Today the House of Representatives voted down an amendment offered by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) that would have prevented family planning funds under the Health and Human Services appropriations bill from going to Planned Parenthood. The amendment was to be attached to the $730.5 billion Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations legislation.
“It’s despicable that once again Congress has voted to fund this deadly organization,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, “The vast majority of Americans do not want taxpayers dollars going to abortion organizations.”
“In addition, the appropriations legislation passed by Congress allows federal funding for controversial needle exchange programs and denies funding to abstinence programs. It appears the federal government is in the business of encouraging bad behavior.”
Orrin Hatch, a Republican senator from Utah, yesterday walked out of a meeting at the Senate finance committee where Max Baucus, chairman, has been locked in talks for weeks trying to win over Republicans while pacifying liberal Democrats angling for more radical reform. “Right now, with some of the provisions in there, I just can’t do it,” said Mr Hatch.[Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, 7/22/09]
Last week, on a conference call with conservative activists, Senator Jim DeMint said, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo… It will break him.” [Washington Post, 7/18/09]
Where does Rob Simmons stand? As the people of Connecticut suffer under rising health care costs, Senate Republicans have wiped their hands clean of any responsibility to address this crisis. Will Rob Simmons continue to stand with fellow Republicans and play political games, or will he finally go to work for the people of Connecticut?
“Over the past 72 hours we have seen Republicans admit what we have all feared: partisan gamesmanship is prevailing over doing the right thing,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Communications Director Eric Schultz. “If Rob Simmons agrees with his party that scoring political points is more important than covering the uninsured and bringing down health costs for all Americans, then he should say so. Republicans’ do nothing approach is why we have this problem in the first place and it would serve them well to be a part of the solution.”
Attorney General Eric Holder should dismiss criminal charges against former Siegelman in light of the latest astounding evidence filed in his case attesting to gross violations of the rule of law by federal prosecutors. Specifically, the government’s chief witness in the case, Nick Bailey, has sworn in an affidavit that prosecutors told him what to say, made him repeat it until he got it right, threatened him if he did not say it, and lied to the federal judge presiding over the case about his testimony. Moreover, Mr. Bailey attested that government prosecutors intentionally withheld evidence and told him to hide a three ring binder with all of his copious notes of meetings with government agents and officials.
Mr. Bailey has provided that binder to his attorney who has shared much of it with Mr. Siegelman’s attorneys to support the affidavit. Mr. Bailey’s associate and a professional legal investigator also provided affidavits supporting these assertions.
There is now so much evidence of clear conflicts of interest, overt partisan political prosecutorial targeting, failures to recuse by at least one conflicted prosecutor as well as the judge in the [Siegelman] case, evidence withheld from the defense team, and now evidence of the coaching and strong-arming of witnesses in exchange for a lighter prison sentence and a promise to conceal embarrassing personal information, it all makes the prosecutorial misconduct in the case of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens — a Republican whose case was dropped by Obama’s Justice Dept. shortly after they came to power — look like jaywalking.
Prosecutorial misconduct has completely tainted Mr. Siegelman’s case. His conviction must therefore be dismissed with prejudice by the Attorney General himself in order to correct a manifest injustice, restore integrity to the Department of Justice, and send a clear message that such reprehensible conduct will not be tolerated. Restore Justice At Justice calls on Eric Holder to act with dispatch to remove the stain and burden of an improper conviction from the shoulders of Mr. Siegelman.
20 Democratic Senators vote in favor of allowing concealed guns to be carries across state lines? Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrandfrom New York!only votes against the provision “because it violates states rights!” If two Republicans had not voted against it it would have passed! It only failed because it needed 60 votes thanks to a filibuster threat:
Supporters included all but two Republicans and 20 Democrats, but the vote of 58 to 39 in favor fell two short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.
Despite its defeat, the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), demonstrated the continuing power of the National Rifle Association and the gun rights issue in Congress. Rather than a setback, those backing the effort consider the vote a sign of strength for the Second Amendment and are planning more gun-related amendments to other legislation throughout the year. Afterward, Thune said he hopes the Senate will “reconsider this important issue” later this year.
These are the same people who let the assault weapons ban expire and have such influence that President Obama won’t even try to reinstate the ban:
While Congress works through specific health reform proposals, the July Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a majority of the public remains supportive of taking action on health reform now, though there is some softening of support as criticisms and doubts seem to be registering.
As has been the case over the past ten months, a majority of the American people (56%) continue to believe that health reform is more important than ever despite the country’s economic problems, and the public believes by a two to one margin (51% versus 23%) that the country will be better rather than worse off if Congress and the president enact health reform. More Americans think they and their family will be better off (39%) than worse off (21%) if legislation passes, with roughly a third (32%) believing it will make no difference for them or their family.
