U.S. Representative-elect Vicky Hartzler (r) weighs in on repealing health care reform in Friday’s Kansas City Star online:

The wrangling on health care is far from over

….Hartzler said “it is time to listen to the people and repeal this onerous law in favor of common sense reforms…”

Evidently “common sense” means providing a hot meal. From over a year ago:

A health care story

….Randy Huggins:…Last Thursday I went to a health care information forum, I guess you could call it, Vicki Hartzler [a declared Republican candidate for the 4th Congressional District seat] held here. And she had concerns about the legislation and she had things that she liked about the legislation. Then she said she had solutions. The solution that she offered for the pre-existing condition my grandson had was, she offered to bring the family a, a hot meal. [pause] We’re hungry, but that’s not gonna help his heart, so.

SMP: And so, do you, do you feel some frustration when, when dealing with this, you know, the subject of health care reform and when you feel like people give you solutions that really aren’t solutions?

Randy Huggins: Absolutely it’s frustrating. [pause] I, I just, I don’t understand where they’re coming from. Why they can’t see the need to fix, the system’s broken. And they don’t see any need to fix it or to change it in any way. Just….

“…it is time to listen to the people and repeal this onerous law in favor of common sense reforms…”

Yeah, right:

Posted on Monday, November 22, 2010

New poll undercuts GOP claims of a midterm mandate

By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON – A majority of Americans want the Congress to keep the new health care law or actually expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The post-election survey showed that 51 percent of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44 percent want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether.

Driving support for the law: Voters by margins of 2-1 or greater want to keep some of its best-known benefits, such as barring insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. One thing they don’t like: the mandate that everyone must buy insurance….

Uh, if there is no individual mandate and you get sick, that’s a pre-existing condition, right? Evidently those people who “don’t like the mandate” believe that if you’re healthy and you don’t want to pay for insurance you shouldn’t have to, but when you get sick you can then buy health insurance to treat your now pre-existing condition at the expense of everyone else who bought insurance before they got sick.

That’s not personal responsibility nor is it even fair.

Well, it is “common sense” in the world of right wingnut republicans. Figures.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) via Twitter:

“Death Panel” Reversed – This letter to the editor caught my eye today. It was published in the Kansas City… http://tumblr.com/xbxlqgimg     1:15 PM Oct 14th  via Tumblr  

The letter to the editor in the Kansas City Star:

October 13, 2010

‘Death panel’ reversed

Recently, we had occasion to meet with a transplant team in a local medical center. One of the team members discretely mentioned a recent consequence of the dreaded Obamacare.

Earlier, an insurance company representing the center’s patient ordered its client’s name be removed from the transplant list. The patient had reached the maximum benefit caps.

Last week the insurance company was legally compelled to reinstate its client’s name. When the hospital notified the patient she was stunned and confused.

She sobbed, saying, “So the insurance company granted my appeal?”

“No,” came the reply. “The new health care law removed all caps on benefits…”

And Roy Blunt (r-restore the Death Panels) wants to repeal health care reform, eh?

GOP moves to repeal healthcare law

By Molly K. Hooper – 05/27/10 07:32 PM ET

House Republican leaders introduced a bill Thursday to repeal and replace the sweeping healthcare law adopted in late March.

According to Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the measure would repeal the current law and replace it with the alternative the minority party offered to the original healthcare legislation last November.

“As unpopular as this healthcare bill is today, it’s at the height of its popularity,” Blunt said. “The more the American people know about it, the more concerns they are going to have, and the more they are going to look at alternatives….”

Poll shows opposition to health care overhaul declining

By David S. Hilzenrath

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 29, 2010; 12:02 AM

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation….

…The poll found that misconceptions about the legislation persist, including the “death panel” falsehood propagated by opponents of the legislation.

“A year after the town meeting wars of last summer, a striking 36% of seniors said that the law ‘allowed a government panel to make decisions about end of life care for people on Medicare’, and another 17% said they didn’t know,” Kaiser Family Foundation chief executive Drew Altman wrote.

The survey of 1,504 adults was conducted from July 8 through July 13 and, for the broadest categories of respondents, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, the Kaiser Family Foundation said…

[emphasis added]

Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) never has been a member of the reality based community.

Just asking.

Jo Ann Emerson (r), the incumbent in the 8th Congressional District, is running an ad attacking challenger Tommy Sowers (D) for his support of health care reform.

…Jo Ann Emerson fought the health care bill…

[Jo Ann Emerson Fought Obamacare]

…and is working for repeal…

[emphasis added]

That’s interesting.

On August 24th the Congressional Budget Office responded by letter [pdf] to a request for information from Senator Mike Crapo (R) concerning the effect on the deficit if health care reform legislation were to be repealed.

Their answer? Repealing health care reform legislation would increase the deficit by $455 billion:

…Health Care Savings under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act

Finally, you asked what the net deficit impact would be if certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that were estimated to generate net savings were eliminated specifically, those which were originally estimated to generate a net reduction in mandatory outlays of $455 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The estimate of $455 billion mentioned in your letter represents the net effects of many provisions. Some of those provisions generated savings for Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and some generated costs. If those provisions were repealed, CBO estimates that there would be an increase in deficits similar to its original estimate of $455 billion in net savings over that period.

