Mary Landrieu refused to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the health care debate. Reid raised the offer to $300 million and Mary proved she wasn’t a cheap date after all — she took the increase, voted for cloture, and then bragged about the $300 million bribe.

In a statement sure to be repeated by Republicans endlessly over the coming weeks of Senate health care debate, the senator flaunted the inclusion of the provision. “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” Landrieu told reporters after her floor speech. “But that is not why I started this health care debate; I started this health care debate for all the reasons I just mentioned in my statement” on the floor.

Fox News has the details.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

The trial of Zacarius Moussaoui tied up the federal courts for six years and he had pled guilty. How long will the American court system be tied up with pleas of not guilty and claims that America made them do it?

The data paints an ugly picture of scientists operating as political hacks orchestrating smear campaigns against global warming dissidents, deleting files rather than make their data publicly available, and manufacturing data to prove their case when the actual data does nothing of the sort.

The University of East Anglia has confirmed the authenticity of the documents. With that confirmation, we see global warming for what it is — a scam perpetuated by scientists intent on gaining access to money.

Even the Washington Post has felt the need to cover this story. The Australian Herald Sun was one of the first to cover the story. They note:

The 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down skeptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

Ed Morrisey, at Hot Air, and others have done significant digging into the emails and documents. The highlights are:

1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.
2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.
3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.
4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.
5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald Sun has sifted through the emails and finds some surprises that, at first, he was not sure were authentic, but have now been confirmed to be authentic. One, from Kevin Trenbeth in Bolder, CO, to a group of fellow global warming scientists, admits “that [they] can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that [they] can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.”

Another, from Professor Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit, admits he “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline [in global temperatures].”

This is damning stuff.

Still, it’d be nice if we didn’t have to deal with this particular legacy Congressman. There’s actually a serious candidate this go-round: John Loughlin. State legislator, business owner, former military; not to be unkind, but Kennedy really hasn’t worked a day in his [expletive deleted] life, and it shows. Like, for example, in Kennedy’s ability to get himself sufficiently in trouble with the Church on this issue so as to actually be denied the Sacrament.

That takes skill.

Moe Lane

*The fact that the Church has neither the ability nor the particular desire to punish Rep. Kennedy (or other avowedly pro-abortion Catholics) for their shared heresy does not make it any less of one.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Mary Landrieu, after getting $300 million in the bill for Louisiana, voted for it.

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas not only voted for it, but now favors a public option.

Voters will remember.

Along the way, there seems to be divisions shaping up within the Democratic Party. Amendments will be offered to try to patch up differences.

Republicans should exploit this. Drag out consideration of the bill as those divisions grow, then offer amendments to exploit the divisions.

As I have said before, if Republicans work to improve the legislation, they presuppose its passage. Instead, the GOP should plan for the destruction of the bill by offering amendments designed to divide and fracture the Democrat coalition.

The Congressional and Senatorial committees’ ability to stay at rough parity is a bright spot, but the cash-on-hand problem would be a matter of some concern… if it weren’t for the fact that the Democrats just spent 14 million in October to lose the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, while the Republicans spent 16 million to win them.  I’m sure that the Democrats got every ounce of consolation out of winning NY-23 - after the GOP base demonstrated that they were willing to lose another seat rather than be ignored* - but they weren’t happy to make that trade.

All that being said:

RNC.
NRCC.
NRSC.

If it hurts too much, try Reverse the Vote! Specifically targets 24 Congressional Democrats in Red districts, goes straight to the general election candidates, the national committees don’t see a dime.

Moe Lane

*A tactic that progressive Democrats, of course, are too timid to try.  Bluster about, yes, but not actually do.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Allentown union official Nick Balzano has been a political punching bag all week because he threatened to file a grievance against the city for allowing a Boy Scout to clear a walking path in a city park.

Three days of taking body blows nationally from conservative pundits, a rebuke from the Lehigh Valley’s congressman and even a lashing from his own union led Balzano to voluntarily resign his position Thursday as head of the local Service Employees International Union.

Balzano said he and seven other executive officers of the local SEIU stepped down.

Via HolyCoast.com. Note that the SEIU itself hung Balzano out to dry: when your guys are already out there on camera beating up protesters and gadflies, it’s not a good time to start a fight with the Boy Scouts of America*.  I suggest that the various loyalists of that organization keep that in mind.

