphasis upon training in a health professional shortage area (designated under section 332 of the Public Health Service Act) or a health professional needs area (designated under section 2211 of such Act)

And, of course, we’ll pay for these “preferred” hospitals to have residents on staff, too.

“The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct a demonstration project under which an approved teaching health center…would be eligible for payment …for its own direct costs of graduate medical education activities for primary care residents, as well as for the direct costs of graduate medical education activities of its contracting hospital for such residents, in a manner similar to the manner in which such payments would be made to a hospital if the hospital were to operate such a program.”

Oxymoron alert! “TITLE VI—PROGRAM INTEGRITY Subtitle A—Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse”.  (There are also increased penalities, and even unannounced “surprise” on-site visits.)

Section 1636 reduces the maximum amount of time allowed to file Medicare claims from 36 down to 12 months.  “Narrowing the window for claims processing will not overburden providers and will reduce fraud and abuse.”  If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale….

Section 1639 says you can forget ordering that motorized scooter from the companies that advertise them on tv.  Your doctor must provide proof of a face-to-face visit with you first or else Medicare won’t pay for it.

Now if I’m reading it correctly, state’s rights to control how they administer Medicaid are eliminated.  SECTION 1702, REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS removes the state’s ability to determine eligibility for Medicaid, and must accept anyone the government decides is to be covered.  And buried in SECTION 1703. CHIP AND MEDICAID MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT, “a State is not eligible for payment…for a calendar quarter …if eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures under its plan…that are more restrictive than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures, respectively, under such plan…as in effect on June 16, 2009.”  And, “a State is not eligible for payment…for a calendar quarter…if the State applies any asset or resource test in determining (or redetermining) eligibility of any individual.”

Section 1704 outlines the elimination of Medicaid DSH.

Section 1712 allows coverage for tobacco cessation outpatient drugs.

Section 1741 PAYMENTS TO PHARMACISTS includes drug pricing that is determined, in part, by providing “opportunity for public comment”.  Not that some drugs do seem to be priced solely as a get-rich scheme, but I fail to understand how forcing a business to charge a certain price for something will do anything except stifle innovation in the private sector.  Which is, actually, a prime directive of the Obama administration.  But I digress.

Section 1744 describes how we’ll all pay for doctors to go to school; states will be reimbursed by the government for “graduate medical education”.

Section 1801 is where the bill describes how your federal tax return will be used to determine whether or not you’re eligible for a low-income prescription drug subsidy.

Section 4375 is where you’ll find the tax they are calling a “fee equal to the fair share per capita amount” that will be levied on all private sector health insurance plans (even auto insurance plans will be taxed if they contain any kind of medical coverage).  It takes great pains, however, to exempt government plans, of course.

If it isn’t clear to you already, the final sections of the bill are chock-full of spending on what is nothing short of a government takeover of the  field of human medicine in the United States, including a handover of states’ sovereignty:

DIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
TITLE I—COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS
Sec. 2101. Increased funding
TITLE II—WORKFORCE
Subtitle A—Primary Care Workforce
PART 1—NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS
Sec. 2201. National Health Service Corps
Sec. 2202. Authorizations of appropriations
PART 2—PROMOTION OF PRIMARY CARE AND DENTISTRY
Sec. 2211. Frontline health providers
SUBPART XI—HEALTH PROFESSIONAL NEEDS AREAS
Sec. 340H. In general
Sec. 340I. Loan repayments
Sec. 340J. Report
Sec. 340K. Allocation
Sec. 2212. Primary care student loan funds
Sec. 2213. Training in family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, geriatrics, and physician assistantship.   Preference given to individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.
Sec. 2214. Training of medical residents in community-based settings.  Preference give to individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds; or individuals who practice in settings having the principal focus of serving underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities.
Sec. 2215. Training for general, pediatric, and public health dentists and dental hygienists.  Preference given to individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds; practice settings having the principal focus of serving in underserved areas or populations experiencing health disparities; teaching programs that address the dental needs of vulnerable populations.
Sec. 2216. Authorization of appropriations
Subtitle B—Nursing Workforce
ADVANCED EDUCATION NURSING GRANTS…to train advanced education nurses who will practice in health professional shortage areas (and) to increase diversity among advanced education nurses.
Sec. 2221. Amendments to Public Health Service Act
Subtitle C—Public Health Workforce
Sec. 2231. Public Health Workforce Corps
SUBPART XII—PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE
Sec. 340L. Public Health Workforce Corps
Ensures an adequate supply of public health professionals throughout the Nation. The Corps shall consist of such officers of the Regular and Reserve Corps of the Service as the Secretary may designate; and such civilian employees of the United States as the Secretary may appoint.
Sec. 340M. Public Health Workforce Scholarship Program
Sec. 340N. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program
Sec. 2232. Enhancing the public health workforce
Sec. 2233. Public health training centers
Sec. 2234. Preventive medicine and public health training grant program
Sec. 2235. Authorization of appropriations
Subtitle D—Adapting Workforce to Evolving Health System Needs
PART 1—HEALTH PROFESSIONS TRAINING FOR DIVERSITY
Sec. 2241. Scholarships for disadvantaged students, loan repayments and fellowships regarding faculty positions, and educational assistance in the health professions regarding individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Sec. 2242. Nursing workforce diversity grants.
Sec. 2243. Coordination of diversity and cultural competency programs.
PART 2—INTERDISCIPLINARY TRAINING PROGRAMS
Sec. 2251. Cultural and linguistic competency training for health care professionals, including nurse professionals, consisting of awarding grants and contracts to test, develop, evaluate and implement models of cultural and linguistic competency training (including continuing education) for health professionals.  Preference given (in part) to “entities” placing health professionals in regions experiencing significant changes in the cultural and linguistic demographics of populations, including communities along the United States-Mexico border.
Sec. 2252. Innovations in interdisciplinary care training.
Awards and grants to test, develop, evaluate, then implement health professional training programs (including continuing education) designed to promote the delivery of health services through interdisciplinary and team-based models, which may include patient-centered medical home models, medication therapy management models, and models integrating physical, mental, or oral health services; and coordination of the delivery of health care within and across settings, including health care institutions, community-based settings, and the patient’s home.

PART 3—ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH WORKFORCE EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT
This is a permanent advisory committee, 15 members appointed by the Secretary, to be known as the Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment, providing recommendations on the supply, diversity, and geographic distribution of the health workforce; the retention of the health workforce to ensure quality and adequacy of such workforce; and policies to carry out the recommendations.  These are to include health professionals within the health workforce; health care patients and consumers; employers; labor unions; and third-party health payors.
Sec. 2261. Health workforce evaluation and assessment.
PART 4—HEALTH WORKFORCE ASSESSMENT
Sec. 2271. Health workforce assessment.
Collect data about the supply (including retention) of and demand for health professionals; the diversity of health professionals (including with respect to race, ethnic background, and gender); the geographic distribution of health professionals; and data on individuals participating in the programs authorized by subtitles A, B, 14 and C and part 1 of subtitle D of title II of division 15 C of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 16 2009
PART 5—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 2281. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III—PREVENTION AND WELLNESS
Sec. 2301. Prevention and wellness.
TITLE XXXI—PREVENTION AND WELLNESS
Subtitle A—Prevention and Wellness Trust
Sec. 3111. Prevention and Wellness Trust
Subtitle B—National Prevention and Wellness Strategy
Sec. 3121. National Prevention and Wellness Strategy
This is for our own good.  To improve our health “through evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities (in this section referred to as ‘prevention and wellness activities’), including core public health infrastructure improvement activities; identification of specific national goals and objectives in prevention and wellness activities that take into account appropriate public health measures and standards, including departmental measures and standards (including Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards).
Establishment of national priorities for prevention and wellness, taking into account unmet prevention and wellness needs.
Establishment of national priorities for research on prevention and wellness, taking into account unanswered research questions on prevention and wellness.
Identification of health disparities in prevention and wellness.
A plan for addressing and implementing them.
Subtitle C—Prevention Task Forces
Sec. 3131. Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services
This is a group of 30 members, all appointed by the Secretary to identify clinical preventive services for review;  review the scientific evidence related to the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of them for the purpose of developing, updating,publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of such services; then as appropriate, take into account health disparities in developing, updating, publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of such services;  identify gaps in clinical preventive services research and evaluation and recommend priority areas for such research and evaluation.
Sec. 3132. Task Force on Community Preventive Services.
Subtitle D—Prevention and Wellness Research
Sec. 3141. Prevention and wellness research activity coordination
Sec. 3142. Community prevention and wellness research grants
Subtitle E—Delivery of Community Prevention and Wellness Services
Sec. 3151. Community prevention and wellness services grants
Subtitle F—Core Public Health Infrastructure
Sec. 3161. Core public health infrastructure for State, local, and tribal health departments.
Sec. 3162. Core public health infrastructure and activities for CDC
Subtitle G—General Provisions
Sec. 3171. Definitions.
TITLE IV—QUALITY AND SURVEILLANCE
Sec. 2401. Implementation of best practices in the delivery of health care
Sec. 2402. Assistant Secretary for Health Information
Sec. 2403. Authorization of appropriations
TITLE V—OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Drug Discount for Rural and Other Hospitals
Sec. 2501. Expanded participation in 340B program
Sec. 2502. Extension of discounts to inpatient drugs
Sec. 2503. Effective date
Subtitle B—School-Based Health Clinics
Sec. 2511. School-based health clinics
Subtitle C—National Medical Device Registry
Sec. 2521. National medical device registry
Subtitle D—Grants for Comprehensive Programs To Provide Education to Nurses and Create a Pipeline to Nursing
Enormous and far-flung; includes employer-match for tuition and paid leave time from a job to go to school
Sec. 2531. Establishment of grant program
Subtitle E—States Failing To Adhere to Certain Employment Obligations
Sec. 2541. Limitation on Federal funds
Federal funds are available “only if the State agrees to be subject in its capacity as an employer to each obligation under division A of this Act and the amendments made by such division applicable to persons in their capacity as an employer; and assures that all political subdivisions in the State will do the same.”

