Harvey Ferdman’s testimony last week at Ed Martin’s “Obamacare hearing” was unique.

Other reform proponents talked about what the bill will accomplish or appealed to the human sympathies of the Tea Partiers in the room, citing the inhumane treatment they’ve gotten from health insurance companies. Ya-da, ya-da, I could hear the hardhearted ones thinking. In fact, one woman began her remarks this way:

One thing I’ve heard here tonight over and over by … these people is that millions–I know there’s thousands and millions dying all over the streets–[at that point she flapped a dismissive hand] I know we’ve heard that from the administration too.

So you see what I mean. When Judith Parker and LaDonna Appelbaum described their problems with health and life insurance quotes, when Bunnie Gronborg explained why the ACA is not socialism, that woman heard: Ya-da, ya-da. But we wanted a chance to speak about what would touch most people. We knew that the callous, ignorant folks who listen to the lies of Schlafly, et. al. would figuratively clap their hands over their ears, that hearing it wouldn’t  change them. We just didn’t want them holing up in their comfy echo chamber. We wanted to make them uneasy.

But Harvey took a different approach. He crafted a message based on their ideology. If anything, that upset them more than what they saw as sob stories from other proponents of reform. But Harvey delivered his speech in the most sweet spirited tone possible–which went some way toward quieting them.

Here’s the transcript, but you’d gain by watching it.

We’ve all experienced group plans. The things about a group plan is that when you change employers, they can’t refuse you for a pre-existing condition. Why is that? That’s because if only people who need insurance bought insurance, the insurance companies would be broke. Right? So the group plans, they’re spreading out that small predictable risk against that big hopefully not gonna happen risk. And that’s partially what’s happening with what you guys are calling Obamacare–I call it affectionately Obamacare. And that’s what they’re doing by requiring that everyone participates, so that the healthy and the sick all share that cost, so no … so the insurance companies can afford to stay in business. If we don’t require everyone to have health insurance, the insurance companies are going to go broke.

That’s my first point. My second point is, honestly I would much rather have an accountable government [derisive laughter], who I can elect every two or three years. You guys, you guys, [trying to be heard above the laughter] you guys are a good example. There’s been a lot of political footholds made by the Tea Party. I respect that. You guys are a good example. You can change the politics. You can change the politicians. But I cannot change the bureacrats and the profit-oriented people who run the insurance companies. If they make a decision [clapping from proponents of reform], if they make a decision about the end of life, about me, I can’t fire them. But I can get my politicians out of office and put someone in there who believes the way I do.

If you watched the video, you heard Harvey’s tone of voice and the audience’s cynical reaction. You saw the gray haired gentleman in the frame with Harvey shaking his head at all the critical points in the speech. They’re a concrete wall. They believe that business is never wrong, and that if you don’t get what you need in life, it’s because you weren’t disciplined enough.

What George Lakoff said on this point bears repeating:

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don’t have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

It’s Calvinism. I was raised with it. Prosperity is a sign that God loves you and that you are one of the elect. Poor people are not favored by God. It’s some ugly stuff, especially when it starts influencing public policy, because it can cause, as the lady said, “millions–thousands and millions littering the streets”. Not literally of course. No, most of them die unobtrusively in their houses. How convenient for the Corpublicans.

I respect Harvey for a beautifully crafted argument and for his gentle tone. And although he made little progress against those cussedly bullheaded and hardhearted people, he could still give elected Democrats a lesson in how to present our point of view.

……………………………………….

Coverage of the Ed Martin event has been thorough on the Missouri progressive blogosphere. St. Louis Activist Hub, in fact, has three postings:

• I Don’t Care What You Say, It Was A Great Night For Health Reform
• Ed Martin Forgets His Supporters, Claims People “Know How To Be Civil”
• Ed Martin, Bill Hennessey Hide in the Back of Their Own Forum: Schlafly Bolts!

FiredUp! has one: This Is What a Better Informed and Better Organized Movement Looks Like.

Women’s Voices Raised for Social Justice has a posting on its Facebook Page: Women’s Voices Members speak out at Health Care Forum

All that is in addition to my first piece, In which I explain who showed up for Ed Martin’s dance and my two videos–so far–of Schlafly: MS. Schlafly takes on “Obamacare” and But, but … I thought Republicans liked police states.

