May God bless our country!
Thanks for the thread . . . saving a seat up front for later!
Mark
okay...so Neil Cavuto says the fact that Stupek’s press conference has been cancelled means that Nancy doesn’t need Stupek or his coalition and she HAS THE VOTES.
What say you?
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/news-about-the-congressman-stupak-controversy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2FGretawire+(Blogs+-+Gretawire)&utm_content=Twitter
March 20, 2010 | 10:27 AM ET
News about the Congressman Stupak controversy I just got this note from my FNC colleague John Brandt - it contains the latest on the Stupak/abortion/ federal funding controversy:
A group of pro-choice women just exited the Speaker’s office and said that another vote on the Stupak language is not going to happen.
There are rumblings that his 1100 newser is cancelled as well, but we don’t have that confirmed.
John Brandt
Producer, Fox News Channel
Obama is looking to come to the rescue so we need to keep the pressure on!
Cavuto just said the protests by the tea parties was too little, too late.
Huh?
Besides taking up arms, what else could citizens have done? They have been protesting heavily for months, calling their congressmen, attending town halls, and talking to others.
Cavuto on Fox says votes coming in are FOR this bill. Say it isn’t so...
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/20/the-list-of-amendments-to-house-push-for-obamacare/
The list of amendments to House push for ObamaCareposted at 10:00 am on March 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly \
It’s long and it’s distinguished.
Via the Boss Emeritus, these are the amendments by which members of both parties hope to spin the trajectory of health-care reform in its showdown weekend in the House.
The House Rules Committee has to vote on each of these before sending the bill for a floor vote, which Nancy Pelosi somehow plans to finish by the end of tomorrow.
The Committee has already begun meeting, and we’ll see how many of these make it into the final version of the reconciliation package.
My favorites? I like Barton’s requirement that the federal budget deficit be “eliminated” before this bill can take effect.
Do Democrats love health-care reform so much that they’d be willing to cut spending to get it? Several of them strike the individual mandate, another Barton amendment would strike all new taxes from the bill, and many of the others nibble more at the edges. The deficit one is definitely my favorite.
How many of these actually get adopted? I’m guessing … zero.
Feel free to use this as a scorecard if you’re watching or following Rep. Pete Sessions on Twitter.
Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for
H.R. 4872 – Reconciliation Act of 2010
(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)
Listed in Alphabetical Order
Mar 19, 2010 9:23PM
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #48 Would remove the provision which provides extra funds to Louisiana’s Medicaid program.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #49 Would remove the provision which provides funds for a medical facility in Connecticut.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #50 Would remove the provision that would allow certain hospitals to benefit from Section 508 if it means higher Medicare payments.
Barton (TX) #53 Would prevent this bill from taking effect until the Office of Management and Budget certifies that the federal budget deficit has been eliminated
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #54 Would remove the provision that provides for increased Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in frontier states.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #62 Would require that all individuals under Medicaid have to demonstrate their identity and citizenship.
Barton (TX) #68 Would strike all taxes in the bill.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #70 Would repeal a provision providing Medicare coverage to certain individuals exposed to environmental health hazards.
Barton (TX) #74 Would prevent the bill from taking effect until Medicare and Medicaid are solvent for the next 20 years.
Barton (TX) #76 Would repeal section 6001 of the bill, Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals.
Blackburn (TN) #4 Would require the HHS Secretary to certify that no American will lose access to his or her current health insurance due to the establishment and operation of health plans offered through a state Exchange. This will be an annual certification. Until certification is made, no State is required or penalized for the failure to establish plans in an Exchange.
Blackburn (TN) #5 Would provide that if any provision of this Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or amendments thereto) imposes an unfunded mandate on the States, such provision or amendment shall be null and void and the States shall not be subject to such provision or amendment.
Blackburn (TN) #7 Would provide that nothing in the Act shall preclude an individual from purchasing or maintaining insurance qualifying for Health Savings Account deposits and nothing shall interfere with their ability to continue to make deposits according to the schedule created in the 2006 HSA legislation.
Blackburn (TN) #8 Would provide that if OMB submits a report saying that the costs of title I of the bill and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are 25% or greater than the Federal budget, than the Congress shall consider a joint resolution to repeal such provisions.
Blackburn (TN) #12 Would prohibit exchange plans from being established until the HHS Secretary certifies that the establishment of exchange plans will not cause the cost of the average price of private health insurance premiums to increase.
Blackburn (TN) #13 Would prohibit the Federal government from passing any law that would give it authority to ration health care for the American people.
Broun (GA) #46 Would provide individuals 100% deductibility for all medical expenses; reform EMTALA; provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage; and provide for Association Health Plans. The amendment is the same as H.R.3889.