[page]

CBO’s earlier estimate was based on the forecasts of economic conditions, health care spending, and other technical factors that CBO published in 2009. Since that time, CBO has prepared new baseline projections consistent with updated economic and technical information, and has also extended its baseline to include 2020. We have not updated the estimate of health-related savings reported in March, but CBO has no reason to believe that such an estimate would differ substantially from the original one.

I hope you find this information helpful…

“…I hope you find this information helpful…

Uh, I don’t think any republicans will. Just guessing. Do you think Jo Ann Emerson (r) will change her campaign ad? The answer to that is probably no. After all, republicans are getting a lot of mileage out of noise and distortion. Why should Jo Ann Emerson (r) be any different?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 2 (August 15, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 3 (August 15, 2010)

The fourth and final part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: I feel like when you vote for health care making requirements for individuals, in this country we still [inaudible] individual freedom, the stimulus bill which is gonna cost so much money to my children and grandchildren, and financial reform, we all know has secret provisions in it and when I hear people like Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd say, you won’t know what’s in it ’til we vote for it, why do you vote for those things that are killing America’s freedoms?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Okay, there are three, you asked about what, health care, the stimulus, and financial reg?

Question: Yeah, but I can go on.

Senator McCaskill: Okay.

Question: [inaudible] other examples.

Senator McCaskill: Well, um, I , I will tell you on the stimulus, um. [crosstalk]

Question: You said, Claire, if I can quote you, you said, if it wasn’t about jobs. And let me repeat, if it’s not about jobs we should not be doing it.

Senator McCaskill: Yep.

Question: Those are your exact words. And, it’s not about jobs I don’t believe…

…Senator McCaskill: Well, let me, let me tell you what the stimulus did and is doing. Just about every orange cone you see in Missouri is stimulus money. Now I know those people working out there on those road projects would say those are jobs. The money that is being spent in the State of Missouri is stimulus money for all the road projects right now. The money that went to Jeff City that kept them from having to cut a total of three billion more than they’ve cut from the state budget over the last two years, that was stimulus money. Now I guarantee you, there’s a school superintendent that’s here, if those cuts would have gone through she would have lost teachers. Those are jobs. Those teachers would be out of work. Uh, they weren’t put out of work because of the stimulus.  Of that state stabilization money was one third of it – going straight to state governments to decide how they needed to spend to keep there from being an economic disaster within each and every state. Almost a third of it was tax cuts. Those tax cuts are still coming out of people’s, uh, they’re still getting more money in their paychecks as we speak. [crosstalk]

Question: If you work.

Senator McCaskill: If you work. That’s exactly right. If you have a job, any kind of job, you don’t have to be rich. You can have any kind of working man job, working woman job and you’re getting less money taken out of your paycheck right now. That was all [inaudible]. And then we’ve got high speed rail money and I think for this community and communities near here they understand what high speed rail could do for Missouri as it relates to the speed and the efficacy of train transportation between Kansas City and St. Louis. Being able to clear those lines so our freight trains move more easily – that includes commerce. That’s money, thirty-one million in Missouri right [inaudible crosstalk] there.

Question: But what about all the wasted things that, that are constantly shown on the Internet about, you know, [inaudible] crossings and, and, you know [inaudible][crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: Well, I’m not aware, I, I, do I think that there are mistakes made with how federal money spent? I spend a great deal of my time trying to focus on that. I can’t argue with you that there are, every single dime is spent appropriately. I will tell you that most economists believed at the time that our country was teetering and that stimulative spending, which is classic economic one-oh-one, was necessary by the government. And that’s why I voted for it. Because I believed it was gonna help us in the recovery. And if you look at the job numbers we lost three million jobs the last six months of the Bush administration and another three million jobs the first three months of the Obama administration. That has stopped. We cauterized that wound. [applause] It is not, we [inaudible] losing jobs like that now. [applause] And I believe the stimulus helped with that. [applause]

Question: We continue to lose jobs, and [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: No. We’re gaining jobs.

Question: We continue to have four hundred fifty thousand new unemployment claims every week.

Senator McCaskill: We [inaudible crosstalk], there’s no question unemployment is still a major issue in this country. But we are net creating jobs now every month. It’s not a huge number, but we’re not losing seven hundred thousand a month like we were at the end of two thousand and eight and the beginning of two thousand nine. That was the crises we were trying to address.  I was making a good faith attempt to do what I thought, and here’s the interesting thing about this, you’re kind of darned if you do and darned if you don’t. Because when I run into people all the time they say, you know, you guys need to quite spending, what are you gonna do about jobs? You guys need to quite spending. What are you gonna do about jobs? Well, there’s only so much the government can and should do. I think what we did was the appropriate amount. I don’t think we can continue to do major stimulus spending going forward. Because there’s a point that you’ve gotta pivot and really begin to fasten down the ends in terms of how much spending’s going on. That’s why capping the growth, the amendment I’m supporting makes sense right now. We’re not cutting, because if you cut right now it could send us into another tailspin economically. But capping the growth is a reasonable approach in terms of the economics of it to do it. I think I talked about health care. And what was the final one?

Question: Financial reform.