The Johnson County Democratic Club met in Warrensburg last Thursday night for their regular monthly meeting. There were over fifty individuals in attendance.

After conducting business, guest speaker Brian Colby of the Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance spoke on the health care reform law and then took questions from the audience.

Brian Colby, Director of Outreach and Communications, Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance.

A short excerpt, on the polled popularity of the components of the new law, from his remarks:

Brian Colby, Director of Outreach and Communications, Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance:

[….]

…A number of the provisions in this law [health care reform], the ones that I’m talking about there, poll very, very popularly with all types of folks in our community, not just the folks that, that here in this room, not just the folks that, that generally cast a Democratic ballot or generally believe that government can play a role in people’s lives. When we do, we did some, some polling, the Missouri Foundation for Health Care did some polling here in Missouri and they really kind of, of emphasized rural areas and, and did focus groups and really drilled down. And when folks learned what was in the law, getting rid or preexisting conditions, making sure insurance companies have to be there when you need them, stop discriminating against woman and against sick people, people really, really like that. All the way across the board. It starts polling, you know, seventy-five, eighty-five percent strongly approve. Even the expansion in Medicaid that we’re gonna add. Here in Missouri we know that Medicaid has been such a difficult issue and, folks with lower incomes have really suffered because of some of the attitudes about folks that, um, getting health coverage to, to folks in lower incomes. And even that polls, uh, uh, extremely well. And so, I want to, to kind of give you a challenge today. Do not get, you know, worried about Prop C. You know, we know that Rush Limbaugh, we know that the, the majority party in the legislature are saying that seventy percent of Missourians don’t want this law, but you all know that was sixteen percent of registered voters.

When people learn about this law they like it. When they learn it’s gonna benefit them they’re gonna want to keep it. And as soon as the majority party in the state house and majority in our Congress, not our Senate, they, they realize that this is actually a popular bill, that people benefit from it, and they’re gonna have to take away those benefits, they’re gonna stop. They’re gonna stop attacking, they’re gonna stop utilizing, using this, because people will realize that they, their family members, their community, are actually gonna benefit. And we think that’s gonna be a great thing. Then we can move forward and implement it…

[….]

The Johnson County Democratic Club met at a local restaurant in Warrensburg for their regular monthly meeting.

Those benefits of the health care reform law, from a video by the Kaiser Family Foundation played for the audience by Brian Colby before he spoke:

About the Missouri Health Advocacy Alliance

The Alliance is a statewide non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to quality affordable health care for all.  Since 2008, the Alliance has been working to build the consumer and community leadership required to transform the American health system.  With the belief that this transformation will happen when consumers are fully engaged and have an organized voice, The Alliance works in partnership with national, state and local consumer organizations, policymakers, and foundations, providing leadership and support to change the health care system so it serves everyone – especially vulnerable members of society.

That about sums it up.

Wednesday evening at Drury Plaza in downtown St. Louis, Ed Martin gave a party aimed at drawing mainstream media. But the media stood him up–as did many of his own people. We didn’t stand him up though. At least seventy health care reform advocates attended his “Obamacare” hearing, outnumbering his own crowd. ACA proponents listened stone faced to Peter Kinder’s disembodied voice from Jeff City describing his heroic lawsuit; to Phyllis Schlafly’s tirade about what a vile socialist Obama is; and to Bill Hennessey, insisting that “Obamacare” is unconstitutional–though why, exactly, he didn’t explain. More in later postings about Schlafly and Hennessey.

As soon as the Q & A opened, Rea Kleeman was on her feet challenging Ms. Phyllis’s idea that health insurance accounts would be a better solution than the Affordable Care Act. Kleeman, who is an M.D., pointed out that such accounts don’t work because they require a thousand dollars to open one and because many people are too parsimonious to get the preventive care they need, thus opening themselves up to more serious expenses later. Unable to respond to Kleeman’s specific criticism, Schlafly repeated her canned speech and then blamed the fact that the accounts are ineffectual on Teddy Kennedy. Rea was just the opening salvo, though. Next came a soft spoken woman named Alice Sgroi, who gently blasted Mr. Hennessey out of the water and brought the house down.