Broun (GA) #85 Would require any business that is characterized as a minority owned business or small business concern (as defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632) is exempt from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA) #86 Would exempt any business whose gross revenues per year do not exceed $500,000 from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA) #87 Would exempt any business whose gross revenues have declined from the previous fiscal year from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA) #88 Would allow for 100% deductibility of individual medical expenses.
Brown-Waite (FL) #66 Would repeal the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL) #67 Would repeal the sections of the bill that require the IRS to enforce the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL) #81 Would require that all cuts to the Medicare program in this bill be used to ensure the solvency of the Medicare program and not for any other program.
Brown-Waite (FL) #82 Would eliminate any cuts to Medicare in the bill.
Burgess (TX) #18 Would make Members of Congress a mandatory covered population under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid) without consideration of any other asset or qualification test. Family members of Members of Congress are not impacted and remain eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FHEBP).
Burgess (TX) #19 Would require that to have a qualified state plan under the Medicaid program states must pay providers at least 75% of the payment rate paid to a provider under the state employees plan or the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) most chosen by families. For dental & vision services, in the case where such services are covered under a state employee plan, providers must be paid at 75% of the rate paid under the plan. In the case where supplemental dental and vision services are not offered to a state employee providers must be paid at a rate of 75 % of the rate paid by the supplemental (vision & dental) FEHBP plan most often chosen by families.
Burgess (TX) #20 Would establish a utilization review and appeals process for qualified health plans.
Burgess (TX) #61 Would add a division based on the medical liability reforms adopted in Texas.
Buyer (IN), McKeon (CA) #31 Would protect the integrity and independence of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems and state that the TRICARE program and veterans’ health care programs meet all of the requirements for individual health insurance under the bill.
Cassidy (LA) #91 Would clarify that high-deductible health plans with an HSA meet the definition of adequate coverage. Furthermore, any new standards adopted by the Secretary shall not apply to high-deductible health plans and health savings accounts if such standards would have the effect of disqualifying such plans from meeting the essential benefit package requirements.
Cole (OK) #3 Would require that savings resulting from spending reductions in Medicare will stay in Medicare to pay down long-term unfunded financial obligations.
Dent (PA) #89 Would add a new division titled, ending defensive medicine and encouraging innovation.
Foxx (NC) #6 Would strike the entire Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) from the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872.
Franks (AZ) #43 Would prohibit cuts to Medicare Advantage plans.
Gingrey (GA) #26 Would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for a methodology that ensures that any savings to the Medicare program resulting from (and amendments to) HR 3962 shall be retained in the Medicare program to make seniors health care more stable and affordable.
Gingrey (GA) #27 Would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for an opt-out process from the individual mandate for every American citizen.
Gingrey (GA) #28 Would include caps on non-economic damages and other reforms included in the CBO score that showed a $54 billion in savings over a 10 year period. The amendment reflects H.R. 1086, the HEALTH ACT, which seeks to enact medical liability reform in the states.
Gingrey (GA) #29 Would state that nothing in H.R. 4872 shall be construed to allow any Federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.
Grayson (FL) #2 Would allow any American citizen or permanent resident to buy into Medicare at cost and benefit from Medicare parts A, B, and D. The amendment creates six age brackets (actuarial pools) and requires each pool to be solvent or pay for itself.
Hall, Ralph (TX) #69 Would require a social security number for eligibility for participation in an exchange.
Hall, Ralph (TX) #80 Would require a valid photo ID when applying for Medicaid or SCHIP.
Herger (CA), Boustany (LA), Broun (GA) #45 Would prohibit CMS from making coverage determinations using Comparative Effectiveness Research solely on the basis of cost.
Kagen (WI) #1 Withdrawn Would require any and all individuals and business entities that offer health care products or services for sale to the public must at all times openly disclose all of their prices, including on the Internet.
Lee, Christopher (NY) #11 Would create a 3 year / 5 state medical tribunal pilot program to be administered by the Secretary of HHS.
Lummis (WY), Johnson, Sam (TX) #41 Would allow States to opt out of any provisions of the bill to the extent that they mandate the purchasing of health insurance by residents in such State, mandate the provision of health insurance by employers in such State, or interfere with the ability of patients to privately contract with medical providers and insurers under the laws of such State.
Moore, Gwen (WI) #9 Would change the date when insurers would need to comply with the new Medical Loss Ratio requirements from 2011 to 2014, to conform to when the American Health Benefits Exchanges will be established. Redirects MLR rebates to the Treasury.
Moore, Gwen (WI) #10 Would change the date when insurers would be required to comply with new Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements from the current draft date of 2011 to 2014, synchronizing it with the year when the American Health Benefit Exchanges will be established. Redirects the MLR rebates to the Treasury to be made available for the funding of premium assistance credits.
