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.

‘DON’T READ THE BILL:’ INSIDE DEMOCRATS’ OPPOSITION TO TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

DEMOCRATIC LEADERS DEFEND STATUS QUO DESPITE WIDESPREAD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR “READ THE BILL” REFORM
October 6, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

“Read the bill” reform has gained the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans, widely respected government watchdogs, and even some rank-and-file Democrats. Yet, Democratic leaders continue to protect the status quo, refusing to allow a vote on a resolution requiring a 72-hour review period for all legislation. Only 36 more signatures on a discharge petition filed by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) are needed to force an up-or-down vote on “read the bill” reform. The various rationales Democrats have provided to justify their opposition to common-sense transparency and accountability reveal just how out-of-touch this majority has become.

THREE REASONS DEMOCRATS OPPOSE “READ THE BILL” REFORM:

1. ‘We don’t do things that way.’ Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), addressing attempts by Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to ensure lawmakers and the public have 72 hours to review health care legislation: “We have never, ever, ever, ever done that in this committee.” (Politico, 9/24/09)

2. ‘Saying we can’t change the bill at the last minute means we can’t, you know, actually change the bill at the last minute.’ “What if only one short word or amendment is made?” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) asked last week. “It’s one thing initially for a bill to have a long time, but if you come out of a conference and they don’t change anything then, you don’t need 72 hours.” (The Hill, 10/2/09)

3. ‘Nobody actually reads the bills.’ This rates as the most common reason. For instance, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said last month during a Senate Finance Committee hearing, “I mean, let’s be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don’t read the legislative language.” Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) recently added: “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. … It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.” (Politico, 9/23/09; New York Post, 10/4/09)

THREE REASONS AMERICANS SUPPORT “READ THE BILL” REFORM:

1. “Stimulus bill a sorry spectacle. What a joke. Your Congress has voted to spend almost $790 billion of your money on a stimulus package that not a single member of either chamber has read. The 1,073-page document wasn’t posted on the government’s website until after 10 p.m. the day before the vote to pass it was taken.” (Jack Cafferty, CNN.com, 2/17/09)

2. “Energy bill a travesty containing who knows what. The cap-and-trade bill passed the House of Representatives shrouded in a fog of willful ignorance and calculated irrationality. No one could be sure what he was voting for — not after a 300-page amendment added at 3:09 a.m. the day of its passage. The bill is so complex and jerry-built that even its supporters can’t know how, or if, it will work. And it’s impossible for someone to know whether the motivating crisis, impending planetary doom, will ever materialize.” (Rich Lowry, Salt Lake Tribune, 6/30/09)

3. Organizational Chart of the House Democrats’ Health Plan, which depicts the bureaucratic nightmare that is the House Democrats’ costly government-run health care proposal. The chart was produced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).

REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)
H-204, THE CAPITOL
(202) 225-4000 | GOPLEADER.GOV

Harry Reid in the United States Senate is trying to force a bill to the floor next week for a vote. In this bill Reid wants the government option. The House has dozens of members who are trying to pass amendments paying for health care for illegal aliens. Both chambers have blocked amendments by Republicans that would require people getting health care from either Medicare or Medicaid or under the new proposed government plan, to show identification before they get benefits. Ask yourself why they would do that.

With $500 billion in Medicare cuts, forced insurance on everyone,including fines and jail time to ensure complaince this sounds more like something you find in some banana republic somewhere, not America. People need to get involved now, sitting it out will only ensure the liberals and Obama pass some form of Obamacare that benefits a select few for free at a great cost to everyone including seniors. A tax is a tax, no matter what you call it, dictionary or not. A $500 billion is a $500 billion cut, no matter what you call it. Finally, a socialist is a socialist, no matter what you call him, even if his name is Barack Hussein Obama.

“There is nothing in this bill that speaks to abortion” – Sen. Robert Casey Jr.

Over the past few months, we’ve heard the Democratic leaders in Washington repeatedly declare that abortion will not be funded by their proposed health-care bill. Amendments, like the one passed in July headed by Sen. Barbara Mikulski,  allowed for subsidies to be sent to “women’s health” facilities such as Planned Parenthood.  As the public began to catch on to this tactic (and Representatives had to face their constituents at townhall meetings) these direct approaches to funding were, for the most part, dropped.  Although the current bill does not specifically allocate funds for abortion, it does allow for funding in a roundabout way.  The plan would provide vouchers for low and middle-income Americans to purchase plans which do cover elective abortions.  To say that this is not the same thing as taxpayer-funded abortion, is insincere at best. While there is a good chance that a massive overhaul of our health-care system will be voted down, some version of health-care “reform” will probably be passed this year.  If we can’t stop it entirely, we must at least try to insure that it is as innocuous as possible.  Saying “No” to abortion funding is a big part of that effort. This is why we must watch our elected officials very carefully right now and pay attention to each version of the plan that comes along.