Welcome to the end of 1,017 pages.  Is your head spinning?  Does your head hurt?  Mine sure did.  But through the pain, one thing is crystal clear:   this is NOT what America needs to help make sure that those who need medical care can receive it in a way that is affordable.

Only the gods know how this version will end up, if it ever makes it out of all the committees.  But the cost estimates for this bill show a 10-year “net increase in the deficit of an estimated $65 billion.”  The Congressional Budget Office also caveats that “…the figures do not include certain costs that the government would incur to administer the proposed changes and the impact of the bill’s provisions on other federal programs, and they do not reflect any modifications or amendments made after the bill was introduced.”

The Republican Ways & Means Committee staff put together a spiffy graph that demonstrates this, and projects the numbers beyond the 10 years forecasted by the CBO:

deficitgraph_gop_healthcare

And so the Congressional Budget Office is shaking its head at it all.

“We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the Senate Budget Committee. “On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs,” he added.

Of course, Pelosi and Reid were quick to poo-poo them, trotting out the empty old, sad (and unmeasurable) sack of “better health care decreases health care costs”.

In his appearance, Mr. Elmendorf suggested lawmakers could take steps to control costs. Among other things, he said Congress could reduce the tax subsidy that critics say encourages employers to offer large health-insurance policies. That idea was being considered by members of the Senate Finance Committee, but dropped after Senate Democratic leaders — including Mr. Reid — voiced concern. The proposal has been sharply opposed by labor unions, among other groups, that have big tax-advantaged plans.

On Thursday, Mr. Reid expressed disdain when asked by reporters about Mr. Elmendorf’s suggestion. “What he should do is maybe run for Congress,” the Nevada Democrat said.

That’s an excellent idea, Harry.  How about we start by replacing YOU?  And replacing every other wanker in Washington who thinks that this is a road down which America should be driven.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: * Featured Posts *, Eroding Freedoms Tagged With: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, health care reform, HR 3200, Obamacare, socialized medicine

Waxman Reacting Badly To Blue-Dogs Bite

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Right now, besides the Republicans, the only thing standing between you and the federal government deciding on whether or not you get health care, and if you get some, just what kind of care that will be, are the “blue dog Democrats” in the House.  Their holding out firmly against their party-brethren’s dreams of taxpayer-funded abortions and other such monstrosities is causing Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman to have a hissy fit.

Breitbart.com is reporting that Waxman:

…told The Associated Press negotiations with fiscally conservative Democrats on his panel cannot go on “interminably” because they would “empower” Republicans and allow the minority party to take control of the panel.