By that point, the Ed folk had to know they were in for an earful. If they didn’t, the next speaker cinched it. A gentleman pointed out the hypocrisy of creating a Medicare Part D program where the government doesn’t negotiate for low prices, thus handing billions over to drug companies and costing people like him money. He laid out the excuses that Republicans have used to defend that smelly setup and, pointing at the panelists, wondered aloud “Where were you then?”

That brought us to break time. After a ten minute break, audience members were to be given two minutes mic time to express their concerns about health care reform. My understanding of a “hearing” is that the panelists speak, then listen to other testimony and respond. That didn’t happen. Schlafly evaporated; Hennessey and Martin stood in the back of the room for ten or fifteen minutes, often chit chatting; then Hennessey slipped out. After that, Martin murmured asides to the other suits in the back. Okay, so it wasn’t a hearing.

But Martin’s people, especially Bob, who was in charge of the mic, get credit where it’s due. They did let the left wingers speak. Frankly, I was shocked, because it is uncharacteristic of right wing politicians, in my experience. Left wingers let it rip. I attended those McCaskill town halls in the summer of 2009 where she was subjected to heckling and screaming from angry mobs. In Jefferson County, despite the coarse uproar from those yahoos, Claire put all the questions from the audience into a fishbowl and put two right wingers in charge of picking questions out of the bowl.

Contariwise, the only town hall Todd Akin ever was foolish enough to announce so that I could attend it, his media person tried valiantly to talk me out of coming. But I went, and what I filmed that day was totally scripted. Akin and Luetkemeyer took only the “questions” that fitted their agenda. When one gentlemen in the audience, tired of having no chance to speak, challenged a baldfaced lie, that man was escorted from the room.

So, Ed and Bob. You took me off guard. You said both sides could speak and … you actually allowed it. Bob handled the mic with fairness and good humor. The hard part for me, then, is picking and choosing who, of the many that spoke, I’ll include here. More left wingers spoke since there were more of them in the audience. I’m going to offer you a selection. Choose the ones that pique your interest, but I especially recommend the one about death panels–and be sure you see at least the first five seconds of “Generally confused”.

Oh, and you might want to check out the last video, where Martin reveals that he doesn’t understand the term “socialized medicine”.

A Martin supporter contends that death panels are rampant in countries with socialistic medicine.

LaDonna Appelbaum describes how health insurance companies made it virtually impossible for her to get health coverage for pregnancies.

A Martin supporter, after scornfully dismissing “these people”, seems confused about what she’s trying to prove–not to mention being hardhearted.

Judith Parker describes the worry her family endures over the possibility that her four year old granddaughter, who has cancer, would–were it not for health care reform–meet her lifetime caps very soon. The clip begins with a previous speaker talking about what “insurance” means and includes Parker’s response to that.

Fritzi Lainoff praises Medicare and, by extension, the idea of involving the government in our health care. A right winger objects to something Lainoff said and an interesting compromise ensues.

This young man sees the big picture.

This woman is angry that illegal immigrants get care that she has to pay for.

Bunnie Gronborg refutes the right wing canard that we’re getting socialized medicine. And she explains the billions that ACA will save the government.

Ed Martin disagrees with Gronborg. She tried to explain what “socialized medicine” means. Honest to god, he doesn’t seem to get the concept. Furthermore, he continues disputing the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction that ACA will save the government $143 billion over ten years.

I’m sure that we did little if anything to shift attitudes among the Tea Partiers at that event. But we lefties are delighted that we went. We were exhilarated by the show of strength and unity we mustered, by seeing how many well informed, well spoken people trekked to the Drury to defend the idea that health care corporations must no longer be allowed to hold us and this economy hostage. The worries about death panels from the other side were so small minded they were, really, pitiful. I’d be embarrassed if my confreres couldn’t do any better
than that.

I remember an incident when I was in grade school where a group of girls ganged up on another, vulnerable and unpopular girl, humiliated her and ultimately blacked her eye. This long-ago event came to my mind today when I read about a letter that Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, House Speaker Steve Tilley, and Senate President Pro Tem Rob Mayer have written to Attorney General Chris Koster, trying to beat him down on the subject of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). There never seems to be a shortage of bullies, whether in the schoolyard or the statehouse.