Senator McCaskill: Financial reform. Um, it is a public bill. It is available for anybody to read. It exempts the community banks. There are only, the big national banks and two other banks in Missouri that are impacted by the new regulations, UMB and Commerce, because they’re over ten billion. And I gotta tell you the truth, I don’t ever want there to be another time where I have to cast a vote to put your money to save a major financial institution in order to save the financial health of this country. I don’t ever want to have to do that again. And this bill allows the government to go in like they do for other, like you do in a bankruptcy, like you do with a bank. If the local bank down here was about to go under the federal government can come in through the FDIC, they can make sure all the a, the deposits are protected, they can shut down the bank for one afternoon, a
nd reopen the bank on Monday [inaudible crosstalk], and by reorganizing the finances and it’s almost like a structured bankruptcy type process. We didn’t have the authority to do that with these giant mortgage bankers, these investment bankers. We couldn’t do that with Goldman-Sachs or AIG [crosstalk].

Question: [inaudible] that with Fannie or Freddie?

Senator McCaskill: You know what? Fannie and Freddie [inaudible], there will be, the main reason more wasn’t done with Fannie and Freddie when we did financial reg was the real estate community said, please don’t shut off Fannie and Freddie right now as we’re in the midst of this recovery. We are busy trying to make sure that our home prices don’t fall off the cliff, that we can still sell, and that is still a very needed source of funding for many banks loans, good bank loans, in this country, those guarantees. So, um, the, I mean, I know that, that, uh, some stations on the Internet, it’s all about Fannie and Freddie and financial reg was bad. But I honestly believe that we have taken a major step to keep the government from ever having to do that again.

Question: And there are bad things in it and I think you’re aware of that.

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, there, I’m, I, I, can’t say there are bad things in it. I’m not saying that any bill’s perfect [redacted] but I think it was the right thing to do to prevent bailouts in the future [applause] and I gotta [inaudible] now.

[….]

Question: I was wondering on the illegal immigration you keep saying that there’s no money in that for illegals. How do you prevent that when an illegal shows up at a hospital? [inaudible] Any politician says, we’re not paying and [inaudible] If they go to [inaudible] so the hospital is [inaudible] [crosstalk].

Senator McCaskill: It depends. He wants to know what happens to an illegal immigrant when he, when he goes to the hospital. It depends on what the present with. Honestly, if it’s life threatening I think most hospitals probably take in any human being that shows up that could die. [inaudible crosstalk] But [crosstalk]…

Question: But we still pay.

Senator McCaskill: I, I, there’s no question about that. And, but I’m not sure we’re ready in America to say that we need to let people die in emergency rooms.

Question: I agree absolutely.

Senator McCaskill: Yeah.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I will tell you that, uh, I have some personal experience with, uh, immigrant communities that, I mean, if you, there’s a priest up in St. Louis that’s very proud at, at, uh, St. Louis University, a Jesuit university in St. Louis, Father Biondi has just opened a clinic where they are trying to provide pro bono care for illegals that are in the St. Louis area because they can’t get health care anywhere else. And he’s doing it through donations at his church and throughout the St. Louis University community. That kinds of stuff goes on for, for medical care, um, but there’s no question there’s a price that the government pays, uh, for illegal immigrants that are in this country. [inaudible crosstalk] Direct and indirect. [inaudible crosstalk] Well, oh, I think what the reason it says that is people were saying that in the health care bill we didn’t prohibit illegal immigrants from getting the benefits of the health care bill. And that is strictly prohibited. They cannot buy insurance on the exchange. They cannot get subsidies to help them buy insurance on the exchange. That’s what that’s referring to, sir, it’s not, it’s not saying that somebody who presents dying at a, at a hospital is now gonna be told go die on the curb. It’s saying that within the provisions of the health care bill it strictly prohibit giving any government benefits [inaudible crosstalk] to the illegal immigrants.

Question: One other thing they, that I also hear talks about, uh, mainly the cost of [crosstalk]…

Senator McCaskill: Uh, huh.

Question:…Starting to watch TV, and it says people are getting injuries to [inaudible].

Senator McCaskill: And that will happen for another couple of years. That will happen because the, the, the exchanges don’t go into place until twenty-fourteen. So, now, what will begin to happen next year, this is good news. We’re gonna have medical loss ratios that they have to begin reporting on next year. So, insurance companies have been hiring a lot of people to figure out ways to deny your claim. They make more money the more claims they deny. They, they’re now gonna have to report those expenses, how much of every dollar they collect from their premium holders, from their insureds. And they’re gonna have to report how much of every dollar they spend on health care versus how many people did they deny health care, their advertising, or salaries. And if they spend more than eighty-five, eighty-five cents, they spend more than fifteen cents of every dollar on something other than health care they gotta rebate to their insureds, not to the government. It goes back to their policy holders.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I don’t think it’s realistic to think we’re gonna have a good handle on changing the cost curve until provisions of the bill come into effect. So it is gonna take a few years. And yes, it’s gonna be hard for all of you who don’t like the bill, it’s gonna give you a lot of righteous indignation the next couple of years ’cause you’re gonna say, well look, we’re not any better off. But for a lot of people, for kids who can stay on your insurance policies longer, for seniors who are gonna get help with the donut hole, for small businesses that are gonna get, for people who have preexisting conditions, there’s a program now in Missouri they can sign up for. There are some good things that’ll happen the next two years, but in terms of really getting a handle on the costs I’m the first to admit that’s not gonna happen in the next two years.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, the, his [crosstalk]…

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I think the frustrating part for me, sir, I understand what you’re saying, but I run into people all the time that have the wrong information about what is and isn’t in the bill. All the time. And I had a whole bunch of people say to me, you know, I’m not really sure what’s in it, but I just figure it’s better to vote no against it than anything else because if the government’s involved it’s probably a bad idea. So there’s some of that out there, too, in fairness. I mean, I bet if I started quizzing you on all of the things that are in the bill I think you’d probably wouldn’t get a hundred percent on the quiz.