Sen. Robert Casey Jr. has always promoted himself as a conservative to moderate Democrat.  His voting record has shown a far more liberal slant. He has also described himself as pro-life, but he has only a 66% pro-life rating from National Right to Life ( and his rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America was 65% as of 2007).  Now, he has the opportunity to prove himself.  Throughout the debate on ObamaCare, his stance on abortion funding has been somewhat muddled.  He initially claimed that this bill did not provide for money to subsidize abortion.  Then, he said that even if it did, there was no need to insure that elective abortions were not covered, “There is no reason why in a health-care bill we have to have another debate about that issue (abortion).”  Now, he seems to have finally decided that any proposed health-care legislation must have an amendment which assures that none of the money will be used to fund abortion.  Let’s hope he sticks to it.  Given his record of folding to the left, I don’t have a lot of confidence in the man.

The Pro-Choice crowd will be applying a lot of pressure to any Congressman that they think can bullied into backing down.  Sorry to say it, but Sen. Casey is a perfect target.  We need to send our own message.

Sen. Casey, It is time to vote the way you campaign.  You claimed to be fiscally-responsible, but voted in favor of the President’s reckless spending.  You claimed to care about the desires of your constituents, but voted to keep funding ACORN.  Once again, your reputation is on the line.  It is easy to say you are pro-life when you believe that the issue is settled and your beliefs will never be tested.  You have a great opportunity here.  When election time rolls around, wouldn’t it be nice to have at least one issue where you stood your ground?

To contact Sen Casey:

phone (202) 224-6324

fax (202) 228-0604

by email

REGIONAL ROUNDUP: OUTCRY GROWS OVER PRESIDENT’S “DISINGENUOUS” HEALTH CARE RHETORIC

COAST-TO-COAST, EDITORIALS SAY DEFICIT CLAIMS “DISTURBING,” “DIFFICULT TO SWALLOW,” DON’T HOLD UP “UNDER EVEN CASUAL SCRUTINY”

September 14, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

The President’s now-discredited pledge that Democrats’ costly government-takeover of the nation’s health care system would not add “one dime to our deficits” didn’t go over well with fiscal watchdogs, or the American people for that matter. Newspapers across America are also weighing in with editorials taking President Obama to task for being “at odds” with the facts by failing to come clean about just how fiscally reckless the Democrats’ health care plan is:

“President Obama talked forcefully about cutting waste and promised repeatedly that he would not add to the deficit. … He didn’t say how that is possible, though. And the Congressional Budget Office has said that the Democrats’ legislation would add $220 billion to the deficit over a decade. The president and Democratic leaders have argued that they don’t have to count the $245 billion that it will cost to adjust Medicare reimbursement rates, but that is disingenuous. If the president wants to get the American people and skeptics in Congress to trust his plan, he can’t play word games. Not adding a dime means not adding a dime.” – New Orleans Times-Picayune editorial, 9/13/09
“Unfortunately, the president’s proposals are still short on specifics and his pledge to not ‘add a dime’ to the deficit doesn’t hold up under even casual scrutiny” – Indianapolis Star editorial, 9/13/09
“More disturbing was the president’s lack of specificity on how he hopes to pay for extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans — while not adding a dime to the federal deficit. … We share the administration’s belief that significant savings can be wrung from current budgets, but it is impossible to imagine them covering the lion’s share of a $900 billion price tag.” – Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial, 9/13/09
“More troubling, the president insists that his health reform efforts would not add ‘a dime’ to the deficit. But the claim is at odds with the very credible Congressional Budget Office which projects it adding $220 billion over the coming decade.” – Richmond (IN) Palladium-Item editorial, 9/14/09
“The president insists that his plan won’t expand the federal deficit, but that’s difficult to swallow. Nonpartisan number crunchers have estimated that under current proposals, the deficit would explode.” – Dallas Morning News editorial, 9/11/09
“Mr. Obama says he won’t add one dime to the deficit, but a lot of dimes remain unaccounted for. When politicians … don’t provide specifics – and when the amounts under discussion are in the hundreds of billions of dollars – you should get even more nervous. …Mr. Obama was vague about where the money would come from, and administration officials have since declined to provide specifics.” – Washington Post editorial, 9/13/09
“From the folks who brought us a $10 trillion deficit over the next decade, that’s hard to swallow. The White House has assured us the public option would be funded by premiums. So, it’s hard to know what he means by savings or spending cuts.” – Investor’s Business Daily editorial, 9/11/09
“Mr. Obama continued to insist Wednesday that his approach will not result in higher deficits, vowing again to veto any bill which would have that effect. But the Congressional Budget Office says Mr. Obama’s plan will cost a fortune.” – Las Vegas Review Journal editorial, 9/11/09
The President’s talking points are falling on deaf ears because the American people are fed up with the endless spending and big government scheming going on in Washington. House Republicans are offering better solutions to make quality health care more affordable and accessible for every American. These common-sense reforms will fix what’s broken without breaking what works.

REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)
H-204, THE CAPITOL
(202) 225-4000 | GOPLEADER.GOV

Response to President Obama’s Address to Congress On Health Care September 10, 2009

* President Obama gave a good speech Wednesday night, just as everyone expected. But he has spoken about his health care plan 27 times before, and unfortunately he didn’t say anything new.

* With or without a public option or co-ops, the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment is still risky because it creates mandates, regulations and bureaucracies that would get in between patients and their doctors.

* The American people didn’t want another speech, they wanted another plan.

* The fact is, the reason President Obama didn’t have a bill signing ceremony before the August recess is because he couldn’t get agreement among Congressional Democrats for his government-run health care experiment.

* The problem with the Democrats’ bill is the bill itself.

* Republicans know we need to reform our health care system – it costs too much for families and small businesses today..

* The president should work with Republicans on common-sense health care reforms the American people want.

* Republicans believe we need tort reform to end frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs for everyone.

* We should encourage portability so people can take their coverage with them when they change jobs.

* And we should allow Americans to get coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.

* Voters made clear during August that they oppose the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment, which would increase health care costs, increase taxes, increase the deficit, and reduce the quality of health care.

* The president should now stand-up against the left-wing extremists of his Party and work with Republicans to achieve common-sense health care reform.

Just finished watching the speech by President Obama and the aftermath by the pundits. Just a few things need to be reiterated. First, clear thinking Americans will never buy the idea that we can fund health care by saving between 400 and 800 billion in Medicare waste, fraud and abuse. If it was that easy we would have done that already. The President admitting there is that much waste, fraud and abuse in a government run health care (Medicare) system only bolsters the side that doesn’t trust the government to  run anything efficiently. Can you imagine a private company allowing this kind of money to be stolen from them? I think not!

Next is the admission of a lower number of uninsured. I believe the President is now claiming 30 million when a few weeks ago it was 46 to 50 million. I believe the White House was coming under too much pressure for insuring illegal aliens. Now, if they will only admit there are another 10 million who just don’t want health insurance because they don’t think they need it, plus another 10 million that are temporarily uninsured we are getting somewhere. Besides, you can’t add to the numbers of people being insured (no matter what the number) without increasing the deficit, raising taxes on job creators and driving the waiting times for services to the level of the Canadian and British systems.

Let us start over. We need to fix Medicare fraud and save that 400 to 800 billion dollars first. Do that one thing first and most Americans will start to listen. Do that first Mr. Obama. Prove something first and you can win the trust of the average American. Until then please stop talking to us like we are idiots.

DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER CREATES 53 NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, OFFICES & BUREAUCRACIES

September 3, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

Democrats continue to claim that their health care legislation will not increase the federal deficit, even though the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has revealed the truth: the bill actually increases the deficit by $239 billion. One of the reasons it’s so expensive is the plethora of new federal government programs it would create. House Republican Leader John Boehner offered the following comment:

“The American people’s number one concern about health care is controlling cost, so it is baffling that Democrats have put together a $1.5 trillion bill that actually increases the deficit in order to create 53 new government programs. We need to throw away this 1,000-page monstrosity and start over, this time focusing on real, bipartisan reforms that lower costs and expand coverage.”

The House Democrats’ bill creates a massive new federal bureaucracy littered with new federal agencies, new programs, and new bureaucrats. Here they are, as identified by the House Republican Conference, chaired by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN):

Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30)
Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41)
Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47)
Program of administrative simplification (Section 163, p. 57)
Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70)
Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72)
Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106)
Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206(c), p. 107)
Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109)
State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111)
“Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221, p. 116)
Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221(d), p. 117)
Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 222(b), p. 119)
Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191, p. 380)
Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 405)
Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 438)
Accountable Care Organization pilot program (Section 1301, p. 443)
Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 462)
Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 468)
Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 502)
Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 505)
Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 519)
Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 546)
Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 548)
Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 559)
Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 565)
National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 607)
Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 674)
Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 716)
Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 780)
Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 824)
“Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 852)
Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 859)
Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 870)
Loan repayment program for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 873)
Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 882)
Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 887)
Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 898)
Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 900)
Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 904)
Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 917)
Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 920)
Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 932)
Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 941)
Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 947)
Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 950)
Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 951)
Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 955)
Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 965)
Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 972)
Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 993)
National Medical Device Registry (Section 2521, p. 1001)
Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2531, p. 1008)

REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)
H-204, THE CAPITOL
(202) 225-4000 | GOPLEADER.GOV