Emboldened by the ruling against the ACA by a Florida Judge, Roger Vinson, the Missouri triad ostensibly wants the weight of Koster’s office behind their efforts to push the state into a questionable and potentially expensive suit against the ACA. Their letter asks Koster about the status of the ACA in Missouri:

Is the act — now declared unconstitutional — lawful and enforceable in our state, or isn’t it?” the letter states. “Must state officials follow its unconstitutional dictates, or should we ignore them as we see the top officials of other states now doing?

Get that – “its unconstitutional dictates”? Isn’t that what you call a loaded question? They use such language because their real goal isn’t to tap Koster’s expertise, but to push him into a corner.

I’m sure Messrs. Tilley et al. are banking on keeping a considerable number of Missourians worked up about the distorted image of the ACA that the right wing has labored to create. From that perspective, pressuring Koster is a big-time win-win. If Koster caves, they get to strut around the Tea Parties with this particular scalp in their collective belts while bragging about how they had to force him onto the straight and narrow. If he stands firm, they have the same potent, if somewhat lighter, ACA weapon to use against him.

Nor has it escaped the attention of some observers of these maneuvers, that the Gang of Three would probably just love to have a pet attorney general of the same GOP species – perhaps someone like state Senator Jack Goodman, who is already playing for the team. Goodman has introduced SJR3, which would require “the Attorney General to seek appropriate relief against actions of the federal government when directed by the Governor, General Assembly, or a petition of the voters.” Nothing like trying to undermine the independence of the AG’s office to make it clear what a valuable role one might play as its occupant, eh?

Of course, it isn’t actually as if the Vinson ruling is a slam-dunk victory for those who want to savage the ACA; the law has been found to meet constitutional muster by two other judges, while many legal authorities consider the Vinson decision seriously flawed. And since Vinson did not issue a stay, it’s not a stretch to treat the ACA as the law of the land unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise when they take it up sometime down the line.

However, the Vinson ruling, coming as it does on the heels of last fall’s nullification victory for Proposition C, as well as recent resolutions passed in both the state House and the state Senate calling for Koster to get on the ACA litigation bandwagon, does put Koster between a rock and a hard place. Collectively, these events constitute a big GOP club now aimed squarely at Koster who also has to deal with a roused Democratic base trying to block his retreat.

We can only hope that Koster, who is actively bobbing and weaving to avoid the full impact of the blow, will put the welfare of Missourians first and act to preserve the very real benefits of the ACA. It is unfortunate that support for the ACA on the part of Koster, a putative Democrat, is not a forgone conclusion. Surely the well-being of the state is more important than political gamesmanship?

The first republican attempt to repeal health care reform failed in the Senate by a vote of 47-51. It has to have the most inane title for an amendment ever concocted by posturing republicans:

Question:  On the Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: McConnell Amdt. No. 13 )

Vote Number: 9 Vote Date: February 2, 2011, 06:05 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 13 to S. 223 (FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act)

Statement of Purpose: To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Vote Counts: YEAs 47

NAYs 51

Not Voting 2

Blunt (R-MO), Yea  

McCaskill (D-MO), Nay

[emphasis added]

The amendment:

SA 13. Mr. McCONNELL proposed an amendment to the bill S. 223, to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes; as follows:

   At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE __–REPEAL OF JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW

  SEC. X01. SHORT TITLE.

   This title may be cited as the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act”.

  SEC. X02. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

   (a) Job-Killing Health Care Law.–Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

   (b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.–Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.

  SEC. X03. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS TITLE.

   The budgetary effects of this title, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled “Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation” for this title, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives, as long as such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this title.

So, Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) voted to reinstate rescission, to reinstate restrictions on pre-existing conditions, to throw college students off their parent’s health insurance, to continue the lack of insurance for tens of millions of Americans, and to add several hundred billion dollars to the national debt (according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office), among many other things.

Of course the party of “No” has nothing in the wings to address those problems.

Thanks for that nothing.  

There’s a photograph of a hand lettered protest sign making the rounds of the Internets.

The little elves in the Show Me Progress corporate headquarters graphics department put together their own version.

I see bumper stickers and t-shirts in our futures.