Question: I don’t think there’s anybody in America who’d get a hundred percent on that quiz. [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, I, I don’t [inaudible] a hundred percent, but I think I’d get, I’d be put in B plus territory. I’m pretty sure I would.

Question: [inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: But that’s my job. I’m supposed to know it, right?

Question: Right.

Senator McCaskill: Thank you guys very, very much for being here. [applause] [inaudible] Thank you very much.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 2 (August 15, 2010)

The third part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  [reading the question] If you are elected to represent the people of Missouri how can you support the health care bill when the people you represent are obviously against it in light of Proposition C.

Well, believe me, I noticed. Um, and I guess I can tell you honestly [redacted] that [pause] I know I may go home over this vote. I know I may go home over this vote. And when I cast it I knew that. I’m not dumb and naïve in that regard. There are really hard problems that we don’t solve in Washington because they, you can’t solve them without making people mad. They’re big, they’re complicated, they’re hard and you’ve got to step on some people’s toes to begin to solve them. And one of our problems in this country is people who go to Washington are so focused on staying they are never gonna make anybody mad. They never want to tackle a hard problem ’cause when you tackle a hard problem, you know you’re gonna lose voters. It’s hard to get anything done without making some people mad.

Now, I think overall, as time goes on and people learn how this bill will be implemented and learn that what they’ve heard is not true in regards to parts of the bill this bill, I believe, I may be wrong, but I believe it will become more and more accepted by the people I work for. And it wasn’t easy for me to vote for the bill knowing how unpopular it was, but I honestly believed it was the right thing to do for health care costs in this country. That’s the best answer I can give you….

…[voice: “Yeah, but your job is to represent us.”]  Well, let me ask you this, campaign finance law in Missouri. Do you remember the vote in two thousand seven? Statewide? Do you remember what the vote was to limit contributions to candidates? You know what happened right after that? The Republican legislature in Jeff City said, forget about it. No limits on contributions. The same people that put Prop C on the ballot are the same ones that wiped out campaign finance limits that Missourians voted for. Carrying concealed weapons, anybody remember that statewide vote? [voices: “Yeah.”] How’d the people vote on that? [inaudible crosstalk] They voted against it. The people of Missouri voted no on carrying concealed weapons. And what happened after that? The legislature said, we know better.  Now, I guarantee you in this room most people are glad the legislature did that. Right? [inaudible crosstalk] You thought the people that voted were wrong and you wanted it to be a different way. That’s the way our system works. These statewide votes are not binding. And sometimes you’ll like what the people decide and sometimes you don’t. But what I gotta do with each and every vote I cast, I’ve gotta make sure I’m doing what I believe is the right thing for the future. And I honestly believe, and I know you disagree by the way you’re sitting there, I honestly believe that as time goes on it will help bring down the deficit, it will help bring down health care costs, it will make Medicare more affordable and therefore sustainable for the next generation. And doing nothing was just simply not an option. [applause] That’s what I believe.

[….]

Senator McCaskill:  [reading the question] EMR, electronic medical records, where does the funding for this come from? Rumor has it, Medicare trust fund  and that being the reason for no [inaudible crosstalk], oh, you mean for, for the Social Security trust fund? Have we reduced our deficit to China at all?

No, we haven’t reduced our deficit to China at all. Um, but, we’re on a trajectory to begin to reduce it. Um, [inaudible] the next ten years, I mean if you look at the out, we are probably at a record high right now because of what we did, because of the economic disaster. Um, we’re slowly but surely getting all that money back. We’ve gotten almost all of the TARP money back with interest. Looks like we’re gonna get all of our GM money back, we’ve gotten big chunk of it back. Um, I don’t know about Chrysler. That’s still iffy, we may lose that money. Uh, and obviously we’re not gonna be engaged in another giant stimulus like we did at the point in time when things were very rocky. So, of course the deficit shot up because of those initiatives. But, as you see in this diagram, that light blue, that light blue is the deficit. I mean it is the, uh, TARP, is the stimulus. So light blue is the stimulus, that dark, the middle shade of blue, that’s TARP.  So, you see how that goes away ’cause we’re getting it back and the light blue goes down, the others remain. The economic downturn is huge. We have less revenue in government because we have less economic activity. So that’s obviously been a hit.

The first part of your question is EMR. No, it’s not being paid for out of Social Security trust fund. The electronic medical records are being paid for, well, frankly some of that was in the stimulus. So, it wasn’t paid for, it was just stimulus activity to try to generate activity out there. But in the long run they’re gonna save money. [inaudible crosstalk][voice:”…you need to delete this (rumor e-mail) because it’s garbage.”] Right.  There’s a lot of that, there’s a lot of that. [inaudible crosstalk] There’s a, healthcare.gov is a pretty good web site, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a pretty good web site for, for factual information on the health care stuff. [voice: “Thank you.”]

[….]

Senator McCaskill:  [reading the question] Does the new health care bill do anything to encourage doctors to practice in rural areas of the state?

