LIVE HEALTH CARE THREAD ~ SATURDAY & SUNDAY

They don’t have the votes... so they are trying to trun it arund for when Dems lose, they can blame the “do-nothing” Repubs...

Boy the dems are ugly, arent they. Physically ugly

And may they all @#^(%&%^@%%&#%!

Paul Ryan rocks!

I do not believe him or Fox... they have NOT been covering this well the last seeral hours,m from what I gather.

MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You aska lot of good questions and I’ve got a moment.

Not that I have any wiser answers than most anyone else but I’m jes’ sayin’...

First, a lot of those folks voting for this bill live in a constituency that has citizens who WANT this bill. That Weiner fellow is an example. So we eliminate those guys as this is the way it should go.

You then move on to those guys with a constituency that does NOT want this thing and there’s a bunch of variable percentages on this. The Altmire fellow probably had a pocket full of liberal types here and there but more than likely he had a major percentage of moderate/conservatives in his district which forced him to finally give it up.

So we come down to maybe....yeah I’m pulling a number out of butt, but I’m thinking around 35-40 of those Dems whose votes could go either way and they’d still have an argument that they were representing their voters. Let me re-visit the Math...out of 216 votes they need to pass I’m guessing around 175 of them have districts that range from very liberal to maybe 60% liberal. This is out of over 500 some reps up there and consider how this country leans and I’d argue that to have 175 of these reps liberal enough to have them cast a confident YES vote on this thing makes sense.

Who you are really directing your puzzled questions at are those 40 some Dems who are in districts where more than likely the majority of their constituents do NOT want this...so why will you vote for it anyway?

Number one reason...Obamer is appealing to them, PLEADING I TELL YOU, to please save his presidency, that if this doesn’t pass he goes down the tubes. Now I’d argue back that Obamer had a choice, that right after the MASS Brown vote he could have scaled it back with no repercussions, America would have sighed and forgotten about it. Instead Obamer and his owners decided to double down and ignore the voters’ wishes and this was his choice.

Be that as it may, that plea probably hits home somwhere. I’ll be generous and suggest that some of these guys think that an ineffective president for the next three years would be worse for the country than passing this crap and corrupt law. I don’t agree, just being Devil’s Advocate here, of course.

There’s definitely corruption going on. Maybe some of the Republican threats to expose those getting deals/cushy jobs is starting to scare them but hey lookit, the pubs are notorious for wanting to make peace, reach across the aisle, forgetting all about it, burying the hatchett. Hell, I’d half believe that myself.

Finally, the argument being made to these types is that,...well yeah it’s going to be tough for a couple of weeks but Americans have infamously low attention spans. Give them a couple of weeks and they’ll forget all about it. You need to look beyond the tea party crowd. Yeah...they’ll make noise for a while but believe it, the uproar won’t last very long.

And hey, they believe that logic, darn, I kinda half believe it too.

Anyway....that’s my take on your question. I guess I’m trying to rationalize the indefensible in my mind that it makes some sense but I’ll admit I’m not sure I buy it myself.

Damn, there’s goes my breakfast appetite.

I dont know Fattah but a sad day indeed if he is right.

If they had the votes, Pelosi would be calling them. I Don’t believe Rats for a minute.

Thanks. Slaughter’s name needs to be on any lawsuits our side files against this unconstitutional travesty as well.

Yes- and he had me yawning...

Ryan is the LIFE of this committee.

Levin - doesn’t even know how the microphone works?

If dems don’t get votes, then they use Slaughter rule. Did Tom say there’s any way to stop Slaughter?

I still believe that if Pelosi had the numbers, she would immediately call for a vote and not wait until tomorrow..72 hours be damned!

Where is the ANGER, the OUTRAGE, at the possibility of every hard working American made to fund the murder of children, in effect making all of us murderers. It sickens me to my soul. If ever there was a reason to bring the wrath of GOD against us.

I do not believe him or Fox... they have NOT been covering this well the last seeral hours,m from what I gather.

That's been my sense of it as well.

Sadly, in their communist minds, it is. That is exactly what they mean by “justice.”

That's right. If anyone wants to see where the "roadmap" these communists are following, just look at the USSR and Chicoms. That is where they intend to take this country.

This guy Sander Levin needs to have a plug shoved into his slimy commie mouth!!!!

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.

More likely that everybody realizes that if she gives Stupak what he wants, she loses more votes from the pro-abortion reps than she wins from the pro-life faction.

but a Sunday vote was not a crap shoot....the dems knew or know congress has it’s price......no way this vote could fail on a Sunday ( my thinking anyway)

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.