“Any objective observer looking at this bill would say this is a middle-of-the-road, centrist approach to providing coverage to people and also to reducing cost,” Mr. Obama said. “I am frustrated that Republicans who had an opportunity to help shape this bill declined that opportunity.” – President Obama, on the “Today” show
Important to note that Pres. Obama thinks further codifying Hyde, as well as coddling the minority, is “middle-of-the-road” to today’s Democrats. No one should be surprised.
No legislator would ever condition his or her vote on earmarks. Not ever, right?
The Appropriations Committee deadline for requests was reportedly March 22nd. The rest is up for interpretation. So, Fox News is the only media outfit reporting this? Here’s their report:
The Sunlight Foundation says it plans to track the earmark requests, which were put in one day after health care reform cleared Congress, to see whether they’re approved and whether it appears lawmakers are being rewarded for their vote. [...]
The individual earmarks requests from each of those lawmakers range from $20 million to $1.4 billion. Of the eight lawmakers whose 2010 requests were available for comparison, five requested more money than they did a year ago. Stupak requested $579 million.
Here are the earmark amounts requested by the 11 House Democrats in the 2011 bill:
Rep. Jerry Costello of Illinois.: $1,418.7 million ($256.4 million in 2010)
Rep. Solomon Ortiz of Texas: $618 million ($726.1 million in 2010)
Stupak of Michigan: $578.9 million
Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio: $332.2 million
Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio: $294 million ($305.7 million in 2010)
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania: $236.8 million ($54 million in 2010)
Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota.: $207 million ($226 million in 2010)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana.: $115.4 million ($82.3 million in 2010)
Rep. Charles Wilson of Ohio: $84 million ($62.3 million in 2010)
Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.: $67.1 million
Rep. Joseph Donnelly of Indiana: $19.8 million ($11.65 million in 2010)
There has also been a dust up over the sick children coverage loophole in the health care legislation.
[...] To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear. Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.
William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.” …
Kathleen Sebelius sent AHIP a letter saying the Administration would send out new guidelines so that they could comply by September. However, the reality is very clear, as I’ve talked about before. Having access to health care doesn’t mean the insurance will be affordable, which AHIP’s response hinted in their response. Via the Wall Street Journal:
AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law’s mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.
This is the first hint and salvo on pricing of the expanded coverage. Many more people will have access to health care, but that doesn’t mean they can afford it.
Democrats now have to go out and sell it. You’d think that wouldn’t be necessary after all of this time, but allowing the message to be hijacked last August, with Sarah Palin’s “death panels” the strongest salvo, continues to be costly.
This is one of the problems I’ve also seen in the health care bill. Another is how are doctors going to be forced to participate with the various insurance insurances? Many have dropped participating with so many insurance companies and have become very selective. So you’ll have insurance that you’re paying higher premiums on but no doctors who participate. This is why I wanted the public option. Actually I wanted universal health care (in my dreams; maybe in another lifetime).
There are just way too many people who don’t know the details, JA.
I have not read the entire bill. In fact, I can’t find many (I know 2 people who say they have) who have read it completely.
Concerning “death panels” – wait until people see what will happen now. They don’t know the meaning of “death panels” even though the insurance companies have been involved in this type of practice. The insurance companies can deny coverage on the big ticket items like MRIs, CT scans, and all those other diagnostic tests required for sick people. And they have many ways of doing this.
Access doesn’t mean you can afford it.
ps-To be clear, however, I disagree that there are “death panels” anywhere near this legislation.
Yaaawwwn. How many kids died in Afghanistan today? I understand that the military has great universal health care coverage. If you can survive the IED explosion that is. Peace
I have not read it all by any means but i have read sections. The section on seniors says they are paying primary care docs more and putting money toward the education of primary care docs.
I am hopeful that the medical clinics Saunders got into the bill will help affordable access.
Jane do these docs you are talking about only want to treat wealthy people? Is their problem paperwork and staff needed to deal with insurance companies or reimbursement levels for services? I think maybe docs are also infected with the greed ethic of our country.I know they have to pay off big student loans and have high liability insurance but some are only interested in money.Others I know are very frustrated that they went into to medicine and end up practicing business and office management.
LL – these docs are not treating wealthy people. They actually prefer Medicare because they find it easier to work with. Go figure. Also the government policies are much easier, generally. However, what they hate are the HMO type insurances and those that require pre-authorization for every procedure they order. As you said they did not go into medicine so they can practice business and office management. Most doctors that I know will not accept Medicaid patients, sadly, but if you knew what the reimbursement rates were you’d understand why. Before I retired a few years ago Medicaid paid them $5 for an office visit; $50 for an appendectomy and not much more for removal of a gall bladder. If you have ever worked in the health care field, as I have, you know that the paper work is monstrous. Both my primary care doctor and gyn have sold their practices and are now working for salaries for other practices. They don’t want the headaches of fighting the insurance companies, and all the paper work. They let that up to their employer now.