Moe Lane

*Not that it’s ever a good time.  Nobody smart in American politics messes with the Scouts. Boy or Girl Scouts.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

For the group of U.S. Senators up in 2010 — the ones facing the independent voters that turned 2:1 against the Democrats in the New Jersey and Virginia elections — they will each be tagged all election cycle with providing the one vote needed for ObamaCare to come before the Senate. They could have stopped it, but they did not.

The vote on cloture on the motion to proceed needs 60 votes, and therefore every Democratic Senator and every Democratic Independent can be accurately accused of providing the winning vote for Senator Reid to proceed to the very unpopular bill.

This message, I am certain, will make it into campaign commercials in 2010.

Below is a list of the Democratic Senators up in 2010, and the email contact links for each of their offices:

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III 131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5623 Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO) Class III 702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5852 Web Form: bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) Class III 112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Burris, Roland W. - (D - IL) Class III 387 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2854 Web Form: burris.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT) Class III 448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2823 Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Dorgan, Byron L. - (D - ND) Class III 322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2551 Web Form: dorgan.senate.gov/contact/contact_form.cfm

Feingold, Russell D. - (D - WI) Class III 506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5323 Web Form: feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html

Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI) Class III 722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3934 Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/Contact/Email-Form.cfm

Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT) Class III 433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4242 Web Form: leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR) Class III 355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4843 Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD) Class III 503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4654 Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm

Murray, Patty - (D - WA) Class III 173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2621 Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III 522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3542 Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY) Class III 313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-6542 Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm

Specter, Arlen - (D - PA) Class III 711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4254 specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co…

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR) Class III 223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5244 Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

That being said, this kind of allegation is newsworthy.  A former President accusing a more-or-less prominent Leftist television commentator of playing internal Democratic party politics with people’s health care coverage?  This should have been front and center on the site.  Heck, it should be above the fold on the New York Times.

‘Should,’ not ‘will.’

Moe Lane

PS: Does MSNBC… approve of this?

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

But things are not as they seem.

Remember, Obama says more deficit spending is bad. Then there is this:

Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.

No, some conservative-leaning economists counter, we were right: The package has been wasteful, ineffectual and even harmful to the extent that it adds to the nation’s debt and crowds out private-sector borrowing.

The Times goes on to say that “more dispassionate analysts [have] reach[ed] a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working.” But concedes that only “a quarter of the stimulus money [has gone] out the door after nine months.”

If all of this is above the fold in the New York Times, particularly the last bit, why the heck do we need a second stimulus? Only one quarter of the first stimulus has been used and unemployment continues to rise.

Recently, Judge Ellis decided that Jefferson is not a flight risk and may remain free pending appeal, a process that may take a year or more. During that time, Jefferson must wear a monitor and may not travel without prior court approval.

Today, Judge Ellis agreed that Jefferson’s legal expenses will be covered by the court during his appeal. Jefferson and his wife recently filed for bankruptcy, due in large part to the legal bills incurred during his trial.

Admittedly, Jefferson might have problems paying for new legal bills out of his Congressional pension, estimated to be $40,000 to $55,000 per year. Then again, once he’s incarcerated, he won’t be shelling out a lot on food, clothing or shelter.

William Jefferson’s legal bills to be paid by taxpayers during appeal

Trial Judge T.S. Ellis III Friday OK’d the appointment of Robert Trout and Amy Jackson, two of the three attorneys who represented Jefferson almost from the first day the federal investigation of the nine-term New Orleans Democrat became known on Aug. 3, 2005, with raids of the then congressman’s Washington and New Orleans homes.

Their fees will be covered by the court, though the rates will be similar to those provided public defenders and far less than the prominent white collar attorneys generally charge.

Ellis also said that a transcript of the eight-week trial, which the court reporter estimated would cost $26,000, will be paid for by the court.

UPDATE: Near as I can tell, the logo at the bottom appears to reference this site.