Yes. There’s incentives in there for nurses and for doctors. And there’s also, uh, upping, uh, rural health care, uh, payments to hospitals. Um, in fact, what I need to do because of your role with the regional planning commission let me get you a summary of all of the things in the bill that are geared toward helping people in rural areas get the same access to health care that people in the cities have, with the same kind of safety net provisions. That’s were telemedicine will really help, too, by the way. Um, you know, it, wouldn’t it be nice if you could see a doctor without leaving your house? That’s why all this rural broadband money that we spent money on, uh, with the stimulus. That rural broadband that Missouri’s getting’ a chunk of that, allowing people to have fast broadband will allow doctors to be able to see patients long distance. Um, many instances that the cost and the time of driving to a doctor is sometimes, uh, you know, for something that’s minor, you could do that with telemedicine and really help people in rural areas get more access to the help they need.

[….]

Question: Uh, my question, I work in economic development [redacted]. Uh, through, uh, USDA and through Department of Energy there’s [inaudible], not grants, but low interest loans for gre
en [inaudible]. Uh, first batch went through six eight months ago and the majority of those never reached grassroots companies in rural communities that were actually gonna create jobs. And I know another batch is in the process now. Is there any way to try to encourage USDA and the Department of Energy to focus those funds which are loans, they’re not grants…

Senator McCaskill:  Right, they’re loans.

Question: …to create jobs, green energy jobs in, in rural communities rather than giving them to large electrical companies and electrical associations, oil companies? Uh, can we get ’em [inaudible] down?

Senator McCaskill: Well, a, a chunk of it is going to the rural co-ops. Um, so you know. And of course we got a lot of those incentives that have done the wind farms up in northwest Missouri. In fact, um, that, a lot of that was a, of, of, of investment that was both rural co-ops, local money, and private money and some federal money in terms of incentives. So there is that going on. But, I’m happy to get a break down for you of the rural versus urban use of some of those green, that green jobs incentives and so you can get a sense of where it’s getting broken down. I think you might be, if you add in biodiesel and you add in ethanol and you add in what we’ve done with wind you might be surprised to find that more of those dollars have actually gone to rural areas than have to cities. When you add those programs together. All of which, of course, are incentivizing alternative energy.

Question: Thank you.

Senator McCaskill : Uh, huh.

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

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

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

The second part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: My biggest question is, um,  I’m a businessman [inaudible]. My question is, [inaudible] in the thinking process, why was [inaudible]?  It does create a [inaudible]. [inaudible] It quadrupled in [inaudible]. [inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, actually, I think that they will go across state lines, the exchange in Missouri, because you’re allowed to sell insurance across state lines in a cooperative basis. The decision was made to not have the place that people can go to pool risk, which they can’t go to now, uh, is all gonna be private insurance companies. And the states are gonna administer that. And the states have every right, if they would like to go together with other states. And I’ve talked to the man who runs the insurance department in Missouri – it’s his intention to try to go together with a number of states so we can make the pool even bigger. And so there will be that…

…But here’s the thing about going across state lines, interestingly enough. Some of the very people who have talked to me about going across state lines also say to me, what about state’s rights? Now what you do, when you say from Washington that insurance companies don’t have to pay any attention to state law, that they can just sell anywhere in the country, what you’re basically doing is saying that states have no right to regulate what goes on in their state. Which means that the rules they set for insurance companies in New York or in Florida or in Texas could be the rules that a Missourian would have to live by, depending on where [inaudible] coming from. So we’ve always tried to respect the right of states to regulate their marketplaces within their borders. It is a radical concept that we would wipe that out. And the very people who are waving the Constitution saying, Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, I’m a Tenther, are the same ones that say to me sometimes, what about selling across state lines. And I get dizzy. I mean, you can’t have it both ways. We can’t wipe out all the state regulations and also respect state rights. So that’s why I think the way we did it, by having these decisions made at the state level so the state can decide if they want to go in with other states that maybe have similar regulations or rules, you know like in Missouri a woman who has a baby, you can’t kick her out of a hospital in less than twenty-four hours. In other states they don’t have that rule. Well, the Missouri legislature went down there, elected by all of you, and they voted. I think it’s twenty-four, isn’t it? I think it’s twenty-four hours in the laws you guys passed, isn’t it? Yeah. And, you know, so do we want to say to Jeff City you can’t say to insurance companies that women get to stay in the hospital for twenty-four hours when they have a baby? That’s the problem. [inaudible crosstalk] No, no, these are all gonna be private insurance companies. What this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like, uh, the best example I can give you is like Expedia. You know how you can go on Expedia and you can buy a airline ticket here or from Delta or from Northwestern or any of those? That’s what this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like a marketplace. There are gonna be a number of different kinds of policies and a number of different companies that are gonna offer polices. The idea is that it’s one central location where you can get a lot of people to go buy insurance, you get bigger risk pools. And the fact that everything is gonna be in the pool, the idea is it’ll bring down costs for everyone. And we will, you will no longer be paying for your competitor across the road who decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance. And somebody on his workforce breaks their arm, and they go down to the hospital and get their arm fixed and freeload off all of us, ’cause we pay for it with our higher insurance rates. That’s the idea behind this, as unpopular as it is, that’s the concept. Um, and that’s why we didn’t do a public option. It is not gonna be run from Washington. It’s gonna be run at the state leve and hopefully they will combine across state lines to make it more affordable for your company to continue to offer insurance.

[….]

