From Jesse Lee at the White House, via Twitter:

Jesse Lee @jesseclee44

Report: 54M more Americans got preventive care in 2011 b/c of #hcr 1.usa.gov/z0stUq GOP’s Blunt amendment would nix that guarantee 12:04 PM – 15 Feb 12

From the Department of Health and Human Services:

Fifty-Four Million Additional Americans Are Receiving Preventive Services Coverage Without Cost-Sharing Under The Affordable Care Act (February 2012)

And there’s this:

Posted at 11:09 AM ET, 02/15/2012

Why birth control is a good wedge issue against the GOP

By Greg Sargent

Some time around the end of February, the Senate will vote on the Blunt-Rubio amendment, which would allow insurers and employers to deny coverage for birth control or any other medical services simply on the grounds that they find them morally objectionable….

[emphasis added]

Senator Roy Blunt (r) wants to completely dismantle health care reform with this amendment.

And there’s this:

Mapping the Effects of the ACA’s Health Insurance Coverage Expansions

Who Benefits From the Affordable Care Act’s Coverage Expansions?

[The detail of Missouri from the map above. Roy Blunt’s old House district could lose a lot of coverage.]

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes two primary mechanisms for helping people afford health coverage. Starting in 2014, people with family incomes up to 138% of the poverty level ($31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012) will generally be eligible for the Medicaid program. And, people buying coverage on their own in new state-based health insurance exchanges will be eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize the cost of insurance. Tax credits will be calculated on a sliding scale basis for people with family income up to four times the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four and $44,680 for a single person in 2012). (A calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the assistance people would be eligible for at different income levels and ages.)

The share of the population who will benefit from new Medicaid eligibility and the new health insurance tax credit will vary substantially throughout the country. We’ve illustrated that variation by estimating the share of the population in over 2,000 geographic areas across the U.S. who had family income up to four times the poverty level in 2010 and were either uninsured or buying coverage on their own.

On average, an estimated 17% of the non-elderly population nationwide would benefit from the Medicaid expansion and tax credits. In parts of Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and California, 36-40% of population could benefit.  In areas of Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and Connecticut – states that generally have high levels of employer-provided health insurance or have already implemented reforms to make insurance more accessible and affordable – 2-4% of the non-elderly could benefit from the coverage expansions in the ACA….

And, a press release from the Department of Health and Human Services:

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

News Division                                  

HHS Press Office

[….]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Affordable Care Act extended free preventive services to 1,102,000 Missouri residents with private health insurance in 2011

Free preventive care also provided to 729,472 Missouri residents in Medicare

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today that the Affordable Care Act provided approximately 1,102,000 Missouri residents with at least one new free preventive service in 2011 through their private health insurance plans. Secretary Sebelius also announced that an estimated 729,472 Missouri residents with Medicare received at least one free preventive benefit in 2011, including the new Annual Wellness Visit, since the health reform law was enacted.

Together, this means an estimated 1,831,472 Missouri residents were helped by health reform’s prevention coverage improvements. The new data were released in two new reports from HHS.

“Americans of all ages can now get the preventive services they need, like mammograms and the new Annual Wellness Visit, free of charge, as a result of the new health care law,” Secretary Sebelius said. “With more people taking advantage of these benefits, more lives can be saved, and costly, and often burdensome, diseases can be prevented or caught earlier.”

Nationwide, the Affordable Care Act provided approximately 54 million Americans with at least one new free preventive service in 2011 through their private health insurance plans. And an estimated 32.5 million people with Medicare received at least one free preventive benefit in 2011, including the new Annual Wellness Visit, since the health reform law was enacted. Together, this means an estimated 86 million Americans were helped by health reform’s prevention coverage improvements.

The Affordable Care Act requires many insurance plans to provide coverage without cost sharing to enrollees for a variety of preventive health services, such as colonoscopy screening for colon cancer, Pap smears and mammograms for women, well-child visits, and flu shots for all children and adults. The law also makes proven preventive services free for most people on Medicare.