UPDATE 2 by Erick: The numbers appears to come from the House Republican Conference’s policy shop, which is the group overseen by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

5.5 million — Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer

$729.5 billion — Total new taxes on small businesses, individuals who cannot afford health coverage, and employers who cannot afford to provide coverage that meet federal bureaucrats’ standards

$1.055 trillion — New federal spending on expanded health insurance coverage over the next ten years, according to a Congressional Budget Office preliminary score of the bill

0.7% — Percentage of all that new spending occurring in the bill’s first three years-representing a debt and tax “time bomb” in the program’s later years set to explode on future generations

$88,200 — Definition of “low-income” family of four for purposes of health insurance subsidies

114 million — Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage under the bill’s government-run health plan, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group

43 — Entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends-an increase from H.R. 3200

111 — Additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions-more than double the number in H.R. 3200

3,425 — Uses of the word “shall,” representing new duties for bureaucrats and mandates on individuals, businesses, and States-also more than double the number in H.R. 3200

$60 billion — Loss sustained by taxpayers every year due to Medicare fraud, according to a recent 60 Minutes expose; the government-run health plan does not reform the ineffective anti-fraud statutes and procedures that have kept Medicare on the Government Accountability Office’s list of high-risk programs for two decades

Zero — Prohibitions on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid from using cost-effectiveness research to impose delays to or denials for access to life-saving treatments

$634 Billion — Amount that could be saved by denying individuals access to treatments that are not “cost-effective,” according to a report by the liberal Commonwealth Fund; Section 1160 of the bill gives bureaucrats in the Obama Administration virtual free rein to develop a new “high-value” reimbursement system for Medicare by May 2012

2017 — Year Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted-an entitlement crisis exacerbated by the bill, which according to the Congressional Budget Office will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care by $598 billion in its first ten years alone

$2,500 — Promised savings for each American family from health reform, according to then-Senator Obama’s campaign pledge-savings which the Administration’s own actuaries have confirmed will not materialize, as the Pelosi health care bill would increase the growth of health care costs

Tell them to vote NO on cloture.

It’s going to be a really good panel tonight, so I hope you’ll tune in to it.

Consider this an open thread.

Phone calls are not going through at all now. Try calling my phone or any phone. It is not even the switchboard anymore. The entire Senate phone system has collapsed.

Keep melting the phones!

Raymond Raad, a resident in psychiatry at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and co-author of a new Cato study, presented evidence showing that the United States leads the world in the development of drugs, medical devices, and other advanced treatments. For instance, between 1969 and 2008, 57 of the 97 Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology — or nearly 60 percent — were awarded to people who did their research in the U.S., and nine of the top 10 medical innovations between 1975 and 2000 were developed here. But … once these products are developed in the U.S., they become widely available and improve health care outcomes around the world.

Read the whole thing, and remember: that’s the system the Democrats are trying to tear down and replace with one more like the European countries that depend almost as heavily on American medical and pharmaceutical innovations as they do on American military protection. In both cases, the arguments for the superiority of a European model that is unsustainable on its own depend on somebody else assuming the role of America. And nobody’s volunteering for the job.

REDSTATE WEB EXCLUSIVE

November 19, 2009
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael Hammond
RE: The Reid Bill: The Mandates, Public Option,
Regulation, Rationing, and Taxes

EDITORS NOTE

Harry Reid’s objective has been to secret the provisions of the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes until he could cram it down Americans’ throats because there was insufficient time to analyze and mobilize against it. To some extent, he has succeeded. I have done what I could, given the need to disseminate this at least a day before the Senate moved to cloture on the motion to proceed. I have therefore focused on the mandates, the public option, regulation, rationing, and taxes.

THE NUMBERS

-Cost:

-Reid’s phony number: $847 billion

-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: $1.094 trillion

-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: $1.569 trillion

-For the first ten years when the bill actually goes into effect: about $2.5 trillion

-Deficit:

-Reid’s phony number: -$127 billion

-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: +$120 billion

-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and the $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: +$585 billion

-Medicare Cuts: $465 billion

-Tax Increases: $376 billion+++

SUMMARY

-This bill would require virtually every American to have –- not just insurance -– but the type of insurance approved by the Obama administration. The cost of this insurance is projected by PriceWaterhouse to be $25,900 for a family policy by 2019. This is dramatically more than the premiums if Congress did nothing, with the only difference being that you would be required to pay the inflated premiums, under penalty of fine and, ultimately, imprisonment.

-You would almost certainly not be allowed to keep the insurance and providers you currently have. Virtually all of the 10.2 million seniors on Medicare Advantage would lose care. Virtually all non- unionized employers would find it in their economic interest to dump their employees onto the exchange. States would have a strong economic incentive to dump Medicare recipients onto the exchange. And the individual and employer “grandfather” clauses are full of holes.