Question: Immigration is one of my pet peeves. It seems to me that, uh, [inaudible] Do you agree with Obama and Hillary Clinton [inaudible] the Arizona law. In my opinion, it’s a [inaudible] Congress sitting on their hands [inaudible] They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. [inaudible] My, my question is, do you agree with [inaudible] Obama [inaudible}?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I agree with some things, I disagree with others. Uh, let me start with the best news. The best news is that, uh, the day before we left Washington last week we were able, I voted for a whole lot a Republican amendments to step up border enforcement, against most of the people in my party. I was able to get border security passed the day before we left Washington, six hundred million dollars. And the whipped cream and the cherry on top of this is the way we’re paying for it. Um, they way we’re paying for it – there are some foreign companies that have come to our country and more than fifty percent of their workforce is H1B visas. In other words, they’re bringing foreigners here with their companies to be the employees. So the idea was that if you have more than, if you’re a foreign company and you have more than fifty percent of your employees that are H1B visas, any other visas you get are gonna be very, very expensive. And the Wall Street Journal, the day after we passed it, this is the best, this Indian company that it will affect, it’s a, it’s a, basically a call center kind of operation, very, very large Indian company, it would affect them. And they were quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying, this means we’ll have to hire more Americans. Yahoo!  I like that. That’s a-okay with me. That’s a great way to pay for the bill as far as I’m concerned.

This will [inaudible] six hundred million dollars in a very focused way along the border, um, for task forces. As a former prosecutor I know that, you know, you don’t just put the same amount of help everywhere along the border. It’s a very long border. It will be unmanned drones, aerial vehicles for real time aerial photography that we can see, real time, various places across the border without a lot of manpower. It’s gonna help. The good news also is immigration is down. Deportations are up. The percentage of the deportations being people who have committed crimes is up sixty percent. And audits against businesses that hire illegal immigrants are at a record high. So, we’re moving the right direction. More people are getting deported, more of them are bad guys, less people are coming across the border, and more businesses are being audited. Rather than just photo-op workplace raids, that’s wha
t we used to do, we’d do a workplace raid and the people that were there that day that were illegal, there’d be cameras rolling and everyone gets this mistaken impression that the employer was being held accountable and they never were. Employers didn’t even get a rap on the knuckle. Now we’re going more aggressively after the magnet that’s pulling them across.

I get the frustration in Arizona. Do I think that every border state can start doing federal immigration policy? I don’t think our Constitution allows for that. Now maybe we need to change the Constitution in that regard. I’m not here to debate that today. I completely understand the frustration of the Arizona people. But I think the way to get at that is do what we need to do to secure the border and begin to enforce the laws we have. I voted against comprehensive immigration, I voted against amnesty, I’m not gonna go there until this country demonstrates to the people who occupy it legally that we can enforce the law. So, that, that’s where I am on immigration. So that means I come down yes some places and no other places.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] I’m interested in protecting the environment. How do you think clean energy can be made economically beneficial and promoted as so? Mos, most of the publicity has been to scare us about the cost to individuals of regulation. We’re behind many countries in this area.

I appreciate your sentiment. I will tell you that my hesitancy in this regard is because Missouri is a coal dependent state and this is a tough economy. The last thing I’m going to be a part of at this point is larger costs to working people in Missouri, small businesses and manufacturing, for a cost on carbon that we don’t yet have the technology or the alternative energy developed that make it a cost effective alternative. Now, there are allowances in the bill for coal dependent states, but I thought they were allowances in the bill that were paying off people that we shouldn’t be paying off. You know, I’m not big on let’s pay off this state to get these votes, let’s pay off that state to these votes, so that’s why I was not happy with the House bill in that regard. Um, we’re doing some things to incentivize alternative energy. And yes, I do think we need to lead the world, but on the other hand it’s the same atmosphere. And if China and India are putting up coal fired plants every ten minutes, I, I want us to lead but I don’t want us to be [inaudible]. I don’t want us to be in a situation where all of a sudden manufacturing is really fleeing our shores, going for cheap dirty energy in India and China because our rules are so serious and stringent and their rules aren’t. We’ve got to bring our competitors along. Not just Europe, who’s done this, but our competitors, which for manufacturing is, is more South America, India, China and to some extent Japan.

Voice: Do you think that the, quote, mainstream media is downplaying the dangers?

Senator McCaskill: Is the mainstream media, I’m breaking my rule here ’cause I’m not supposed to go out of order, mainstream media is, are they downplaying the dangers? I don’t know what the mainstream media is anymore. Here’s one of my com…[crosstalk] [voice: “The three networks.”] Well, the three networks I think probably cover it pretty accurately on the evening news, but here’s the, the problem we’ve got with all the media right now. We now have news outlets that you go to get affirmation, not information. My friends on the left they all go watch MSNBC and you know what they feel? Righteously vindicated. We’re right, we’re right, listen to Rachel, listen to Keith. People on the right? They go to Fox and they say, the listen to Sean Hannity and they, and they go, you know what? We’re right, we’re right. And meanwhile what I had as a kid? [voice: “You think they’re equal.”] I think both, I think in different ways they’re very alike. Both of them are playing to a segment of ideological opinion in this country as opposed to [inaudible] really trying to present both sides. And when I was little I had to watch the evening news on network. And that was pretty straightforward. [voice: “Huh.”] That was pretty straightforward. I mean, you know, whether it was NBC, Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and then we’d talk about the news at the dinner table. And it was pretty objective. I’m not sure that all of our news sources now are as objective as they used to be when I was a kid. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah [laugh].

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Before the August 3rd primary we received a photocopied flyer on our doorstep in the name of a right wingnut astroturf organization in support of proposition C and in opposition to federal health care reform legislation. Of course, it’s much ado about nothing because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, but it does serve republican posturing.

