PA Blog

What exactly do we have to do to make our point?  After the disappointing results of Saturday night’s health-care vote, this is the question I keep asking myself.  Rasmussen now shows that only 38% of Americans support the Democrats’ health-care bill, and yet, our elected representatives voted to move the legislation forward.

First, we have Bob Casey Jr.  A self-proclaimed pro-life, moderate Democrat.  He’s so pro-life that he voted in favor of  Harry Reid’s health care bill which allows for publicly funded abortions.  Sen. Casey has used his father’s good name to get himself into office. Unfortunately,  he doesn’t possess any of his father’s courage.  He hitched his wagon to Obamamania months ago.  Now that the President’s approval rating is sinking, the Senator is too stubborn to switch courses.  He just doesn’t get it.  Americans are angry and afraid right now.  They want to hold someone accountable.  Mid-term elections will not be kind to anyone who campaigned one way and legislated another.

Next, we have Arlen Specter.  This is a man who recently switched parties (for the second time) because his voting record got him into trouble with his constituents.  He had abused their trust one too many times and they were angry.  He knew there was no way to repair his damaged reputation.  Republicans would never see him as anything but spineless and unprincipled.  So now, he has a fresh start with Democrats, or so he thinks.  Specter doesn’t stand a chance of re-election without the support of moderate and conservative Democrats.  In fact, he can kiss the whole western side of PA goodbye without them.   Does he really believe that aligning himself with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is a smart move? Has he seen their approval ratings?  There even worse than his! But Arlen Specter doesn’t get it.  He made a career out of getting the “lesser of two evils” vote.  He doesn’t understand that we now view him as the worst-case scenario.  He stands with the most radically liberal legislators and blatantly ignores the will of the people. He isn’t the lesser of two anythings now!

For the first time in years, the “silent majority” is making some noise.  Senators Casey and Specter just haven’t heard them yet.  They still seem to believe that election to the Senate is a lifetime deal.  I have a feeling that they are in for a rude awakening.  Hopefully, Pennsylvanians will make the phrase “elected representative” meaningful again.  If they don’t represent us, they don’t get elected!

G.O.P. Counters With a Health Plan of Its Own
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/policy/04health.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

WASHINGTON — House Republicans have come up with an answer to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, drafting an alternative health care bill that would reward states for reducing the number of uninsured, limit damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and allow small businesses to band together and buy insurance exempt from most state regulation.

In its opening section, the Republican bill, which has no chance of passing, promises to lower health care costs and expand insurance coverage “without raising taxes, cutting Medicare benefits for seniors, adding to the national deficit, intervening in the doctor-patient relationship or instituting a government takeover of health care.”

The bill defines the differences between Republicans and Democrats, who intend to take up their bill on the House floor this week, after resolving intramural disputes over abortion and immigration.

The Republican bill differs from the Democratic measure in that it would not require people to obtain insurance or require employers to offer it. It is almost surely cheaper than the House Democrats’ bill because, unlike that proposal, it would not expand Medicaid or offer federal subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance. Nor would the Republican bill impose new taxes.

The House Republican bill would not explicitly prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions, even though many Republicans have said they agree with Democrats that the federal government should outlaw such denials.

House Republicans completed work on their measure as Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged that Senate floor debate on their bill was likely to slip to December, making it virtually impossible for Congress to achieve President Obama’s goal of enacting major health legislation this year.

If Congress is still wrangling over the legislation next spring, many of the 2010 midterm elections could turn into referendums on Mr. Obama’s health policies.

Pressed about the timetable, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, declined to predict when Congress might complete a bill.

“We’re not going to be bound by any timelines,” Mr. Reid said at a news conference. “We need to do the best job we can for the American people.” He said that the bill would be posted on the Internet and that lawmakers would have ample time to study it.

Senate Democratic aides said it was still possible, but increasingly unlikely, that Congress would send a bill to Mr. Obama by Christmas.

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said his bill would “lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford.”

In a few ways, the House Republican bill resembles the one headed for the House floor. It would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans at least through age 24, compared with 26 under the Democrats’ bill.

House Republicans, like the Democrats, would prohibit insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on spending for covered benefits. And they would prohibit insurers from canceling or rescinding coverage after a person became sick unless the person had intentionally concealed “material facts” about a medical condition.

Democrats, who have been hearing unofficial accounts of the Republican bill, said it was too little too late.

Representative Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said the Republican bill would perpetuate the status quo for people with pre-existing conditions. And for millions of people who would still be unable to afford insurance, he said, the Republican message was, “Sorry, you’re out of luck.”

Reid H. Cherlin, a White House spokesman, said the House Republican bill “does nothing to provide more stability and security for people with insurance.”

The bill would offer $50 billion in federal “incentive payments” over the next 10 years to states that reduce the cost of health insurance or the proportion of their residents who are uninsured.

The bill would also make it easier for insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Policies would be subject to laws in a company’s home state, but would be exempt from many of the consumer protection laws, rating rules and benefit mandates in other states where the company sold coverage.

Republicans would also allow small businesses to pool their insurance buying power through “association health plans,” sponsored by trade and professional associations and chambers of commerce. These plans would have “sole discretion” over what services to cover.

Consumer groups, state officials and Blue Cross and Blue Shield executives have historically opposed such association health plans, saying they could engage in risky practices free from state regulation.

The House Republican bill would offer $15 billion to states to establish high-risk pools, for people who could not otherwise obtain coverage, and reinsurance programs, under which states act as a backstop to private insurers. Under a reinsurance program, a state pays a large share of the cost if claims — for an individual or a group — exceed some threshold.

The House Republican whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said high-risk pools and reinsurance programs would “guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care.” Health policy experts say insurers can lower premiums if state reinsurance programs protect them against the risk of catastrophic costs.

In addition, the House Republican bill would impose new restrictions on consumer lawsuits against doctors, hospitals and makers of drugs and medical devices. In general, such lawsuits would have to be filed within three years after an injury became evident.

The bill would set a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages, for physical and emotional pain and suffering. It would establish new hurdles for consumers to obtain punitive damages and would limit contingency fees for plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Rep. Michele Bachmann is asking for people to come to the Capitol in Washington D.C on Thursday November 5th, at 12 noon. She is asking to meet on the Capitol steps and then go to your representative’s office and give them your view on health care face to face. The actor Jon Voight will be there as well to help stop this take over of our government. The reason is that the Democrats are getting ready to have a vote on the 1990 page health care bill they put together, they will get the votes to pass it unless something drastic happens. Going to the Capitol and then taking a stroll to the house office buildings may just be that thing. See your elected officials and see what the response will be if they have to look you in the face, or will they just run and hide.

Nancy Pelosi is trying to pass this bill this week and send it to Harry Reid in the Senate who has 51 votes to pass it. If this gets passed it will be illegal to purchase private health insurance in 2013. Let me say that again, after 2013 it will be illegal to buy private health care. We need to stop this now. Michele Bachmann is asking for your help to stop this before its too late. Once passed it will be nearly impossible to repeal. If you can’t go to Washington, call, write, e-mail, text, fax, send smoke signals I don’t care you choose. Get involved now before its too late.

This is your country and your life they are playing with, don’t let this pass. Go to www.michelebachmann.com, for more information. Glenn Beck’s site also has information, once again, get involved now while its still possible to change the outcome of this vote. As crazy as it sounds, by next week it may be too late.