The report on private health insurance coverage also examined the expansion of free preventive services in minority populations.  The results showed that an estimated 6.1 million Latinos, 5.5 million Blacks, 2.7 million Asian Americans and 300,000 Native Americans across the country with private insurance received expanded preventive benefits coverage in 2011 as a result of the new health care law.

The report discussing Medicare preventive services found that more than 25.7 million Americans (582,585 Missouri residents) in traditional Medicare received free preventive services in 2011. The report also looked at Medicare Advantage plans and found that 9.3 million Americans (200,712 Missouri residents) – 97 percent of those in individual Medicare Advantage plans – were enrolled in a plan that offered free preventive services.  Assuming that people in Medicare Advantage plans utilized preventive services at the same rate as those with traditional Medicare, an estimated 32.5 million Americans (729,472 Missouri residents) benefited from Medicare’s coverage of prevention with no cost sharing.

The full report on expanded preventive benefits in private health insurance is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/rep…  The report on expanded preventive benefits in Medicare and other ways that the Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare is available at http://www.cms.gov/newsroom/.

###

Anyone think any of those folks who are registered voters would be partial to voting for Roy Blunt in the future if they knew what he was up to? Not hardly.

Previously: Roy Blunt tries to pull a fast
one (February 10, 2012)

We received a communication yesterday afternoon that the White House would hold a conference call for bloggers with White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. Mr. Pfeiffer made a brief statement and then took questions on the DREAM Act, Social Security, Republican obstruction of nominations, filibuster reform, energy policy, and the real estate/mortgage foreclosure crisis. The transcript:

….Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director: Thanks everyone, uh, for joining us, uh [inaudible] as we get so close to the holidays here. And we’ll try to do this quick so you can, uh, be done with us and do whatever else you were hoping to do today. Um, I hope folks saw the pre, the President at the, uh, press conference he just finished up over in the old Executive Office Building.  Uh, this, you know, we obviously have had, um, when you go back to the day after Election day I don’t think anyone would have, uh, predicted the, uh, sorts of successes we’ve been able to have on some very important issues, uh, during this lame duck session. Um, you know, most notably, uh, the big ones getting obviously, uh, some resolution on taxes, uh, which as the President said, threatened, uh, the economy and the, uh, well being of millions of middle class families and particularly two million unemployed folks who would go without benefits, uh, would continue to go without benefits had we not got this done. Uh, getting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed which the president signed today. Uh, and I hope folks were able to see, uh, that event today. It was a very, uh, emotional event for everyone involved and, uh, when I think when the history is written, um, of this administration it will be seen as a very, uh, significant moment, uh, a real civil rights victory there. Uh, getting, uh, START done, uh, was, uh, a very important national security priority for the President. And then, uh, you know, the way today we were able to get the 9/1, uh, firefighters bill, which was just passed by the House, which, uh, was something that, uh, is obviously very important to get done, the right thing to do and was just caught up in a bunch of, uh, senseless politics. We were able to get that resolved at the last minute.

This has been a, uh, great, uh, a great month for the causes that we all care about and a real opportunity, and it gives us a little, uh, all of us a little wind at our backs as we head into next year which, um, will obviously, you know, this President said today the, uh, the, the toughest fights and the biggest issue, and the, uh, most difficult issues are ahead of us and, uh, but it’s nice to have a little momentum as we head in to tackle them. And with that I’ll take, um, any, any and all questions you guys have….

[….]

Question: …With respect to moving forward and looking at the lame duck I think there’s a lot of concern with, uh, the continuing resolution ending in March with the, uh, move to increase the debt limit coming up, uh, as a need some time in the Spring, um, will the President commit to not, uh, signing, refusing to act on any, uh, budget related legislation that hurts the economy by reducing aggregate demand and the impact of the tax cut deal?