Let’s take a look at the money.

They received some interesting contributions in the days leading up to the election – as reported to the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM [pdf] 7/30/2010

Ethelmae Humphreys

Joplin, MO Retired 7/29/2010

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM [pdf] 7/22/2010

Menlo Smith

St. Louis, MO Sunmark Capitol 7/22/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM [pdf] 7/21/2010

Mark Andrews

Sanibel, FL Retired 7/21/2010

$10,000.00 [emphasis added]

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM [pdf] 7/19/2010

Fred Sauer

St. Louis, MO Orion Investment Co. 7/19/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM [pdf]7/19/2010

William Canfield

Kirkwood, MO Retired 7/17/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM [pdf]6/28/2010

Ray Vincent

Chesterfield, MO US Auto Protection 6/28/2010

$5,000.00

Missourians for Goodman

Mount Vernon, MO 6/28/2010

$5,000.00

Citizens for Brad Lager

Savannah, MO 6/25/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

Ah, some of the usual suspects.

There were a few interesting contributions in the committee’s “eight day” report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on July 24th:

Detailed Summary of Contributions And Loans Received

Committee: MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM

Report Date: 7/24/2010

Midwest ENT Center PC Saint Peters, MO 7/19/2010 $1,000.00

August Busch III Saint Peters, MO Retired 7/22/2010 $1,000.00

Billy Long For Congress Seminole Springfield, MO 7/22/2010 $100.00

[emphasis added]

Yep, that Billy Long.

The expenditures:

Detailed Summary of Expenditures And Contributions Made

Committe: MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM

ReportDate: 7/24/2010

Media Placements Kansas City, MO 7/20/2010 yard signs 6300 $3,000.00

Market and Communications Research Kansas City, MO 7/6/2010 campaign management 14192.37 $5,000.00

John Hancock and Assoc Chesterfield, MO 7/9/2010 fundraising 499.55 $499.55

Phelan Design Group Wildwood, MO 7/9/2010 graphic design 1462.5 $1,462.50

Media Placements Kansas City, MO 7/9/2010 yard signs 6300 $3,300.00

Market and Communications Research Kansas City, MO 7/9/2010 online/social media 14192.37 $2,000.00

Market and Communications Research Kansas City, MO 7/16/2010 campaign management 14192.37 $5,000.00

Market and Communications Research Kansas City, MO 7/20/2010 travel reimbursements 14192.37 $2,192.37

CAMPAIGN Date Established:5/21/2010

COMMITTEE: MECID:C101350

MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM

KANSAS CITY MO 64171

TREASURER: PATRICK TUOHEY

[emphasis added]

Market and Communications Research, Inc.? Any connection [pdf]?

We also received three mail pieces from the Missouri Hospital Association in opposition to proposition C (and yes, they did spend a lot of money, too):

The MHA asks the question that the teabgger opponents to health care reform legislation never seem to want to answer: “Should Missourians who already pay for health insurance also have to pay for those who choose not to pay?”

The best quote about the outcome of the Proposition C vote, given the usual republican turnout in these August primaries: “It’s like expecting Red Sox fans to vote for the Yankees.”

Given the lopsided turnout of hysterically aroused Republicans expected tomorrow, Proposition C is generally expected to enjoy a rousing success. Just for laughs, I thought it might be fun to take one last look at the narrative that drives its supporters. To find an example of pro-Proposition C rhetoric I had to go no further than an opinion piece penned by local Tea Party luminary, Carl Beardon, for the St. Louis Beacon. If you are interested in what is probably an exercise in futility, follow me over the fold:

Beardon wastes no time, but jumps in and goes after the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with his metaphorical guns blazing:

“A “yes” vote on Proposition C — the Health Care Freedom Act — will tell the nation that Missourians have looked at this expensive, ill-conceived and unhealthy measure and rejected it.

“Unhealthy” – get the joke? A real pistol that Beardon. True, it is likely that a majority of the small fraction of eligible voters who are expected to hit the polls tomorrow may think the characterization sums the PPACA up. But given the reams of disinformation still churning out, one wonders how many have an accurate idea about what it does or doesn’t do? Or, to ask a more basic question, how many are capable of clearing their ideological closets sufficiently to find room for fact-based analysis? Certainly, Beardon completely undermines the implication that he has committed any acts of close analysis when he declares that he opposes the PPACA because:

… the government, rather than patients and their doctors would determine the level of care to be provided.

With this statement Beardon’s right up there in the realm of the mythical death panels, sprinkling pure Tea Party fairy dust. If you really want some fun, ask a Tea Partier to tell you how this terrifying government control works – based on the legislation itself, and not on the usual Rube Goldberg chain of hearsay hypotheticals and illogical inferences that they seem so ready to believe.

But enough of what supporters of Proposition C don’t know. What they really, really, think they know is that:

… there is more at stake than health care. The ballot initiative also represents a referendum on state sovereignty. … . It’s a mandate on individuals and states that goes beyond proscribed [sic] federal powers.

You’d think the fact that nobody actually takes Proposotion C seriously in this respect ought to deflate just a little of the oh-so-righteous self-importance that is so palpable in such declarations. Unless of course, the St. Louis Beacon is right, and these folks don’t understand that “a Missouri referendum cannot repeal the federal health care law.”