SPECIFICS

IMMEDIATE CHANGES: Section 1001 would prohibit giving different types of benefits, based on the ability of employees to afford them and therefore would make it illegal for more highly compensated employees to opt for premium plans (section 1001, as inserted into section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (hereafter “PHSA”)).

Section 1001 also bans lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on coverage exceeding statutory limits, thereby outlawing the cheap plans which many young, healthy Americans prefer.

Every customer who does not get a summary of benefits which precisely complies with section 1001 could result in a fine of up to $1,000 per customer.

Section 1001 (section 2717 of the PHSA) requires the HHS Secretary to set “reporting” standards dealing with “health care provider reimbursement structures” which would —

-“improve health outcomes through implementation of activities such as quality reporting, effective case management, care coordination, chronic disease management, and medication and care compliance initiatives…”

“implement activities to prevent hospital re-admissions through a comprehensive program for hospital discharge that includes patient-centered education and counseling, comprehensive discharge planning, and post discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional…”

-“implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology…”

All of these provisions seem to be a wide-open invitation to regulations implementing health care rationing, in the guise of reporting requirements.

Section 1201 (inserting section 2705 into the PHSA) and 1001 (section 2717(a)(1)(D) and (b) of the PHSA) create wellness programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so dangerous that coverage might be suspended. The definition of “wellness” includes same very broad issues, including obesity and “lifestyle.” But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prohibit, for example, the consideration of firearms ownership. Section 1201 specifically prevents consideration of the health of a person for purposes of setting rates, but, for any other “health status factor,” premiums can vary by up to 30%, which may be increased to 50% under the discretion of the HHS Secretary. A “reward may be in the form of a discount or rebate of a premium or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism (such as deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the absence of a surcharge, or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan.” The “wellness” program qualifies under this section if it “has a reasonable chance of improving the health of … participating individuals.”

The Reid bill (section 2718(b) of the PHSA) requires a rebate if, in any given year, private premiums exceed medical payments by a given percentage.

Under section 2794 of the PHSA, the HHS Secretary would review “unreasonable” insurance premiums and can require insurers to “justif[y]” their rates.

By prohibiting the consideration of preexisting conditions (section 1101) and severely limiting the ability of Americans to buy cheap policies with high deductibles and copayments, the bill insures that the cost of insurance will go through the roof. This is particularly ironic because the ostensible reason for the bill is the escalating health care premiums -– and the effect of the premium increases on small business.

Section 1101 of the bill sets up “high risk pools.” The initial “high risk pools” will supposedly cost $5 billion. But, in an unusual provision, the Secretary is authorized to somehow “make adjustments” “for any fiscal year [in which there are insufficient funds].”

Section 1102 would spend $5 billion on reinsurance for employment-based plans for people who are part of one of those plans and who retire prior to 55 –- a provision which, I’m guessing, was a payoff to labor unions.

Section 1104 gives the HHS Secretary the authority to promulgate broad rules with respect to “electronic standards.” Subsection (b)(2), for example, amends the Social Security Act to require the Secretary to “adopt a single set of operating rules … with the goal of creating as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as possible.” The same section goes on to require health plans to certify, in writing, “that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards…” It goes on to provide that a health plan is not in compliance unless it “demonstrates to the Secretary that the plan conducts the electronic transactions … in a manner that fully complies with the regulations of the Secretary…” Furthermore, anyone who provides services to a provider must comply as well. Again, the section requires health plans to certify to the Secretary “in such form as the Secretary may require, … that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable revised standards and associated operating rules…” The Secretary is authorized to conduct “periodic audits” to insure this is so, and substantial penalties are provided for.

GRANDFATHER CLAUSE: The language of the grandfather clause is interesting: Section 151(a)(1) provides: “Nothing in this Act … shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage…” Not to quibble, but this is different from saying that the grandfathered plan satisfies the mandate. Furthermore, grandfathered plans are exempted from Subtitles A and C, but neither contains the mandate.

Section 1251(d) specifically grandfathers health benefits offered pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.