(And) if he can’t reach agreement with the conservatives, the health care bill would go straight to the floor, and not through his committee.

The radical move would mean Waxman would finish writing the bill in private and merge it with the two bills that have already passed out of the committee in the chamber before bringing it to the floor.  And today, Pelosi met with the liberal (read:  entitlement-mentality) Congressional Black Caucus, which implored the speaker not to cave in to the Blue Dog demands.

Besides contacting your own House and Senate representatives, now is the time to take a few minutes to contact the Blue Dogs and encourage them to “KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE!”

Contact the Blue Dogs:  Kristen Hawn,  Communications Director  ( BlueDog@mail.house.gov )

Blue Dog Leadership Team

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip

Blue Dog Members

Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Bright, Bobby (AL-02)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Christopher (PA-10)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Griffith, Parker (AL-05)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN-09)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Marshall, Jim (GA-03)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Space, Zack (OH-18)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)

 

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Hypocritical Politicians Tagged With: blue dog Democrats, health care reform, Henry Waxman

Michigan Demonstrates “Green Liberals & Math”

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

President Obama’s 15.2%-unemployment-rate-Michigan buddy-pal, Governor Jennifer Granholm, recently passed legislation to put 20% of the state’s electric grid onto renewable power by 2020 (please note for the record that a similar program in Denmark has nearly tripled power rates to 30 cents per kWh compared with Michigan’s current 8.5 cents).  Next on her agenda was to bless a 2010 ballot proposal that would require state utilities to reduce their rates by 20%. 

Let’s do some green math.

A 20% increase in the cost to utility companies who create the power we use in our homes and businesses every day is going to be countered with a 20% rate decrease in payments from their customers.  To use a very simple example, that’s like taking something that costs you $10 to produce today and increasing the cost to produce it to $12, then turning around and charging only $8 for it.  By my calculations, you’d be taking a 44% loss on every item.

A fine way to run a business, don’t you think?

But wait!  There’s more!

The Michigan Democratic Party has also announced they want input from “online Democratic activists” to help them decide what to pursue next:

  • Mandating all employers to provide affordable health care for their employees and dependents or pay a penalty.
  • Raising the minimum wage from $7.40/hour to $10/hour and covering all workers with no exceptions.
  • Increasing unemployment benefits by $100/week, making all workers eligible and adding six months to the time one can receive benefits.
  • Imposing a one-year moratorium on home foreclosures.

According to Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer:

 “While the greedy corporate CEO’s of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Detroit Regional Chamber, and Detroit Renaissance are worried only about their selfish interests, the Michigan Democratic Party is focused on helping all the people of Michigan get through these tough economic times.”

“The corporate special interests are using these tough times to advance the same tired old agenda – cut jobs, wages, and benefits; reduce services; and shift taxes onto the middle class and the poor,” observed Brewer. “These proposals put people first and will help millions of Michigan citizens.”

Ummm…aren’t those corporate CEO’s of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Detroit Regional Chamber, and Detroit Renaissance the people who actually  work and give jobs to people in Michigan?

I know it’s been a cooler-than-average summer in Michigan, but apparently it’s cold enough to keep those Dove Bars from melting, too.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Stoopid People Tagged With: 2010 ballot proposals, Jennifer Granholm, Michigan, Michigan Democratic Party

The Worm Squirms

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

With his popularity dropping inversely to the damage he is inflicting on the American people, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is starting to sense the anger building up and, seeing his future reelection prospects slipping away, is now attempting to cover his sorry butt with an “Oops!”

Yesterday he filed amendments to 6 years of financial disclosure reports, airing his vested interests in the 400% profits made on a multi-million dollar property sale of a limited liability corporation of which he was a part. 

Please note that this failure to disclose his splendid results of following the American dream of a free market, capitalist-minded, wealth-building action plan took place while he and his fellow Democrats were bashing the Bush administration.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Hypocritical Politicians Tagged With: Democrat hypocrisy, financial disclosure, Harry Reid

So Just Who Approved This One?

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

NPR broke the story that a son of Osama bin Laden may have been killed in a late springtime U.S. airstrike in Pakistan.  U.S. officials tell FOX News that Saad bin Laden, who is not considered a significant player in Al Qaeda leadership, was “collateral” damage in an airstrike in Pakistan and was not considered important enough to target on his own.