In 2008 Brack Obama was elected president with almost 53% of the popular vote in an election with such a huge turnout (56.8%) that he won with “the most votes for a presidential candidate in American history.” He ran promising to fix our broken health care system.

In the fall of 2010 Republicans recaptured the House of representatives in an election in which 42% of the population turned out. The percentage of Americans voting for Republicans was, obviously, south of that 42%. Not much of a mandate for Republicans really.  

The GOP spent the last two years fighting health care reform tooth and nail, conducting a full-court press propaganda blitz, misrepresenting it in countless ways, and often lying about it outright – remember death panels? In spite of the media noise they generated, just recently, when Americans were polled about their perceptions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and were offered a full range of options so that those who disapprove of it were allowed to specify whether they do so because it doesn’t go far enough or because it does too much, only around 26% wanted it repealed.

Nevertheless, today the GOP-controlled House will vote to repeal the ACA. The repeal vote will go nowhere; it is a largely symbolic gesture meant to generate even more media smoke, but it will no doubt be followed by numerous efforts to chip away and nullify the essence of the ACA or defund it. The propaganda will continue. The only sure thing is that any changes that the GOP will attempt to enact will benefit the bottom line of their clients in the insurance industry in one way or another.

Eager to get in on the show, Missouri lawmakers yesterday held hearings on SR 27, a non-binding resolution calling on Attorney General Koster to join a frivolous lawsuit filed against the ACA by the Attorneys General of several other states. In spite of the 60 or so citizens who traveled to the capitol to testify in favor of the ACA, the nonbinding resolution passed out of the the Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee by a 5-2 vote. Yay, Missouri. Once again our Republican-controlled legislature plays to the peanut gallery.  

As I contemplate this madness, I can’t help thinking about a woman I met at a a large, rambunctuous Tea Party meeting with one of Claire McCaskill’s staffers. The meeting had been organized by officials of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) to discuss the then incipient health care reform. She was one of the less shrill attendees, most of whom were shouting, hooting and waving their Gadsden flags or sporting overtly racialized, comic Obama posters throughout much of the meeting.

This woman carried a poster thanking her insurance company for the survival of her twin daughters who were also in attendance. She was friendly and open and when I complimented her on her daughters’ charming, matching outfits, she told me their story. They had survived serious birth complications because of excellent medical care made possible by the great insurance that her husband’s employer provided. She was attending the meeting because she feared that the heath care reform would destroy her access to that insurance. I wonder today if she is feeling all smug and full of achievement pleased when she reads about the efforts of our elected representatives to undo the ACA that she so vociferously opposed in the name of her “wonderful” insurance.  

I also thought of her late last fall as I went through the annual process of reconfirming the choice of insurance plan that my husband’s employer provides for us. When we came to St. Louis in 2002, we found that the level of insurance that we had come to take for granted was not on offer, although the plans were still more or less adequate. Over the past few years, though, that level of adequacy has started to erode. Co-pays on all plans have risen drastically, at one point vision coverage was withdrawn and then reinstated, and the amount that the insurance company will actually pay for ostensibly fully covered procedures has dwindled so that I am left completing payment (to “in-network” doctors, no less). This is not an isolated phenomenon; I have learned from former colleagues that my old employer is also cutting health benefits back in the same way.

Nor is this niggling retrenchment leading to efficient, economical care. To give you just one example, in the past, I have opted for physical therapy in place of expensive testing and surgery for back and other joint problems. I have found it to be an excellent alternative which is actually also much less costly than other approaches. This year when, after some minor surgery, my doctor recommended a fairly intense course of physical therapy, I had to refuse it because the hefty co-pays that had been newly instituted would have been prohibitive given the number of sessions the therapist thought I needed. In the past, my insurance paid in full for up to ten weeks of physical therapy. As a consequence of this change, meant to discourage frills and cut costs for my husband’s employer I am sure, I will not be requesting physical therapy as my first line of attack in the future – regardless of the fact that it would actually cost the insurance company less than other fully covered procedures.