….Dan Pfeiffer: Um, well, you, you raise, there are, there are two things that I should have pointed out in my initial, uh, remarks that the President pointed out, uh, in, uh, at the press conference today that he was disappointed we were unable to get done. One was the DREAM Act and the President spoke, uh, very passionately why that was so important to do. And the other one was resolving, uh, the budget for next year. And, you’re right, that is, that is, that is a, uh, is an unfortunate situation. It’s a, it is a, it’s a problem. Look, we’re gonna have, uh, a, we’re gonna have some real debates about, uh, how we cut, how we deal with spending and the deficits over the next, uh, year here. And the Republicans ran on, um, you know, ran, ran campaigns on how they were gonna cut spending, how they were gonna reduce deficit. But they never explained how they were gonna do that.  Now, now they’re gonna have to do that. They’re gonna have to put forward a budget in the House. They’re gonna have to talk about where and what they’re gonna cut. And we’re gonna have a big debate about that. You know, in their pledge to America the House, uh, Republicans proposed a twenty percent cut in education funding which would be the largest cut in education funding in history. That’s something the President thinks would be a, uh, disastrous mistake for the long term competitiveness of the, of America and the well being of our students and he’s, and we’re gonna have a big, a big fight on that. You know, we, we’re, you know, there’s been a lot of speculation about the debt limit and how the Republicans are gonna approach that and, uh, you know, there has been, there are obviously some, uh, in their base who’ve been agitate, agitating to use that as a fight. Uh, the leadership has, uh, uh, uh, incoming Speaker Boehner in particular, has said that he didn’t, he didn’t want to make that be a overly political issue and we’ll see what happens. But we’re, you know, we, you know, I suspect that you’re gonna have some, uh, that in a, in a year in which you’ll see, uh, some compromise and some confrontation I think that you’ll probably see some, uh, see [inaudible] confrontation over spending issues ’cause this is a place where, uh, we have, you know, we are very different phil, philosophies of the Republicans on what’s best for the country and the President is prepared to, uh, draw some pretty tough lines in the sand. What those are gonna be and how we do them we’ll have to see how it plays itself out, but, uh, he’s not gonna let, uh, the Republicans take this country in the wrong direction. Um, uh, you know, particularly in ways that will, as he said, and I think at a recent event, that where you try to make the car go faster by taking out the engine. And it’s, when he, when he says that he’s referring to things like education, innovation, research and development, the things that are, will make us more competitive.

[….]

Question: …I was wondering what sort of strategy is being outlined for pursuing the DREAM Act over the next two years.

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, we’re, you know, we’re, we’re, we’re gonna spend a lot of time thinking about that over the, uh, over the next two weeks here. Um, as the President said in his press conference, uh, he, he believes fundamentally this is the right thing to do. And as he said, he’s very persistent on the things he cares about, like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and he will push very hard. He believes that this is absolutely the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do, uh, uh, for the future of the country, it’s the right thing to do for the, as he said, these kids who are, um, they are, they are American in, in all parts of their life except for where they were born.  And they didn’t come, it wasn’t their choice to come to this country and they want to fight for our country and they want to go to school and get educated, contribute to our society. And we ought to, um, to, uh, you know, we ought to do right by them. And so, he, what he said today that, you know, he’s gonna make that case publicly, you know, ’cause he said the Republicans won’t support this because the politics, uh, aren’t, aren’t good. Then we’re gonna do something to change the politics. So he’ll, he’ll make, he’ll make the case publicly on it and then I, you know, we’re gonna, you know, we’ll engage in conversations with the, uh, with the Democrats and the Republicans who oppose this bill to see if there are, uh, are some, are some areas of compromise that we can maybe come to that, uh, we maybe can pair the legislation with something else that may get people on board. But what, that’s just in the early stages right now. That’s something the President’s very committed to, uh, and he, uh, is, is willing to wage a, uh, very public campaign for it.

[….]

Question: …My question sort of follows up on the DREAM Act. There’s been some criticism that the President hasn’t been sort of engaging his grassroots supporters enough, the Washington Post op-ed by Sam Grahm-Felsen, and a lot of people noticed during the tax cut debate for example the, the, the press list was very active. I mean, is there something like this that will happen for the DREAM Act or the President’s other priorities, sort of a reengaging of, of the, the grassroots supporters?