Paulsen (MN), Gerlach (PA), Lance (NJ), Dent (PA) #30 Would remove the medical innovation tax and replaces it with unobligated stimulus funds.
Paulsen (MN) #42 Would exclude temporary workers from the employer mandate.
Roe (TN) #44 Would repeal the enactment of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #32 Would express the sense of Congress that any new Social Security payroll tax revenue that results from this legislation could only be used for future Social Security benefit payments.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #33 Would strike the employer health insurance mandate from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #34 Would strike the provisions in section 1405 relating to an excise tax on medical devices from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #35 Would allow all health insurance plans in effect today to be considered acceptable coverage for purposes of the Senate health reform bill’s individual insurance mandate.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #36 Would strike all Medicare cuts from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #37 Would require Health Savings Accounts to be considered acceptable coverage under the Senate health reform bill’s individual insurance mandate.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #38 Would strike all provisions related to student lending reforms in the reconciliation bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #39 Would require the Secretary of HHS to certify that no seniors would lose access to their current Medicare Advantage plan before any cuts to the MA program could be enacted.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #51 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if in a state where unemployment is over 10%
Rogers, Mike (MI) #64 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if national unemployment is over 10%.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #73 Would require there to be no changes to Medicare Advantage for a given year until the HHS Secretary certifies that no senior will be forced away from or losing their enrollment in the MA plan they were enrolled on as of the day before enactment of the bill.
Roskam (IL) #90 Would strike the current section 1302, essential health benefits requirements, and replace with a new section, medicare waste, fraud, and abuse prevention pilot program.
Scalise (LA) #65 Would strike the individual health care mandate.
Shadegg (AZ), Broun (GA) #83 Adds a section to establish universal access programs to improve high risk pools and reinsurance markets.
Shadegg (AZ), Blackburn (TN), Broun (GA) #84 Would add a section on interstate purchasing of health insurance.
Shimkus (IL) #47 Would provide funds to Medicaid recipients so they can buy into employer-sponsored insurance.
Shimkus (IL) #55 Would require a certification that the bill would lower national health costs.
Shimkus (IL) #58 Would allow states to opt-out of the Medicaid expansion.
Shimkus (IL) #72 Would allow individuals or states to opt out of any fee or tax imposed or increased under the bill.
Stearns (FL) #14 Would require the co-equal heads of the three branches of government – the President, Congress and Supreme Court Justices to be enrolled in the health exchange.
Stearns (FL) #15 Would strike Sections 9009 and 10904, which tax medical devices.
Stearns (FL) #16 Would allow individuals to deduct the cost of medical care and prescription drugs from their income taxes above the line.
Stearns (FL) #17 Would require that any written, visual or audio materials distributed through a covered official, entity or program shall be in English only.
Stearns (FL) #24 Would require any individual who wishes to access to the Health Exchange or Affordability Tax Credits to provide documentation of citizenship or nationality.
Stearns (FL) #25 Would extend the protection of existing coverage in section 1251 Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage to are enrolled on after the date of enactment.
Stearns (FL) #40 Would strike sections 1102 and 1103, and repeal the provisions related to Medicare Advantage.
Sullivan (OK) #22 Would require the HHS Secretary to conduct a study on new and old programs affected by this legislation to determine if there is any program duplication. Would require the Secretary to write a report on the study within one year of the enactment of this bill. After writing that report, the Secretary would be required to eliminate any duplicative programs within one year.
Sullivan (OK) #23 Would require the HHS Secretary to conduct a study on new and old grant programs affected by this legislation to determine if there is any program duplication. Would require the Secretary to write a report on the study within one year of the enactment of this bill. After writing that report, the Secretary would be required to eliminate any duplicative programs within one year.
Sullivan (OK) #59 Would eliminate duplicative programs at HHS.
Sullivan (OK) #60 Would eliminate duplicative grants at HHS.
Terry (NE) #21 Substitute Would establish the Citizen’s Congressional Health Benefits Program (CCHBP).
Terry (NE) #52 Would strike market basket update reductions.
Terry (NE) #75 Would ensure that additional hospital insurance taxes be deposited into the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and used only for purpose funding Medicare Part A.
Terry (NE) #79 Would strike Medicare payment cuts to disproportionate share hospitals.
Upton (MI) #77 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if unemployment is over 7%.
Upton (MI) #78 Would prohibit the bill from taking effect until the Medicare Trustees publish projections that show that Medicare is solvent for the next 30 years.
Walden (OR) #63 Would ensure proportional representation of interest of rural areas on IPAB.
Walden (OR) #71 Would ensure that MEDPAC has adequate rural representation.
Whitfield (KY) #56 Would remove the “prompt pay” discount from the Medicare part B reimbursement formula.