It gets even worse, though, when Beardon tries to get all fiscally responsible about mandates:

… employer-paid programs would be mandated, which will lead to job losses, wage cuts, loss of employer plans and accompanying choice of doctors or higher prices. All of which threaten the still struggling economy.

Of course, he offers no support for this assertion and, in fact, ignores the countless arguments, based on actual analysis by real economists who think that the PPACA has a fair chance of doing just the opposite.

At the end of his little op-ed, Beardon gets to what I suspect really drives the Tea Party love affair with Proposition C – pure spleen, the desire to put on a great big temper tantrum after last summer’s hissy fits failed to put finis to health care reform.  “Admittedly,” Beardon writes,  “part of Prop C is symbolic,” and one might add, clearly intended to put the fear of the Tea Party into legislators.  But most of all, it will be a kick in the pants aimed at Chris Koster, who wouldn’t let Missourians play with all the other kids who are filing lawsuits against the the PPACA:

Perhaps most important, Prop C would send a strong message to Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, whose record so far on the federal health-care package has been disappointing.

Some people never grow up – too bad the rest of us so often have to bear the consequences of their foolish behavior.

Here’s the official wording for the “amendment” (a.k.a. Proposition C):

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

* Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?

* Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?

It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.  However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.

As one news report put it: “It likely would have little effect because federal laws trump state laws.” (little effect being the gentle way of saying “no effect”)

Then again, that news report also mentions a lawsuit over the multiple subjects of the bill. Which makes sense because the first part of the law is effectively high speed fist shaking and the second part might not get overridden by federal law. How about we look at the 2nd part of this “amendment”:

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a domestic insurer organized as a stock insurance company may voluntarily dissolve and liquidate as a corporation under sections 351.462 to 351.482, provided that:

(1) The director, in his or her sole discretion, approves the articles of dissolution prior to filing such articles with the secretary of state. In determining whether to approve or disapprove the articles of dissolution, the director shall consider, among other factors, whether:

(a) The insurer’s annual financial statements filed with the director show no written insurance premiums for five years; and

(b) The insurer has demonstrated that all policyholder claims have been satisfied or have been transferred to another insurer in a transaction approved by the director; and

(c) An examination of the insurer pursuant to sections 374.202 to 374.207 has been completed within the last five years; and

(2) The domestic insurer files with the secretary of state a copy of the director’s approval, certified by the director, along with articles of dissolution as provided in section 351.462 or 351.468.

This was the original bill, before the Health Care “Freedom” “Amendment” carjacked this bill’s car and drove it off to Crazyland. Would it be a plus or minus if this section was invalidated due to constitutional problems? I don’t know. You can react to that since some experts might be out there.

As for the Missouri Constitution:

Missouri Constitution, Article III, LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, Section 23

Limitation of scope of bills–contents of titles–exceptions.

Section 23. No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except bills enacted under the third exception in section 37 of this article [Bond issues] and general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts for which moneys are appropriated.

So it’d be kind of fitting if a bill which won’t do anything was struck down for violating the Missouri Constitution because it’s sponsors conducted a forced marriage of the HC”F””A” and an existing bill. Either way, the best reaction to ineffective propositions is a No Vote.

On May 21, 2010 Missourians for Health Care Choice (pdf) a campaign [issue] committee was established with the Missouri Ethics Commission. On June 21, 2010 the committee filed an amended statement changing their name to Missourians for Health Care Freedom (pdf). When you think about it the apparent aversion to the first choice is somewhat amusing. And yes, they have a website.

They exist to support the August 3rd ballot question (from HB 1764) that asserts our right to keep government out of our Medicare.

The committee treasurer (in both organization statements) is Patrick Tuohey.

On June 28, 2010 the committee received three $5,000.00 contributions:

MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101350 MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTH CARE FREEDOM (pdf) 6/28/2010

Ray Vincent

Chesterfield, MO

US Auto Protection

6/28/2010

$5,000.00

Missourians for Goodman

Mount Vernon, MO 6/28/2010

$5,000.00

Citizens for Brad Lager

Savannah, MO 6/25/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

What, no million dollar contributions?

Missouri State Senate

Bills Co-Sponsored by Senator Lager

SB 851 – Requires at least four days notice before voting by governing bodies of local governments on tax increases, eminent domain, and certain districts and projects

SCR 56 – Urges the Department of Natural Resources to consider the use of certain coal technology in its permitting of new coal-fired power plants

SJR 25 – Prohibits laws interfering with freedom of choice in health care

[emphasis added]

There’s that unfortunate choice of word again.

Missouri State Senate

Bills Co-Sponsored by Senator Goodman

SB 721 – Modifies provisions relating to required travel club assets

SB 740 – Exempts prosecuting and circuit attorneys who have completed the firearms safety training course required to obtain a conceal carry endorsement from certain otherwise unlawful uses of a weapon

SB 821 – Requires drug testing for work-eligible Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) applicants and recipients based upon reasonable suspicion

SB 851 – Requires at least four days notice before voting by governing bodies of local governments on tax increases, eminent domain, and certain districts and projects

SCR 56 – Urges the Department of Natural Resources to consider the use of certain coal technology in its permitting of new coal-fired power plants

SJR 25 – Prohibits laws interfering with freedom of choice in health care

[emphasis added]

There’s that word again. Irony impairment alert. Yes, it’s all about that choice you used to have to pay for insurance and have an insurance company deny you coverage. That’ll make perfect sense to a certain percentage of the population.