But with health reform moving from the abstract to concrete legislative proposals, criticisms made during the policy debate appear to be having an impact on the public and several indicators have softened somewhat from earlier this year. A larger share of the public is worried that Congress and the president will pass a bill that’s bad for their family (54%) than are worried that health care reform will not happen this year (39%). While a majority of the public favors health care reform now, the share that is supportive is down five percentage points since June (from 61% to 56%). The proportion who say passage of health care reform will make things worse for their own family, although relatively small, has doubled since February (from 11% to 21%), as has the proportion who say the country would be worse off if health care reform passed (from 12% to 23%). Specific proposals to cover the uninsured, while still supported by majorities, also show a weakening in support. For example, overall support for an employer mandate fell from 69 percent to 64 percent since last month and those who “strongly” favored the idea fell from 42 percent to 29 percent.
Financing health reform is front and center of the current debate. Roughly half (51%) of the public is willing to pay more for expanding health coverage — up ten percentage points from last month. And some revenue measures have strong support (taxing cigarettes, taxing Americans earning more than $250,000 annually, and taxing alcohol, beer and wine all have greater than 60% support). However, consistent with the overall pattern, support for revenue measures has softened across the board with a portion of the public shifting from “strongly” to “somewhat” supportive. For example, the percentage who strongly support taxing those earning more than $250,000 annually fell from 49 percent to 40 percent since last month.
One highly debated issue has been the establishment of a public health insurance plan to compete with private plans — six in ten support this idea. When asked if they would be interested in purchasing a public insurance plan if it were made available, about a quarter (23%) of the public say they would “very likely” look into it and about a quarter (23%) would be “not at all likely” to explore purchasing such a plan.
The proportion of the public following the health reform debate closely (27%) has not changed much over the past several months. But the proportion who report seeing an ad about health care reform is up 10 percentage points since last month (31% compared to 21% in June), with nearly as many reporting seeing a negative as a positive ad, another change from June when reported viewing of positive ads clearly dominated.
“The public wants help with their health care bills and supports health reform, but the hotter the debate and the longer it lasts, the more anxious the public will become,” said Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman.
More on the Public Plan
Echoing the policy debate, roughly four in ten people (43%) say a public plan would be more likely to drive private companies out of business, while just as many (45%) hold the opposite view, saying it would cause private companies to become more efficient and provide better products.
People’s views on a public plan are moveable as the survey shows by replicating arguments used in the current reform debate. When those who initially support the public plan are told that this could give the government an unfair advantage over private companies, overall support drops to 35 percent. Conversely, when opponents are told that public plans would give people more choice or help drive down costs through competition, overall support jumps to roughly seven in ten.
Effective Arguments For and Against Health Care Reform
When offered a number of possible arguments used in the current health care debate, certain messages resonate more with the public than others.
Messages that make the public feel more favorable about a health care reform plan:
Can keep own doctor or health plan (74% more likely to support reform if they heard)
Would ensure financial health of Medicare (67%)
Would cover pre-existing conditions (66%)
Won’t increase budget deficit (63%)
Would provide financial help to get health insurance for those who need it (63%)
Would save country money over time (63%)
Higher quality of care for Medicare patients (59%)
Messages that make the public feel less favorable about a plan:
Was going to increase premiums/out of pocket costs (66% less likely to support if they heard)
Would result in cuts in Medicare that make doctors less willing to participate (62%)
Limited own choice of doctors (62%)
Get government too involved in your health care (59%)
Would reduce quality of care in Medicare (58%)
Would increase taxes (58%)
Would increase budget deficit (45%)
Is One Trillion Dollars for Health Reform a Significant Threshold?
A $1 trillion price tag for health care reform appears to be a significant marker to many stakeholders and policymakers in the reform debate, but less so to the public. When asked if $1 trillion over ten years was too much, too little, or about right to spend on reform, roughly four in ten of the public say it is too high (42%), while just over a third say it is the right amount (36%), and one in ten say it is too little (9%). Belief that $1 trillion is too much drops to about three in ten when three separate arguments are tested on those who initially say $1 trillion is too much.
Methodology
The survey was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and was conducted July 7 through July 14, 2009, among a nationally representative random sample of 1,205 adults ages 18 and older. Telephone interviews conducted by landline (800) and cell phone (405, including 126 who had no landline telephone) were carried out in English and Spanish. The margin of sampling error for the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error is higher.
The full question wording, results, charts and a brief on the poll can be viewed online here.
The individual health insurance market is not a viable option for the majority of uninsured adults, a new report from The Commonwealth Fund finds.
Seventy-three percent of people who tried to buy insurance on their own in the last three years did not purchase a policy, primarily because premiums were too high. In addition, among adults with individual coverage or who tried to buy coverage in the past three years, 57 percent said it was very difficult or impossible to find coverage they could afford, 47 percent said it was very difficult or impossible to find a plan with the coverage they needed, and 36 percent were denied coverage or charged more because of a pre-existing condition, or had the condition excluded from their coverage.
The report, Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market Is Not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families, compared the experiences of working-age adults with individual and employer-based private health insurance and found that people who have purchased health insurance in the individual market spend far more out of pocket and on premiums than those with employer-based coverage. In fact, half of those with individual insurance have out-of-pocket costs and premium expenses that equal 10 percent or more of their income. People with individual coverage do not have premium contributions from their employers, and many are charged higher premiums because of their health status or age. According to the report, 64 percent of adults with individual insurance spend $3,000 or more per year on premiums while only 20 percent of those with employer insurance spend that much. On average, adults with employer plans spend $2,250 out of pocket for health expenses including premiums, while those with individual market insurance spend an average of $6,750.