MANDATED COVERAGE: Subtitle D defines the “qualified health plan” which Americans must have, under penalty of law. It must have “in effect a certification … that such plan meets the criteria for certification described in section 1311(c).” (Section 1311(c) says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.”) The mandated plan must also include statutorily mandated benefits [section 1302(a)], including mental health parity, “behavioral health treatment,” preventive care (including gym memberships), and pediatric dental care. And these statutory requirements are not exclusive, and section 1302(b)(4)(G) lays out a variety of generalized considerations which the HHS Secretary would use to set and revise benefits which Americans would be required to payt for. Subsection 1302(c) would limit deductibles and copayments. Subsection 1302(d) would set “levels of coverage,” but the levels would be based wholly on financial issues such as the levels of deductibles. With the exception of a young person under 30 who obtained a hardship certification from the government or who could not buy “affordable” coverage (section 1302(e)), a healthy person could not buy catastrophic coverage, or coverage that forced him to pay for “services” (such as maternity services) that he did not need or want, or coverage that forced him to subsidize persons whose lifestyle choices had made them very sick.

ABORTION: Section 1303 sets out the rules for funding abortion. The public option would be required to fund abortions for any abortion which was allowed by the Hyde amendment, as it existed for the six previous months. Thus, if the Hyde amendment were amended to provide abortions in “health of the mother” cases (i.e., abortion-on-demand), the public option would have to provide abortions in those cases without any accounting artifices whatsoever. However, by segregating private and public funds, the HHS Secretary can allow the public option to immediately fund all abortions, including third trimester and partial birth abortions. We have seen, in connection with section 1008 of the Public Health Services Act, that Planned Parenthood is experienced in setting aside one room for abortions and another room in the same building for condoms –- and claiming that the condom money is not being used for abortions. In addition, for the first time in American history, under section 1303(a)(1)(D), the federal government will become a guarantor that abortion coverage is available to everyone in the country. Persons receiving subsidies would be subject to the same phony segregation rules. There is “non-state-and-federal preemption” language in section 1303(b) which is of dubious value. State parental consent laws could not be overturned, but state laws requiring abortion coverage also could not be preempted. Current conscience protection would not be affected, but it is far from clear that it would be extended in the way that would be required to cover the new applications created by this law. Finally, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be explicitly grandfathered. Liberals have argued for some time that failure to provide abortions in cases where other medical services are funded constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex under that statute.

MEDICAID: Would be expanded to cover those earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level.

RATIONING: The central mechanism for rationing medical care among non-Medicare-covered individuals is section 1311(c), which says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.” This open-ended grant of authority would allow the Secretary to write into “certified” policies a limitation on benefits in cases where treatment is not regarded as complying with “best practices.” Other sections are even more explicit: Section 1311(g) sets up a “strategy” to save money through, inter alia, “the implementation of activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices.” Finally, there are the $465 billion in Medicare cuts. Although the bill pretends that reductions in benefits and eligibility will be prohibited, it is unrealistic to assume that a Congress which cannot carry through with a 1997 commitment to cut the increase in doctors’ reimbursements by $247 billion will be able to comply with $465 billion in cuts. The result will be “rationing by under pricing.” The chief actuary for Medicare and Medicaid predicts that hospitals and providers will not treat persons at the levels of reimbursement which will result from this bill.

Sections 1321 et seq. provide various mechanisms for state “flexibility,” but, by and large, apply only to states that are willing to throw even more money away than the statute requires.

Section 1331 would give the states “flexibility” to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid because they earn between 133% and 200% of the poverty level. On a related issue, one conservative think tank has found that virtually all 50 states would find it to their financial benefit to dump all of their Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange. Although the CBO has not scored this eventuality, estimates are that it would increase costs of the program by $2 trillion.

Section 1333 is a nod to GOP calls for interstate sales of insurance, but it applies only in accordance with open-ended HHS regulatory authority to limit it and only if licensed in each state.

Section 1401 sets up a “refundable” health tax credit (which means that the government sends a check to people who otherwise have no tax liability). The credit equals “the excess … of the adjusted monthly premium … over 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.” The applicable percentage is “2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bear to an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.” This is the easy part. The credit, which is supposedly intended for low-income, relatively uneducated Americans, goes on with 26 more pages of special rules and definitions.

Section 1402 reduces copayments, deductibles, etc., for persons earning less than 400% of the poverty level, in accordance with a sliding scale.

