Posts Tagged ‘Health Care Bill’

Health Care Tiger Team Meeting Notes 10-3-09

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

MINUTES OF HCTT MEETING 10/3/2009

Attendees:

Harry Sims

Stan Thompson

Margaret Zucco

Laura Mullaney

Franklin Sullivan

Nita and Jon Kaplan

Cynthia Konicek

Sharon Hall

Gloria Johnson

Deputy Team leader, Jon Kaplan, opened the meeting with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.  Jon welcomed new HCTT member, Gloria Johnson, who came to us from the 2nd Amendment Tiger Team.  Gloria is a Physician Assistant who brings much to the table of the team’s understanding of health care in the trenches.  Jon recapped the Four Prong Strategy that the team adopted at its previous meeting.

1. Congress

2.  State

3.  Judiciary

4.  Private Sector


1.  Congress

Jon  reported  on Steve Baysinger and Jon’s meeting with Shannon Cantrell, District Manager for Congressman Lamar Smith and Jonathan Huhn, aid to Senator John Cornyn.  He shared that he and Steve made clear that the SATP saw them as allies in the Health Care debate in Congress and hoped that they saw the SATP as an ally.  Jon and Steve asked how the SATP could help them.  The aids said that until the bills were more solidified, they did not know specifically.  We also asked them if they had sources of Constitutional law input to ascertain where the bills could be vulnerable Constitutionally.  They said that they may have a source that gave them input in DC and that if the SATP were to present a letter to them asking for direct contact with that source, they might provide us with access to it.  In the same breath, however, they said that they saw no Constitutional challenge until and unless a health care bill became law.  We all observed that both the Tea Party movement and they were in the minority at this point in the effort to slow or defeat existing bills under consideration.  The main accomplishment of this meeting was to open the door for further coordination as we all go forward.  They seemed to appreciate that open door.

2.  State

Jon reported in behalf of Hope D’Amore her meeting with Doug Miller, Texas Representative for Comal County, who is also an insurance broker, which fell into three categories – State Sovereignty, Texas Politics, and Healthcare.  See Attachment 1 for a summary.  Hope also has a meeting scheduled for Tuesday of this week with State Representative Frank Corte.  She has a positive email response from Constitutional Scholar, Richard Epstein, who will contact her soon for a discussion.  Hope is working on contact with San Antonio Constitutional lawyers, Allen Parker, and Clayton Trotter, of the Justice Foundation.  Allen has spoken before the SATP and at the Alamo and may offer a local source of input.  Jon reported that he had spoken to Mike Ariens, a Constitution Law Professor at St. Mary’s Law School, who offered insight into the Supreme Court’s historical position on Tenth Amendment issues. Ariens said that since the 1940’s the Supreme Court has broadened the federal government’s authority in its interpretation of the Constitution.  One would therefore need new and persuasive arguments to pursue challenges from states based on 10th Amendment rights.  There was discussion in the HCTT about proactive State pushback against federal intrusion into state’s rights, eg.  getting the Governor to declare that Texas was going to relieve the federal government of the burden of administering Medicare and collect that portion of Social Security withholding allocable to Medicare, ie. play offense, rather than defense.  Hope will follow up and report back to the HCTT on options.

3.  Judiciary

Jon shared the idea of “using the law to enforce the law”, eg.  trying to get a judge to issue a ruling that directly challenged or enjoined the federal government from creating an unfunded mandate to the states.  This dovetails with the need for good Constitutional law input to know if this can be done.  The general rule is that federal law, if Constitutional, trumps state law, but either by going to court or by governors acting de facto and throwing down the gauntlet to the federal government to try to enforce what they may assert as their authority is worth considering.  Jon shared that Mike Ariens said that the Supreme court has upheld the authority of the federal government to regulate health insurance, but has delegated that authority to the states.  As the Tea Party movement connects within Texas and eventually the nation, the fundraising resources to retain legal services for advice and action will be more supportable.  SATP cannot finance this type of effort on its own.