I wonder how long my Tea Party mother and her family will enjoy the excellent insurance coverage that inspired her loyalty? Because the types of changes that I have experienced are on the way for most of us and will probably become more extreme if health care costs continue their vertiginous trajectory. And in spite of what some claim, they were well underway long before “Obamacare” was even thought of. The number of uninsured increased by 2.5 million in 2009. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that former Post-Dispatch employees who had taken early retirement buyouts were having the health care benefits they had been promised yanked away; such stories are becoming less and less uncommon (see, for instance, here and here).

This escalating erosion of our access to good health care is what we face if the GOP manages to return us to the former status quo, or, worse, amend the ACA to feed what Matthew Iglesias argues is already heavily subsidized “free market health care.” And yet the show goes on. Pragmatic responses to our problems are met with ideological catch-phrases and seriously misapplied labels – “socialistic” comes to mind. I am afraid that I think that Ezra Klein is perhaps somewhat naive when, speaking of the repeal effort, he says*:

I hope this is just a temporary partisan reaction to the specter of a major victory for President Obama and not a view into what the GOP does when faced with a problem where the solutio
ns don’t neatly fit their worldview.

These fools are long past the simple tantrums they threw when they lost their big showdown with the socialistic leftists who foisted this centrist, Republican-lite health care reform on us.

*Sentence ending revised somewhat for clarity.

HR 39 was passed last week by the House. The resolution calls for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D) to join in the frivolous anti-health care reform lawsuits getting smacked down in federal courtrooms across the country.

With apologies to Atrios

From Representative Denny Hoskins’ (r-noun, verb, CPA) January 13, 2011 “Capitol Report”:

….The full House already voted on some bills this week.  I’m pleased to report on a resolution to urge Missouri to join 20 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the federal health care requirement.  I voted for HCR 39 and am hopeful Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster will enter into this lawsuit to make health insurance a personal choice….

There were a few amendments. A personal favorite (from the Journal of the House [pdf] for January 11, 2011):

….Representative Kelly (24) offered House Amendment No. 4.

House Amendment No. 4

AMEND House Resolution No. 39, Page 1, Line 29, by deleting the following:

“Missouri Lieutenant Governor”, and inserting in lieu thereof the words “private citizen”….

Heh.

That amendment was further amended. And then:

….On motion of Representative Franz, House Resolution No. 39, as amended, was adopted by the following vote:

AYES: 115

Allen Asbury Bahr Barnes Bernskoetter Berry Black Brandom Brattin Brown 85 Brown 116 Burlison Casey Cauthorn Cierpiot Conway 14 Conway 27 Cookson Cox Crawford Cross Curtman Davis Day Denison Dieckhaus Diehl Dugger Elmer Entlicher Faith Fallert Fisher Fitzwater Flanigan Fraker Franklin Franz Frederick Fuhr Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey Haefner Hampton Harris Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins Hough Houghton Johnson Jones 89 Jones 117 Keeney Kelley 126 Klippenstein Koenig Korman Lair Lant Largent Lasater Lauer Leach Leara Lichtenegger Loehner Long Marshall McCaherty McGhee McNary Molendorp Nance Neth Nolte Parkinson Phillips Pollock Quinn Redmon Reiboldt Richardson Riddle Rowland Ruzicka Sater Schad Scharnhorst Schatz Schieber Schieffer Schneider Schoeller Shively Shumake Silvey Smith 150 Solon Stream Swinger Thomson Torpey Wallingford Wells Weter White Wieland Wright Wyatt Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 046

Anders Atkins Aull Brown 50 Carlson Carter Colona Curls Ellinger Holsman Hubbard Hummel Jones 63 Kander Kelly 24 Kirkton Kratky Lampe May McCann Beatty McDonald McGeoghegan McManus McNeil Meadows Montecillo Nasheed Newman Nichols Oxford Pace Peters-Baker Pierson Rizzo Schupp Sifton Smith 71 Spreng Still Swearingen Talboy Taylor Walton Gray Webb Webber Zimmerman

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 002

Funderburk Hughes

[emphasis added]

As for the frivolous part:

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Health Care Reform Law

Doug Mataconis Wednesday, December 1, 2010

….If nothing else, this case points out just how difficult it will be for any of the Plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits against the health care reform bill to convince any Court of Appeals of the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate, not to mention the Supreme Court. In order for the Courts to do so, they are going to have to find more than 60 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence to have been wrongly decided, and the odds of that happening seem to be slim indeed…

Uh, that’s legal talk for the lawsuits being a colossal waste of time.