Section 1421 et seq. create s “small business tax credit” for employers with fewer than 25 employees. Under these provisions, a small business can supposedly deduct 50% of the exorbitant forced premiums required by this bill. If the average annual wage is over $40,000, the employer could not benefit from this section. If the average annual salary is below $40,000 (and the average cost of a family policy is, as PriceWaterhouse estimates, $25,900 by 2019), this would still mean that the cost of the bill to small employers would be over 1/3 of the employees’ gross pay.

Section 1501 would require virtually everyone in the country to have –- not just insurance –- but government-approved insurance. The statute justifies this by a 1944 case [U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association] holding that “insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.” Of course, the question of whether “insurance” is interstate commerce is different from the question of whether not buying insurance (i.e., not doing anything) is interstate commerce. Furthermore, there is the question of whether a legally forced payment which is used to provide for the health care of others is a tax –- a tax not imposed by Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, but imposed by bureaucrats and private parties — and whether, furthermore, it is a capitation tax not commensurate with the census and not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment. If the individual fails to comply, he will be subject to an IRS-administered fine, which, by 2017, will be $1,500 for a married couple, indexed for inflation ($2,250 for a married couple with a dependent 19 year-old). And, if the individual fails to pay the fine, because, for example, he cannot afford either the premium or the fine without selling his house or his business, he can be sentenced, notwithstanding the Schumer amendment, to up to $250,000 in additional fines and up to five years in prison. There is an exemption for persons who would have to pay in excess of 8% of income for insurance.

Section 1511 et seq. provide for employer responsibilities. Section 1511 provides for automatic enrollment in the case of employers with over 200 employees. Under section 1513, an employer with employees eligible for the exchange who does not provide insurance must pay the “applicable amount,” times the number of employees. The “amount,” laid out in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(b)(2)(B), is up to $600 each for each employee. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the potentially negative impact on jobs, this figure is low enough to make it almost always economically preferable to dump employees onto the exchange, rather than paying the spiraling costs of premiums under government-mandated insurance, even given the puny tax benefits which are made available under that section.

TAXES: (1) There is a 40% tax on insurance with premiums over $23,000 ($8,500 for individuals). Because these are not indexed to premium costs -– and because the average premium will soon be in excess of this level -– this is another Alternative Minimum Tax in the making. (2) The increases in small business taxes (for those filing taxes using Schedule C) would cripple jobs creation. The Medicare payroll tax would increase for these earners from 1.45% to 1.95. (3) In addition, there are increased taxes on HSA distributions (section 9004), increased taxes on flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans (section 9005), an annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9008), an annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9009), an annual fee on health insurance providers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9010), elimination of the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D (section 9012), a tax on the very sick by increasing from 7.5% to 10% of income the level at which you can deduct health care expenses (section 9013), and the bo-tox tax (section 9017). This is in addition to the massive penalties imposed on the uninsured.

I just came from dinner and recognized the voices beside me. It was Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and three other Democrats. I knew the other faces but names escape me.

They were strategizing on how to raise the gas tax. Congressman Blumenauer said he knew a way to get at least 20 Republicans on board a gas tax increase. The place was loud and that’s about all I could make out. They talked about other times when they manages to split us. It was not fun nor easy to hold back.

It indicates, among other things, that Rudy would plaster current sitting governor David Paterson.  However, Paterson is pretty much a dead man walking at this point, and the general assumption is that Andrew Cuomo will get the D nomination.  Against, Cuomo, Rudy currently trails by 10, 53-43.  Both men are relatively widely-known quantities in New York, so it’s difficult to imagine a radical shift in either’s favor. 

On the other hand, Rudy’s path to the Senate appears substantially easier.  First, the Marist poll indicates he would easily win a hypothetical primary against Pataki (71-24), and that he holds a substantial lead (54-40) over Gillibrand. This would seem to indicate that if Rudy enters this race, it would promptly become one of the GOP’s best pickup opportunities in 2010, perhaps better than NV, AR, CT or DE. 

In talking to several New Yorkers, most of them would prefer to see Rudy run for the Governor’s mansion, where his talents would be put to a more direct use.  However, as a matter of pure political calculus, Rudy can doubtless see where the easiest path back to elective office lies. And if he has designs on a run for 2012 or beyond, the Senate might be the best place for him to mend fences with the portions of the national GOP electorate that cost him the 2008 primary, as well.