I’m hoping that the clinics will take Medicaid patients and those who are in Medicaid HMOs. These are the people who have little choice of who they pick for their health care. I would like to see an expansion of the nurse practitioner and physician’s assistant. These health care providers work well when patients have minor medical problems that can be treated by either an NP or PA. They can also prescribe medication. If the problem requires a doctor then the patient is referred immediately to the doctor. I’ve gone to the NP many times for colds, belly aches, etc. It was actually the NP who diagnosed the possibility of my gall bladder problem. She set me up with all the tests I required. I only saw the doctor for the pre-surgical exam.
There is no evidence that the current bill will bring in near the primary care physicians needed. Though I’d argue that’s not it’s goal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/25/eveningnews/main6333475.shtml
Medicaid payments, which reimburse for low-income patients, will be raised about 20 percent depending on the state. But only for 2013 and 2014 – when a surge in Medicaid patients is expected.
A lot of practices lose money every time a Medicaid patient walks through the door.
Marker’s fee for a routine office visit is $80. Medicaid reimburses him about $33. With the new law, he would get $47.
Medicaid gets a substantial lift in the bill, which is one of the main reasons for actually supporting it, especially where lower income women’s reproductive services is concerned.
Medicaid: A Huge Advance for Lower-Income Americans’ Reproductive Health
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2010/03/29/index.html
According to the Congressional Budget Office, a provision expanding eligibility to all Americans with a family income below 133% of the federal poverty level will allow 16 million more Americans to join Medicaid by 2019 than would otherwise be the case. All Medicaid recipients receive the program’s guarantee of family planning services without cost sharing, along with coverage for its comprehensive package of reproductive health services beyond family planning. (The major exception, of course, is abortion; however, this provision effectively would expand abortion coverage in the 17 states that fund abortions for their Medicaid recipients with state dollars.) The legislation, moreover, goes one step further: It allows states to expand Medicaid coverage solely for family planning services to the same income eligibility levels they use for pregnancy-related care, typically around 200% of poverty.
Who’s going to take care of all these new patients? You need doctors who are willing to forgo the big bucks with the lucrative practices and be willing to work for less money and more patients.
Just my opinion – but I’m really not interested in a ‘list’ of earmark dollars going to individual states (which gives the appearance that money is going into the pocket of the politician) – without also including precisely where those monies are going to be applied. THEN I might find fault – but to exaggerate the point – I need to know if that money is going to orphans – or whatever.
This is ‘partial’ fact finding.
Right. It would be good to see how the bribe will be utilized first. You know, so we can judge whether we’re getting our monies worth from it.
pmichael – do you really think you’re going to find out where these earmarks are going? Could be the “bridge to nowhere” for all we know.
“Could be the “bridge to nowhere” for all we know”
Thank you for making my point.
Gawd forbid we have ALL the facts.
Transparency is the primary issue, which is why I linked to the Sunlight Foundation.
Yes, that’s kinda my point, Taylor. For example, Stupak requested a $4 million earmark for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that researches and develops new strains of seeds–including through genetic engineering–to aid U.S. agriculture.
This was bad?
I’m against *any* earmark that is a bribe. No exceptions.
Costello’s request was for support of “Impact Aid” – to support local school districts with concentrations of children who reside on Indian lands, military bases, low-rent housing properties, and other Federal properties, or who have parents in the uniformed services or employed on eligible Federal properties.
I’m sorry, Taylor – by a “bribe” is money put in the pocket of the person asking for the money – by definition. Please look up the word in your dictionary: “money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person”
Always fun talking to ya, though.
I don’t need a frickin’ dictionary, pmichael.
Bribe, quid pro quo, if it was paid in exchange for a vote it’s wrong.
“I don’t need a frickin’ dictionary, pmichael.”
Wow. Okay, Taylor. Guess that says it all.
These ‘political trades’ have existed since 1776, Ma’am.
To define them as “bribes” is to adopt the rhetoric of Fox News. IMO
It was condescending to suggest a dictionary, sir, I called you on it, which shouldn’t come as a shock.
I’m very aware of the history of earmarks.
If you want to label me akin to Fox that’s your choice. I’ve been attacked for all sorts of things, so adding Fox to it doesn’t faze me.
I know this is late – but –
“It was condescending to suggest a dictionary,”
No, it was not. I only suggest other ‘authority’ when I’m under the impression you may doubt my own expertise in the matter. That approach is normally identifiable by the word “please”.