Dan Pfeiffer: Uh, yes. I mean, I, I believe that, um, that, uh, OFA was actively involved in having, uh, both on DREAM Act and during this lame duck session with [inaudible] DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, uh, activating, uh, activists around the country to, uh, call in and write in, uh, lobby, um, wavering members, um, to support both those initiatives. I think we’ll continue to do that. Um, and I think that, that it’s one of the ways in which we would get this done. This, you know, the President always said on the campaign trail that, um, change comes from the bottom up, um, and I think on issues like the DREAM Act it’s gonna have to because there’s, uh, some real resistance in Washington, uh, from folks, primarily in the other party, uh, but some in our own. And, uh, you know, I think we’re gonna need to get people activated and I think that you’ll , you will see a lot of that over the next, uh, uh, months and years.

[….]

Question: …Uh, Obama mentioned in the, uh, press conference that he, one of the things he didn’t mention, I should note he did not mention the climate bill among his biggest regrets. Uh, but he did mention that he wanted to engage republicans on energy as soon as possible in the new session. I wonder if you could give us any preview of what that looks, uh, like and whether it goes beyond natural gas and, and clean coal?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, I think, to be fair, the President was referring to his biggest regrets of things that, uh, were [inaudible], were, could potentially have gotten done during this lame duck session which is why he mentioned the DREAM Act, um, and collective bargaining for firefighters. Um, he has said on multiple occasions, on many many occasions, that uh, you know, there are several things that he promised to do in the campaign that he’s been trying to do that he wasn’t able to get done the first two years. And, um, and comprehensive legislation that, uh, gives us a, uh, a clean energy economy for, uh, the jobs of the future and deals with, uh, climate change is something, you know, he worked, he worked to get done. He got it through the House, we’re gonna get through the Senate.  Um, the politics of that, of that which were obviously hard in a, uh, in a largely Democratic, in a, in a, in a majority Democratic House and a, um, in a signifi, in a Senate where you had, uh, sixty votes at some time, uh, get harder next year obviously as you have Republican control of the House and more Republicans in the Senate. So, we’ll, we’ll continue to work on it. And if you can’t do, um, everything, uh, that was in the, uh, the, uh, Markey Waxman bill maybe there’s some things you can get done and continue to make progress on the issue. So we’re gonna work on it and it’s one of the things we’ll, uh, be engaging Republicans about next year.

[….]

Question: …I was wondering, two things, um. First, um, I was wondering if there was any reaction to the Robert Kuttner’s article in which he, um, claimed that sources, uh, I don’t know, he didn’t exactly say, he said they were high placed sources, I believe [laughter] without getting any more specific , said that there’d be, uh, Social Security cuts put on the table in the State of the Union, um, and in addition, I think he also said budget cuts, but that’s something I think President Obama has always said that, um, programs that don’t work need to be cut, [Dan Pfeiffer:  “Um, hmm.” ] um , and isn’t anything new.  I was wondering if there was any comment on, on that article and then just more generally where would the line be drawn with Social Security in terms of sort of what’s not, uh, on the table as far as cuts go?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, um, you know I have, uh, I, I don’t go to all the economic meetings in the White House but I go to most of them. And I, I’ve never seen, uh, uh, Mr. Kuttner in any of them. So I’m not sure, uh, who his sources are. Um, what, what I can tell you is that the President believes that whatever solu, he believes that we need to strengthen Social Security. It needs to be, uh, preserved, it needs to be preserved for current beneficiaries, uh, and future ones. And that it’s gonna take, uh, you can’t, one party alone can’t solve this, um, can’t solve this problem. And so, you know, he, he’s willing to, uh, engage in, uh, conversations with the Republicans on this if they’re willing to be constructive. And we’ll see, see if that’s possible next year. But he’s not gonna do anything that, um, that, uh, that weakens social, Social Security. He, he wants to strengthen it. And, and with the, and the, what, uh, you know, the leading proponents on the Republican side have wanted to do is either privatize it which would be devastating to the program, or essentially, um, you know, I think it was, uh, some members of the Republican leadership who said that the only, uh, way that they would, uh, increase the longevity of the program would be through cuts, only cuts, nothing else, no revenue increases or anything else. And that’s obvious, that’s obviously a nonstarter and it, and what it’d basically be is an attempt to do, is to, uh, destroy the program. Uh, sort of, you know, by a million cuts. And so, uh, the, you know, we’ll , uh, we’ll look to see if there’s a conversation to be had on this next year but the President is, uh, uh, is a strong believer in Social Security and wants to strengthen it.