4.  Private Sector

Jon, Harry Sims and Laura Mullaney reported on efforts to first understand and second to make allies of the health related private sector, including the AMA, TMA, Bexar County Medical Society, doctors, hospital associations, and others.  Laura and Jon attended the Bexar County Medical Society’s meeting where AMA(and former TMA) President, Dr. James Rohack, a cardiologist and a Texan spoke.  Dr. Rohack says that the AMA has been characterized as supporting OBAMACARE and the public option.  He backed off from that absolute characterization by saying that the AMA did not endorse HR 3200, but simply wanted to be a player at the negotiating table over how health care reform was ultimately done.  He did a Power point presentation on the increased cost of Medicare by 2017 when more of the baby boomer generation reaches Medicare age.  He said that if reform is not accomplished enough in advance of that point, Medicare will go broke.  He said that he is concerned that Medicare reimbursements are not reduced as a cost saving measure by any of the bills.  He said AMA was for tort reform which benefits doctors.  He said that AMA was for mechanized medical records systems and alluded to $44 million that was allocated in the TARP for this purpose.  He referred to the concept of an “accountable care organization” that would presumably decide what medical and diagnostic procedures were acceptable and what weren’t.  He said that without tort reform to protect the doctors, this would both violate anti trust laws and place doctors in greater exposure to medical liability.  He addressed the impact of illegal immigration in only the most cursory way by saying that illegals could buy insurance if it was affordable.  He said the AMA was for Health Savings Accounts owned by the individual and for preventive care.  He said AMA was for lowering health care administrative costs, but did not get specific on how this should be done.  He referred to the Declaration of Independence(versus the Constitution) giving the citizenry ”the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.  I believe he was making the case for health care being a right, rather than a privilege.  Dr. Rohack will be back in San Antonio for a presentation at the Health Science Center on 10/19/09 from 5-6PM.  Perhaps we might piggyback a private visit with him.

Other topics discussed were as follows

1. Tiger Teams Leader/co leader meetings planned once per month to coordinate.

2. “NO SOCIALISM” signs.

3. Terrell Hills neighborhood meeting, which Jon and Nita attended, showing (T. R. Reed of Washington Post)PBS video of “Sick Around the World” in which the socialized healthcare systems of Japan, Taiwan, England, Germany, and Switzerland were compared to the American system.  It was actually informative and something the HCTT might want to view at some point.  All of the systems have cost containment problems.

4. Sharon Hall explained the workings of the Texas Board of Insurance.

5. Dr. Stan Thompson and Gloria Johnson will work on finding out where the waste and fraud in Medicare is and how it can be eliminated.  As of the date of these minutes being written, there was an item presented on Fox news that addressed a wheel chair that can be bought on the open market for $1800, which Medicare reimburses for $4600.  The federal procurement program needs to be looked at.  Gloria also reported on medical procedures that are not allowed to be reimbursed doubly for two in the same day, even though it would be efficient to do so for the patient.  Therefore, providers make the patient return later for a separate appointment, so they can get reimbursed by insurance, ie. we reward inefficiency.

6. Texas Tea Party leaders will meet with SATP leaders in San Antonio later this month to coordinate our efforts.

7. We all need to recruit new members.  (At the SATP General Meeting on Sunday, 10/4/09, we met Davis Jackson, who will join our Tiger Team).  Welcome, Davis.  If anyone knows lawyers, Constitutional and otherwise, who have an interest in our movement, please recruit them for the HCTT.

8. I have attached a wikipedia list of health insurers in Texas and Blue Cross’s FAQ for your review.  Harry Sims and Laura Mullaney will be working to make contact with them so that we may get an opportunity for Q & A.


A closing prayer was said and the meeting adjourned.  Next meeting will be at Eyes Of San Antonio (thank you Stan and Joyce) from 2-5PM on Saturday, 10/10/09.

Blue_Cross_FAQ_on_Health_Care_reform_Oct-05-2009.pdf

PBS-Video-Sick-Around-the-World-Oct-05-2009.pdf

Texas-Health-Insurers-Oct-05-2009.pdf

Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare

by Brian Darling

Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

President Obama and liberals in Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.

The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.

The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.

The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:

Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.

During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”

Step 2:  Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.

Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.

Step 3:  Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont).  These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.


‘Death Panel’ Is Not In The Bill…It Already Exists

Saturday, August 22nd, 2009

From the American Thinker – August 22nd 2009 by Joseph Ashby

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a “death panel” provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check’ article rebutting Palin’s claim.