And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing health care reform would add significantly to the deficit:

CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

….Because CBO and JCT estimated that the March 2010 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. The resulting increase in deficits projected for fiscal years 2012 through 2019 is likely to be similar in size to-but not exactly the same as-the reduction in deficits that was originally estimated to result from the enacted legislation….

Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade

As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012-2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes….

There you have it. The federal lawsuits are a waste of time and repeal of health care reform would significantly increase the deficit. For republicans, what’s not to like?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability

….Question: You like the individual mandate?

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I mean, the mandate obviously is the most unpopular part, but, um, when you ask people if they want to do away with preexisting conditions they say, well of course, that’s so unfair. Well, who’s gonna buy insurance before they’re sick. You can’t do away with preexisting conditions unless you set up an environment where everyone has insurance. The nice thing about this is it’s not gonna be government run, it’s not gonna be government policies. People are gonna be able to shop, make choices. And if they can’t afford it we’re gonna help ’em by making it more affordable with some help from the government. So I think it’s, is it a perfect solution? No. But it’s the best solution I think that anybody’s come up with to an untenable spiral of healthcare costs in this country….

In today’s Kansas City Star:

McCaskill looks for alternatives to health care mandate

By STEVE KRASKE

The Kansas City Star

Sen. Claire McCaskill’s once rock-solid support for a key component of President Barack Obama’s national health care reform law appears to be wavering.

While saying she still backs the individual mandate portion of the law – the controversial section requiring that virtually every individual carry health insurance or pay a penalty – the Missouri Democrat said Thursday that she is searching for alternatives.

“I think there are different things we could look at to see if they would work, and I’m open to that,” she said….

The Star story quotes a Sarah Steelman (r) Twitter post. Sure enough:

Senator McCaskill voted for Obamacare now looking at alternatives to health care mandate.Try following the Constitution and honoring freedom 1:18 PM Jan 5th  via web

Methinks republicans protest too much. Here’s the punchline:

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan

Feb 23, 2010

In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: “A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States.”

Titled the “Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993,” it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton’s plan.  It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…

….Subtitle F: Universal Coverage – Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone….

[emphasis added]

Uh, that’s an individual mandate. The sponsors:

…COSPONSORS(20), ALPHABETICAL…:

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] – 11/22/1993

Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] – 11/22/1993

Sen Boren, David L. [OK] – 5/17/1994

Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] – 11/22/1993

Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] – 11/22/1993

Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] – 11/22/1993

Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] – 11/22/1993

Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] – 11/22/1993

Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] – 11/22/1993

Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] – 11/22/1993

Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 11/22/1993

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 11/22/1993

Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] – 11/22/1993

Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] – 11/22/1993

Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] – 5/17/1994

Sen Lugar, Richard G. [IN] – 11/22/1993

Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] – 11/22/1993

Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] – 11/22/1993

Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] – 11/22/1993

Sen Warner, John [VA] – 11/22/1993…

[emphasis added]

How ironic, eh? Of course, the stenographer neglects to mention any republican hypocrisy.

MBersin  Michael Bersin

@sarah_steelman Uh, in 1993 Bond, Dole, Grassley, Hatch, etc. sponsored HCR bill with individual mandate. Were they dishonoring freedom?23 seconds ago

The republican controlled House just voted to start the process to undo health care reform:

H.RES.26

Latest Title: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 9) instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law; and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/6/2011)      Cosponsors (None)

Related Bills: H.RES.9, H.R.2

Latest Major Action: 1/6/2011 Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 2.

House Reports: 112-2SUMMARY AS OF:

1/6/2011–Introduced.

Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Provides for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 9) instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

No surprises in the vote:

H RES 26      RECORDED VOTE      7-Jan-2011      11:04 AM

     QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Resolution

     BILL TITLE: Providing for consideration of H.R. 2, to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; and providing for consideration of H.Res. 9, instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law

—- AYES    236 —

Akin

Emerson

Graves (MO)

Hartzler

Long

Luetkemeyer

—- NOES    181 —

Carnahan

Clay

Cleaver

I wonder how many of those 236 votes in favor of repeal turned down their government health insurance? Just asking.