[….]

Question: …So my question is about the, uh, the President and judges right now. President Obama is the first judge, the first president in American history to have to fight to get district judges confirmed. This has never before been a problem. And I recognize that’s not resident Obama’s fault, that’s Mitch McConnell’s fault. But the reason why Mitch McConnell was able to make that happen is because he could exploit all the Senate rules that allow for endless delay and it’s led to this dynamic where we have to bargain away district judge. We have to bargain to get our district judges confirmed and we have to bargain away really great circuit judges that other people really want to get confirmed just to get, you know, just to keep the, the judiciary running. My question is what is the President gonna do to change that dynamic and will it include some supporting changes to the rules governing post cloture debate?

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, I would say a couple things on this. One, uh, this is a, this is, you’re actually correct, this is a problem [inaudible] judges, Republicans have taken, uh, an unprecedented approach to essentially requiring sixty votes for every nominee, even the least controversial people who get through committee, uh, with, you know, unanimously or with minimal partisan opposition. People are entirely not controversial at the district court level, uh, even at the circuit court level, who, uh, would normally in previous years get through. Um, and in, that’s even, I mean, it’s not just judges it’s all of our nominees. [voice: “Right.”]  People who’ve been sitting there for, you know, you know, well over a year, um, for issues that have nothing to do with their nomination itself. It’s, uh, uh, you know, it, you know, it’s some pet issue of, uh, you know, of this member or that member. And I think you remember when, uh, one Republican senator put a hold on all of our nominees ’cause of a, uh, essentially a pork barrel project they wanted, uh, built in their state. And, uh, that, that’s a very real problem. I think we will, um, you know, and next year we’re gonna have, this gets more challenging, not, not less, because of increased Republican numbers in the Senate. We’re gonna have to, they’ll have even bigger fight about this and you can expect to see the President raise the profile of the issue.

The President has expressed concerns on, um, many occasions about the fact that you need, that the require, that now we’re in a place that you need a super majority for everything. You need sixty votes for everything you do and, um, it, it slows things to [inaudible] down to a crawl and gives the minority, uh, the power to, uh, just, block almost, block almost everything. And, you know, were it not for the huge numbers we had in the Senate, um, you know, for much of the last two years, uh, literally nothing would have gotten done. Um, you know, how the Senate rules play itself out, now that’s a conversation for, uh, uh, yeah, for the, for the Senate to have, um, amongst themselves. And, you know, at this point we’re not prepared to, uh, uh, endorse any specific proposal on how to address that. And I’m not sure that a president, um, getting involved in a legislative branch matter like that would be, um, seen as particularly constructive by the other branch.

[….]

Question: …My house hasn’t sold for like seven months so I’m wondering, uh, what the President’s gonna do with real estate prices which continue to keep cratering.