AP argues that the bill’s end-of-life counseling provision has been mistaken as a promotion of euthanasia and thus the death panel assertion by Palin and many other conservatives is false and misleading.
The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. Jim Rutenburg and Jackie Calmes assert the following:
There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.
The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel.  The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.
What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.
H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council’s purpose.
Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept “hopeless diagnoses.”
McCaughey goes on to explain:
Daschle says health-care reform ”will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel’s views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion’s share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel’s views on saving money on medical care are simple: don’t provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.
Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama’s Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government’s role in controlling medical care.
How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as “quality-adjusted life years.” Meaning, the government decides whether a person’s life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual’s duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.
Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person’s spirit and “that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that…this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”
Maybe we should ask the Associated Press and New York Times if they still think we shouldn’t be concerned about a federal “death panel.”

Obama Says Socialized Health Care Opponents Are Sinning

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Bearing false witness is a sin according to the Bible. So Obama is saying that opponents of his socialized health care bill are bearing false witness.

MoveOn At It Again

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

MoveOn.org is at it again.   They are urging their members to call their senators and asking them to support Obamacare.   WE need to counter this and call our senators and let OUR opinions be known as well.  They track the calls they get so do not let up.  Both of our senators oppose the health care bill but they still need to hear from us.

This is from an email that Moveon  is sending out to their members.  (the highlighting is mine)

Have you read the stories this week declaring the public health insurance option dead? Well, it’s not.

The public option has the support of 83% of the American people,1 (Take a look at this carefully.  It’s from JUNE 15th!!!  Only 43% now support it Click here for poll) and enough progressives in the House to block any bill without it.2,3 And contrary to what you may have read, the White House has said repeatedly their position hasn’t changed.4,5

But there is real danger in the Senate, where conservatives have stepped up efforts to kill the public option.

Can you call Senators Kay Hutchison and John Cornyn right away? Tell them that you, along with the majority of Americans, strongly support a public health insurance option—it’s the heart of real reform.

Here’s where to call:

Senator Kay Hutchison
District Offices:
Abilene: 325-676-2839
Austin: 512-916-5834
Dallas: 214-361-3500
Harlingen: 956-425-2253
Houston: 713-653-3456
San Antonio: 210-340-2885

Senator John Cornyn
District Offices:
Austin: 512-469-6034
Dallas: 972-239-1310
Harlingen: 956-423-0162
Houston: 713-572-3337
Lubbock: 806-472-7533
San Antonio: 210-224-7485
Tyler: 903-593-0902

1. “New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option,” Blog for Our Future, June 15, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51510&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=2

2. “60 Members of Congress Say ‘No Public Plan, No Conference,’” Firedoglake, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51764&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=3

3. “Weiner says health plan without public option won’t fly,” The Examiner, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51765&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=4

4. “White House Issues Q&A on Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51770&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=5

5. “White House Insists ‘Nothing Has Changed’ on Public Health Insurance Option,” ABC News, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51768&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=6

6. “White House Issues Q&A on Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51770&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=7

7. “Joint health care reform debate remains peaceful in Dallas,” Dallas Morning News, August 18, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51772&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=8

8. “Alternate Plan as Health Option Muddies Debate,” The New York Times, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51773&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=9

9. “Hundreds urge Polis to keep fighting for ‘public option,’” KDVR, August 17, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51771&id=16878-17235110-fdrceox&t=10

Townhall Meeting Update

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

Here is a good report on a meeting held by a Blue Dog:  It came from the Powerline Blog Aug. 4th 2009

Today the Obama White House played a card from the Clinton deck, characterizing the massive resistance expressed at congressional townhall meetings across the country as the work of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Reader Martin Karo attended one such townhall this past Sunday in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, at which Rep. Patrick Murphy was savaged by a crowd of well over a hundred citizens, even openly jeered when he claimed he had read the thousand-page health care bill just as he reads every bill.

How did Karo find out about the townhall? He was the recipient of a robocall the day before, informing him about the meeting and inviting his attendance. Thinking Murphy’s database includes mostly Democrats, he is of the view that anyone who ascribes the crowd’s hostility to the work of the VRCW is delusional. Karo reports:

This past Sunday afternoon I attended a “citizen’s meeting” in the neighboring town (Morrisville) with my alleged Blue Dog Congressman, Patrick Murphy. I think they were expecting 20 or 30 people. More than a hundred showed up, and it’s fair to say Murphy ran into a buzz saw. I would say the “anti” forces outnumbered the “plan-friendly” voters ten to one. The crowd was by and large older; I was one of the younger people there, but I expect the youngest person was Murphy himself. The crowd was orderly (at least at first), respectfully dressed, and as I was to find out, very well informed as to what was going on.