But as Mona Charen points out at The Corner: 

The Obama administration is carrying out a secret policy of targeted assassinations. They are going after al-Qaeda suspects. Was Congress thoroughly briefed on the details of this hit — time, date, plan of attack? — before the drones were deployed? This is an obvious violation of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 2008 Democratic party platform.

We need hearings and a special prosecutor.

Or does Nancy Pelosi just need to buy more Dove Bars?

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Hypocritical Politicians Tagged With: Al Qaeda, incompetent Obama administration, Nancy Pelosi, obama hypocrisy, Osama bin Laden

Hand It Over, Nancy

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

A chart showing one interpretation of the House’s health care reform legislation contained in the official record of the House Ways and Means Committee can’t be sent out to Americans.

Why?

Because the Franking Commission, who decides what mailings Congress pays for, said it isn’t acceptable.

Why?

Ya think that maybe – just maybe – it might be because the chart was put together by Republicans?

Dan Lungren (R-CA) said, “I’ve been told it was above the Franking Commission and our committee. This is not accidental.”

You can bet your last Dove Bar it’s not.

Let’s not forget here that members of the House (and the Franking Commission) are paid employees of the American people and we have every right to know what they are doing.  We, the people, also provide them the funding to mail us information.

The chart is ours.  We own it.

Hand it over, Nancy.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Hypocritical Politicians Tagged With: health care reform, health care reform chart, Nancy Pelosi

Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Remain On The Democrats’ Health Care Agenda

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Despite the groundswell of voices adamantly against using taxpayer money to fund abortions, the House still hasn’t included a specific provision in their version of socialized medicine that would be necessary to exclude it.  And if the rat-pack progressives have their way, it won’t be:

On Thursday, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., acknowledged that after the bill is passed, it’s likely an advisory panel then will decide exactly what benefits will be included.

“I have been a proponent of low-income women being able to access funds for services and my hope is that we move in that direction,” she said. “I know that others are opposed to that. That’s why there hasn’t been any language put into the bill. It will be when the bill is passed and when we take a look at what benefit levels are.”

Personally, I don’t know of a single bill that has come out of Congress during my lifetime (at least) or any government program that has gotten any better after it’s been passed unless it’s been outright repealed.  This issue will be no different.

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Truth In Reporting Tagged With: health care reform, Rosa Delauro, taxpayer-funded abortion

Still Think It’s All About “Pollution”?

July 24, 2009 By Joan of Snark

0
SHARES
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Joanne Nova does the math and provides its empirical evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for some time now.  The science of gobal warming is a myth designed solely as a means for a few to gain power and control through the creation of a new kind of commodity, sold to the dim-witted using the psychology of fear.

She sums it up like this:

  • The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
  • Despite the billions:  “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
  • Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
  • Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

She then poses the question:

  • The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

We’ve pointed out here that “researchers” at the IPCC are contracted to and paid for by governments with vested interests in dreams of wealth and political power from cap & trade.  Governments who are egged on, and the politicians within them financially supported, by people like Al Gore and by companies like General Electric, who’ve already invested heavily in and positioned themselves with, in particular, the United States government in order to monopolize what they see as potential of a new world market.

If this were simply capitalism, I’d be all for it.  But like the empirical science that says global warming is an inconvenient myth, the empirical math once again proves the insanity of trying to fix what was never broken in the first place.

 

Share this:

  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Filed Under: Truth In Reporting Tagged With: cap and trade, global warming, Joanne Nova

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • …
  • 56
  • Next Page »

The 411 On Smoke Break

sb-top-hdr We simply count ourselves among the willing, led by the unknowing, who are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.  Having done so much for so long with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.  Hence, this site.

Follow Us On Twitter

twitter

Topics

  • * Featured Posts * (17)
  • Do Something! (17)
  • Eroding Freedoms (91)
  • Hypocritical Politicians (163)
  • Stoopid People (68)
  • Truth In Reporting (233)
  • Uncategorized (1)

Archives By Month

Easy-Peasy Activism

"Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

Get your Conservative point across without saying a word. Pithy apparel and merchandise now available at our online store.

Copyright © 2026 · Metro Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in