Dan Pfeiffer: Well, um, you, you know, the, the housing market continues to be, um, a, uh, a major concern of the President’s and we have made, while we have made, um, some progress in terms of reducing the number of foreclosures, um, in providing, um, some help, uh, to homeowners who are under water there’s still a lot more work to do. But, one of the problems we have now is that in the, the best thing that we’re gonna be able to do to, uh, help the housing market [inaudible] , there are gonna be individual things you can do to protect people from unfair foreclosures, you know, you know, we have a task force working on that, at helping specific homeowners [inaudible]. But, in terms of the housing market writ large the, um, the, the most important thing we’re gonna do is to, uh, is to grow the economy, create additional demand. We are over leveraged when it comes to housing market, we, because of the housing that we’ve, built millions of houses that,  more than we would in an average year and there’s excess inventory. Um, it, the more the economy grows the better that’s gonna get. But, we’ll, I can promise you the President is very focused on this issue, looking for every possible opportunity he has to help, uh, folks who are under water on their homes, um, folks who are, uh, have been victimized by, uh, predatory lending or through some sort of improper foreclosure. And we’ll, we’ll continue focused on that but this is, this is a very, uh, vexing and challenging problem. And fixing the economy as a whole is gonna, uh, help this a lot.

[….]

President Obama spoke today on immigration reform.

Previously:

Representative Mark Parkinson (r): “Show us your papers, please.” (April 29, 2010):

….What he [Representative Mark Parkinson] wants to do, he wants to substitute that bill and create one that matches Arizona’s new law. Of course that law gives police the ability to ask for documentation if they suspect somebody is here illegally….

Governor Jay Nixon at Missouri Boys State: Q and A on Arizona’s SB 1070 (June 13, 2010):

….like I say, I think that, that Arizona took a political solution in which they tried to be the toughest in the world that I think crossed a line that’s not a line we should cross in America. I think basic civil rights, basic individual freedom is extremely important and, and, and just because it’s, it’s after one group today doesn’t mean that it’s, it’s not gonna be after another group tomorrow….

Jesse Lee of the the White House New Media Office hosted an on-line roundtable this afternoon:

July 01, 2010 1:00 PM EDT

Open for Questions Roundtable: Immigration

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Cecilia Muñoz takes your questions on comprehensive immigration reform.

There was an interesting discussion on Arizona’s SB 1070:

….Jesse Lee: …The President touched on the fact that the law in Arizona has kind of brought this issue back to the fore recently. Uh, Jay’s first question, I think, was from Arizona. Uh, so just to take a couple on that….asks about the sentiment, uh, people who say, support the Arizona law because the feds can’t and won’t do their jobs. Another question we got earlier on Facebook, even before this started, was, um, the idea that, uh, they…had heard that, uh, basically all that law does is kind of repeat the federal laws on the book and folks then say we shouldn’t enforce it, so what’s wrong with that? So, maybe you can spell that out a little bit.

Cecilia Muñoz, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs: Yeah, the Arizona law doesn’t just repeat federal law. What it does is it is empowers local officials to be, um, to, in the course of doing their duties if they suspect someone to be unlawfully present in the United States it requires them to, to ask those folks for their papers and then to take action. What we’ve heard from law enforcement officials, and there were a number of them in the audience today, uh, uh, with the President, is that they believe that that, uh, undermines their ability to effectively enforce the law in their communities. Uh, we’ve heard from police chiefs who say that every time, if you’re required to do that, and you do a, say a traffic stop, and you ask somebody [inaudible] for their immigration papers, I’m not sure if anybody around this table actually carries papers in their wallet that prove that they’re U.S. citizens. Um, and so processing somebody like that can take hours and those are hours that that police officer is not gonna spend going after a burglar or, or somebody worse than that. And so we have law enforcement officials across the country saying to us, don’t undermine our ability to establish our own priorities on where we ought to be using our enforcement resources. We want to go after the biggest dangers to the community. If you require us to spend all our time chasing down immigrants, we’re not gonna be able to do our jobs effectively or well. So in the end, having a policy in Arizona and another one in a town in Nebraska and another one in towns in other parts of the country isn’t going to solve our immigration problem. It’s gonna create these other kinds of problems, especially for law enforcement. And it takes Congress off the hook….

[emphasis added]

Yes, that would be a really good question to ask anyone spouting off in support of Arizona’s SB 1070: “Your papers, please.” If they were asked that question by local law enforcement do you think they’d be screaming about it as loudly as they did about health care reform? Just asking.