Jan 06, 2011

Health Care Hypocrite: Rep. Michael Grimm Wants Health Care for Himself, Will Repeal for Others

Newly sworn in Representative Michael Grimm (NY-13), elected with tea party support after pledging to repeal health reform, told his local newspaper that he wants government health care for himself because “I don’t have health care and, God forbid I get into an accident and I can’t afford the operation… That can happen to anyone.” Grimm joins Representative Andy Harris (MD-01) who was outraged during freshman orientation that he did not receive his government health care benefits sooner….

….At least 7 House Republicans elected on opposition to government health care have publicly announced they will not seek the benefit for themselves. Representative Bobby Schilling (IL-17), [ABC News, 11/17/10]; Representative Mike Kelly (PA-03), [Think Progress, 11/18/10]; Representative Joe Walsh (IL-08), [The Hill, 12/26/10]; Representative Bill Johnson (OH-06), [Hotline, 12/2/10]; Representative Daniel Webster and Representative Sandy Adams. [Orlando Sentinel, 11/26/10]; Representative Frank Guinta (NH-01). [Think Progress, 1/6/11]

Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) campaign web site on the subject of health care reform:

….I am the only candidate for Congress in the Fourth District who went to the people first about health care. I took paper and made notes on good ideas and solutions, back in September. It was a great dialogue at our town hall meetings.

I heard firsthand many good ideas for what would help, and what would not be helpful. I listened while you spoke. A bad bill puts bureaucrats between us and our doctors, raises costs and lowers quality, rations care, or cuts the Medicare promised to our seniors. This Congress gave us a bill that is even worse than bad. Americans oppose ObamaCare or anything like it. Liberal Washington knows we oppose ObamaCare. They just don’t want to listen. They want to shove it down our throats.

I support real reform that will lower costs, increase competition, provide affordable insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, prevent unfair insurance policies, expand coverage, and preserve the right to see the doctor of our choice. Washington must start over and get it right….

If Representative Hartzler (r) opposes “ObamaCare” does that mean she’ll vote to repeal it?

And in place of that, what?:

A health care story (September 3, 2009)

….SMP: And, and you’ve told your story in a variety of, of places. Last week you attended a, another forum for, in this area. Could you tell me about that?

Randy Huggins:…Last Thursday I went to a health care information forum, I guess you could call it, Vickiy 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….

And if Representative Hartzler (r) is going to vote to repeal the health care reform law, will she be taking advantage of her government health insurance? Just asking.

Update:

Uh, definitely a yes on the first part.

@Vicky Hartzler

Voted for rule paving the way to repeal ObamaCare-the job-killing, deficit-increasing, unconstitutional govn. takeover. Passed!

2 hours ago

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?

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.

Republicans lost on health care and the Missouri GOP has responded with predictable temper tantrums in order to impress their Tea-Party addled constituents:

–Republican Governor wannabe, Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, is planning to (maybe) file a pseudo official lawsuit against the Obama health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

–Rep. Todd Akin (R-2), man of action that he is, isn’t waiting around like Kinder, but has just signed on to an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit against the PPACA that the Republican governor of the State of Virginia has filed.

–Roy Blunt (R-7) has announced his support for legislation to “repeal and replace” the “onerous” PPACA by bringing back the much ridiculed earler GOP “alternative,” and repackaging it as a new Republican proposal.  HR 5424, the Reform Americans Can Afford Act, which is cosponsored by Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-9), would cut access to health care, drive up the deficit, reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by 10 years, and reopen the “donut hole” for prescrption drugs. (As far as reform goes, a bit unclear on the concept perhaps?)

–Not to be outdone by the GOP federal congressional delegation, the state’s GOP dominated lege wants Missourians to vote to opt out of health care reform this August.

Just the usual political games you may be thinking – but perhaps not, after all, such smart political moves as some GOPers thought a month or so ago. As Slate reporter, William Salatan observes:

Tales of death panels and warnings about losing your doctor can now be falsified. (That’s what happened to the early scare stories about Social Security and Medicare.) And Republicans who denounce the program and promise to repeal it will no longer be bashing an abstraction. They will be proposing to take away existing, tangible benefits… .  

… why assume that lockstep Republican opposition will discredit the health care program? Maybe the opposite will happen: Lockstep opposition will discredit Republicans.

Apparently the Democratic National Committee not only agrees with this assessment, but has enough confidence in it to go on the offensive.  Which brings me to a great new DNC ad that will soon begin airing:

Update:  Speaking of tangible benefits, my husband just forwarded a message from his employer detailing the changes in our health care coverage that have resulted from passage of the PPACA, and needless to say, it’s all good. Now just let the Republican try to take it away.

Today Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed SB 202, the repeal of Missouri’s motorcycle helmet law. He cited a number of reasons in his letter [pdf] to the Missouri Secretary of State:

…I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 202. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 202 repeals Missouri’s 42 year old helmet law for any motorcyclists of passengers 21 years of age or older, except on interstate highways.

Head injuries are the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Without a helmet, a motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist in a crash. [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008].

It is estimated that from 1984 through 2006, helmets saved the lives of 19,230 motorcyclists and 13,320 additional lives would have been saved had helmets been worn by operators or passengers.  [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008].

In addition to safety issues, weakening or eliminating helmet laws causes a dramatic spike in the cost of treating patients who suffer injuries in motorcycle accidents. The State of Florida saw a 40 percent increase in the number of motorcyclists admitted to hospitals in the 30 months following repeal of its helmet law in 2002, with the cost for treatment more than doubling to $44 million.  [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008]. According to one study, it was estimated that the total cost to treat motorcycle accident victims who were not wearing a helmet is $250,231,734 a year more than the cost of treating victims who were wearing a helmet. [Economic Impact of Motorcycle Helmets: From Impact to Discharge, Journal of trauma-Injury, Infection & Critical Care, 2006]

Ultimately the taxpayers must pay a significant portion of these increased costs. After Florida repealed its helmet law, 16 percent of injured motorcyclists admitted for hospital treatment were either under-insured or uninsured and the costs for another 21 percent were billed to either charitable or public sources, such as Medicaid. [Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, January 2008].

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 202 without my Approval…

The news release from the governor’s office: Gov. Nixon vetoes bill to repeal Missouri helmet law; cites increased health care costs to taxpayers, public safety as primary concerns

That was the hilarious, yet apt, headline in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch. For those of you who have missed it, Matt Blunt has included a push for the repeal of Missouri’s ticket scalping law in a special session supposedly devoted to economic development. His brother Andy just happens to be a lobbyist for one of the biggest ticket brokers in the nation, Ticketmaster. The reason given for the push? “[The repeal] will be good for tourism and economic development. It will make it easier for fans to gain access to tickets in a legal and convenient secondary market.”

I’m not sure how allowing brokers to buy up seats for sporting events and concerts and charge exorbitant prices for them makes the market more convenient or better for tourism. If a really good band plays a concert, or a sports team is playing exceptionally well (sadly, neither of our states’ baseball teams is), that’s what’s good for tourism – not the fact that you can get scalped tickets.

And how naive do the Brothers Blunt think we are? Can they really claim with a straight face that their relationship has nothing to do with a bad bill being pushed through in a special session?