Whitfield (KY) #57 Would place a moratorium on the cuts to reimbursement for procedure performed by interventional pain physicians.
A Live Thread!!! Bless you!
I suggest all Americans display the flag UPSIDE DOWN until Obamacare is defeated, to signal the ABSOLUTE distress this will cause all of us... especially if you are anywhere near Wash DC. All members of Congress might recognize that ... I hope.
JillStanek FIreDogLake: Pelosi needs all 12 undecideds “and that’s a tall order” plus 2 of the confirmed Stupak bloc http://ow.ly/1oPTC
NC Democrats Phone Numbers
Butterfield 202-225-3101
Etheridge 202-225-4531
Price 202-225-1784
McIntyre 202-225-2731
Kissell 202-225-3715
Shuler 202-225-6401
Watt 202-225-1510
Miller 202-225-3032
I believe that Shuler and Kissell are voting NO, not totally sure.
Watt is voting YES... call his office!
http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/19/993040/brick-thrown-through-window-in.html
Brick thrown through window in Slaughter’s Falls office
Updated: March 19, 2010, 3:56 pm / 92 comments
Published: March 19, 2010, 3:56 pm
NIAGARA FALLS — The “Slaughter Solution” on health care isn’t the only thing that has come under attack in U.S. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter’s world this week. Sometime early this morning, someone threw a brick through the front window of her Pine Avenue office.
The damage was discovered about 12:30 a.m., city police said.
The brick put a hole in the outer-most window at the office at 1910 Pine Ave., but did not damage a second interior window, police reported. A piece of broken brick believed to have caused the damage was found at the scene.
Damage was estimated at $350.
Slaughter, D-Fairport, is head of the House Rules Committee, which will structure the debate on health care reform votes set for this weekend.
Tom Price: Last year they wanted people to vote without reading. This year want people to pass without voting.
RNCResearch “DON’T EMBARRASS ME”: As POTUS heads to hill, he’s making clear #hcr vote is about him, not the American people. http://bit.ly/c6bhOz
@marcambinder: WH and Dem leaders floating trial balloon in press of exec order to clarify abortion funding policy.
Thanks Mom.
Watching it live on Algore’s amazing internet through fox.
From NRO Corner blog, latest post:
Pelosi: ‘No Separate Votes’ [Robert Costa]
Pelosi says there will be no separate votes on abortion, and that she will have votes for passage when she comes to the floor.
UPDATE: Reps. Driehaus (D., Ohio) and Dahlkemper (D., Penn.), two Stu-Packers, just went into Pelosi’s office. Of the meeting, Dahlkemper says “we’re still working on it.”
UPDATE II: Rep. Diana Degette (D., Co.) confirms to NRO that there will be no second vote on abortion language.
From The Hill:
Stupak still commands more than seven votes against the bill, said Rep. Dan Lipinksi (D-Ill.).
“They’re still short on votes,” said Lipinski, a Stupak confederate. “There’s still time and they still need votes.”
03/20 12:30 PM Share
The state of play in the House
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
03/20/10 12:24 PM EDT
David Dayen at the left-wing Firedoglake website has been doing an excellent job of keeping track of the votes on the health care bill. His latest count, as I read him, is 202 committed yes votes, 206 committed no votes, 12 still undecided and 11 “Stupak votes”—Democrats like Bart Stupak (MI 1) who oppose the abortion provisions of the Senate bill. In Dayen’s view, Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs all 12 undecided votes plus 2 Stupak votes. No wonder that she was negotiating as late as this morning with Stupak—and it’s not a good sign for her that the negotiations have apparently broken down.
Here are the members in each of Dayen’s categories.
Undecided and voted no on House bill in November (4): Tanner (TN 8), Matheson (UT 2), Nye (VA 2), Baird (WA 3). Tanner and Baird are not running for reelection. Matheson’s brother was recently nominated for a federal judgeship; he appears to have fine credentials.
Undecided and voted yes on the House bill in November (8): Bean (IL 8), Foster (IL 14), Michaud (ME 2), Pomeroy (ND 1), Space (OH 18), Carney (PA 10), Kanjorski (PA 11), Ortiz (TX 27).
Stupak bloc (11): Berry (AR 1), Bishop (GA 2), Lipinski (IL 3), Costello (IL 12), Donnelly (IN 2), Stupak (MI 1), Driehaus (OH 1), Kaptur (OH 9), Dahlkemper (PA 3), Mollohan (WV 1), Rahall (WV 3).
Is it impossible for the Democratic leadership to get to the 216 yes votes needed for a majority? No. Sometimes a member can be persuaded to vote yes even if he or she has made a public commitment to vote no. Is it difficult for them to get to 216? It sure looks like it.