“In our current system millions of people without access to employer coverage have no affordable option for health insurance,” said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. “To achieve a health care system that works for all Americans we need health care reform that offers comprehensive, affordable health insurance to everyone regardless of their health status, premium subsidies to help families with low and moderate incomes afford health insurance, and requirements to ensure that no one is denied health insurance because of a health problem.”
Experiences In The Individual Market
Those who are able to purchase individual health insurance are more likely to face a host of problems with their insurance, including going without prescription drug coverage (20 percent), limits on the total dollar amount their insurance will pay for health care (49 percent); doctors charging more than insurance will pay and being forced to pay the difference (39 percent); and expensive bills that their insurance will not cover (36 percent). In addition, 41 percent of individually insured adults reported forgoing needed health care because of costs—up from 24 percent in 2001. Over one-third of those with individual coverage (36 percent) also reported medical bill or debt problems, a substantial increase over the 28 percent who also reported medical bill or debt problems in 2005.
“People buying their own health insurance are paying significantly more in premiums than those with employer-based coverage, but are getting less for their money in terms of protection against high costs and access to the health care they need,” said study co-author and Commonwealth Fund Vice President Sara Collins. “It is critical that health reform proposals set minimum benefit standards and provide adequate premium subsidies to ensure that families who lose their job-based benefits can purchase affordable coverage that gives them access to timely care and protects them from catastrophic health care costs.”
The large majority of Americans who have individual coverage are unemployed, self-employed, or employed by firms with fewer than 20 workers—one-third (36%) are unemployed, and another 50% are self-employed or employed by firms with fewer than 20 workers. People with individual insurance also tend to be older, with the majority between the ages of 50 and 64, according to the report. Families with low and moderate incomes have the hardest time affording insurance on the individual market: 85 percent of those at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $44,000 for a family of four) who sought an individual health insurance plan did not end up purchasing one and of that group, 67 percent cited cost as the reason they didn’t purchase a plan.
Additional Findings
Adults with health problems report the highest rates of problems finding a health plan through the individual market: 60 percent of those found it very difficult or impossible to find a plan with the coverage they needed; 70 percent found it very difficult or impossible to find an affordable plan, and nearly half were turned down or charged a higher premium because of a pre-existing condition. Nearly 80 percent never purchased a plan.
Adults with individual insurance are increasingly underinsured: 30 percent were underinsured in 2007, up from 17 percent in 2003. Forty-one percent of those with individual insurance reported not being able to obtain needed care because of cost.
People with individual insurance are seeing higher deductibles: 39 percent of people with individual insurance had policies with deductibles of $1,000 or more in 2007, up from 29 percent in 2003. There was also an increase in the share of people with high deductibles in employer plans: 11 percent of those with employer insurance had deductibles of $1,000 or more in 2007, up from 5 percent in 2003.
The authors cite the declining economy, stagnant wages, and rising health care costs over the last decade as the driving forces behind why fewer working-age adults have access to employer coverage and must turn to the individual market for coverage, where so many end up without a plan. Provisions in the health care reform proposals under discussion in Washington would prevent insurers from underwriting on the basis of health, and would create new insurance exchanges with sliding scale premium subsidies to help those who lose employer coverage purchase plans that meet a minimum benefit standard. The authors point out that the mounting job losses in the recession and continued unabated growth in health care costs underscore the need for policymakers to form consensus around strategies that provide affordable and comprehensive coverage for all, as well as health system reforms that can lower costs and improve quality.
If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
OK, I think Obama is doing a great job, hampered, unfortunately by his fellow Democrats. But the economy is in bad shape, (not his fault), the stimulus hasn’t kicked in yet (and is too small - his fellow Democrats’ fault.) So I can see some discontent there.
But according to the survey, Obama beats another potential GOP rival, Sarah Palin, by only six points – 48% to 42%.
What’s wrong with these people – Sarah Palin?
Palin is second only to Romney as the presidential candidate Republican voters say right now that they’ll vote for in 2012 state GOP primaries.
Well, they are Republicans, so I guess that’s to be expected.
But come on people, Sarah Palin? Clearly not competent to be Vice-President, much less President. All kinds of bizarre behavior. Sarah Palin? Bozo the clown would be a better choice.
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).
The release of the study comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to take up today — Monday, July 20 — an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment is sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD).
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said he will filibuster the amendment.
Because most state systems allowing the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviewed shooting incidents as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.
The study, “Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders — An Analysis of News Reports, May 2007 to April 2009,” finds that during the two-year period reviewed –
Concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.
Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.
In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.
The study offers detailed descriptions of the 31 incidents, which occurred in 15 states. Law enforcement officers were killed in: Florida, Idaho, Ohio (two incidents), and Pennsylvania (two incidents). Private citizens were killed in: Alabama, Colorado, Florida (nine incidents), Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina (two incidents), Ohio (three incidents), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah (two incidents), and Virginia.