At first, Murphy said he would speak to people individually, in the order they signed up on a sign-in sheet. You would have thought this would make everyone feel special, but it just made the crowd restive and angry. One silver-haired tall thin fellow in a red polo shirt commanded the room’s attention by starting to speak himself, in a loud voice, saying how disappointed he was in the format and the Congressman, that all the people in the room had questions about health care and they deserved to hear what the congressman had to say and the congressman needed to hear what they had to say.

An argument broke out between him and an obviously neurotic middle-aged woman (she had her head bent down most of the time and kept her arms wrapped tightly around herself) who said she did not want to talk about health care and besides the president’s plan was good for “the people”. A number of people retorted immediately, “What people?” “Not me!” “It’s a disaster!”

Murphy then stepped forward and said he would take questions on the health bill. He said he was a veteran (this drew applause) and he wanted what was best for the country. He said he was troubled by several aspects of the plan, but they were working to make it better, so that it would be affordable and would cover all the 47 million uninsured.

He claimed he had just read the bill, and wasn’t too familiar with it. But he then launched into describing aspects of the plan, without talking about what he would change. He had the misfortune to mention the words “single payer” and someone near me bellowed “we shouldn’t even be talking about single payer!”

One man spoke up and said he was retired and had had a quadruple bypass last year and also some stomach surgery, and asked whether he would be alive today under the government plan. Murphy said in a careful lawyerly answer that the man “would receive appropriate medical care” at which point someone retorted “that means you’d be dead!” and someone else called out “how do you know” (clearly to Murphy’s answer).

Murphy said he knows because he’d read the bill. He went on to say “I read every bill I vote on.” At that point jeering commenced, someone barked “that’s not true!” (ok, that was me), and someone else piped up that even Murphy’s office had said he had not read the stimulus bill or else he would not have voted for the bonuses for the executives.

Murphy tried to change the subject by citing statistics and launching into an explanation of how the bill was necessary due to soaring medical costs, at which someone else snorted “and you think the GOVERNMENT could fix that?” and a hefty fellow interjected “let the free market take care of that! We don’t need socialist medicine!”

Murphy responded that he didn’t want to take away anyone’s health care, and his goal was seeking “cost savings” by eliminating “waste and fraud.” He did riff on the evil greedy insurance companies and doctors committing fraud. The crowd seemed unconvinced. I spoke up and said waste and fraud had been government problems since Abraham Lincoln’s day, the government had never been able to eliminate it, and in any event the amount of waste and fraud could not possibly amount to more than five percent of health care’s costs even by the government’s own figures, so how could Murphy claim that better controls would pay for anything?

Murphy reiterated that there was a lot of waste and fraud but they were looking at other revenue enhancements, like taxing “gold plated” plans. I snapped back “the health insurance industry after-tax profits amount to 3 percent of revenue. Why do you keep blaming them?” At which point the neurotic lady started shouting at me that we all were mean and hostile and the congressman was doing a great job and we should just let him help us because that’s what he wanted to do.

Someone at the back of the room called out “this won’t help us! Leave our health care alone!” Murphy asked everyone to cool down and “be respectful, this is America,” and tried to interject that they were not going to take away anyone’s health insurance, but that dog was clearly not hunting.

The inevitable question was asked, whether Murphy would subject his own family to the plan; Murphy equivocated for a while, saying that Congress already had a health plan and the president had said that everyone could keep his or her health care, but when the crowd started murmuring loudly to that Murphy said he would put his family into the government health care plan.

I had had about all the dissembling I could take for one day, so I left. Besides, Murphy looked like he was in plenty enough trouble as it was.

There were four interesting things about the meeting. One, there is obvious interest and hostility stirred up by the plan. The old folks are mad. This isn’t going away. Two, Murphy felt the need to go rather quickly to mention his military service, which brought applause from the crowd. But you know what they say about patriotism and scoundrels.

Three, perhaps most interesting, Murphy never mentioned Obama by name and barely referred to the president at all. Clearly, he knows the big O man is not popular and is trying to sell the plan while not embracing the man. Four, the popular thing would have been to say “this bill is unacceptable as is and I will work hard to change it,” but that’s not what he said. He is indeed trying to sell the plan.

That tells me that Nancy et al. have been twisting arms hard. It doesn’t mean they will succeed – I’m sure Murphy cares deeply about being re-elected, and the afternoon’s meeting could not have made him feel good about his prospects if he continues on this path – but it shows more pressure on the “Blue Dogs” is very necessary.