Daily Thought Pad: Kennedy-Dodd health bill

Showing posts with label Kennedy-Dodd health bill. Show all posts

Saturday, June 13, 2009

House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update-2)

What we are looking at:

$600 Billion in tax increases and $400 Billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as the number of Babyboomers added to the rolls increases daily… while we already owe a Trillion in interest on the money the government (Obama Administration) has already borrowed and printed to this point, before this nationalized health-care proposal.

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure’s cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

House Democrats plan to release their legislation next week. Obama is working with Congress to get legislation to his desk by October.

Democrats in the House and Senate are crafting legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.

Online Exchanges

The legislation would establish online exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance and would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. Some Democrats also are backing creation of a government-run program to expand coverage to the uninsured. The issue is the subject of bipartisan negotiations with Republican who oppose the so-called public option.

Rangel said Democrats are still considering options for tax increases that might be in the bill, including a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is considering a proposal to apply income taxes to health-care plans if they are significantly more expensive than the basic health plan for federal employees -- $13,000 for a family of four.

Rangel said House Democrats want to avoid the deeper cuts to projected spending under Medicare and Medicaid that Obama has been putting forth. House Democrats want to achieve cost-savings by cuts in payments to private insurance plans under Medicare.

Covering the Costs

Obama has pledged that health-care changes won’t add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he’s proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies.

That won’t be enough to cover the overhaul costs. Obama said this week he plans in the coming days to disclose more proposals for raising “additional sources of revenue.” In a letter last week to Senate Democrats drafting legislation he said he will be proposing between $200 billion and $300 billion in further Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

Obama plans to give a speech Monday in Chicago to the American Medical Association as part of his campaign to build up support for what could be the biggest changes to healthcare policy since Medicare was established in 1965.

Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.

“We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors,” he said. “Let them get a good feel for the coverage.”

By: Laura Litvan in Washington at: llitvan@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: June 12, 2009 19:05 EDT

Source: Fox Nation

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Stop the Insanity!!

Updated: If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.

Contact info for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Please contact your representative, your Senator and Speaker Pelosi on this matter and others as they arise (almost daily these days).

Thursday, June 11, 2009

How to Stop Socialized Health Care

Five arguments Republicans must make…

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

[Karl Rove] Getty Images

The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.

Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.

Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care.

Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care.

Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone.

Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.

Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates.

Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company.

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

By Karl Rove

About Karl Rove - Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.

Or, you can send him a Tweet @karlrove.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Senate Democrats announced plans Tuesday to begin committee work next week on health care legislation designed to assure coverage for millions of Americans who now lack it, a key objective of the Obama administration.

IBut Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said the measure that goes before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would contain gaps rather than include several controversial features included in a draft that circulated only last week. Among them are a proposed government-run insurance plan to compete with private companies -- vociferously opposed by nearly all Republicans -- and a requirement for employers to pay a penalty if they fail to provide coverage for their workforce.

Dodd said he would preside over the sessions in the place of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the committee chairman, who was diagnosed more than a year ago with brain cancer and has not been in the Capitol in recent days. The committee work will take about three weeks, he said.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the top Republican on the health committee, responded dismissively to Dodd's comments about leaving gaps for GOP lawmakers to debate.

He said Democrats did so "because they know we're not going to like what they've written and they don't want us to have any time to comment," he said in an interview.

Enzi also said Democrats would have behaved differently if Kennedy were present.

"I've never worked a process on any bill with him that went like this where there was absolutely no input taken from the other party," Enzi said. "And I never treated him that way either."

"What the question is, is Senator Dodd in charge or is he just running the meeting, and we don't know yet," Enzi said.

Dodd's announcement signaled a quickening pace of activity on health care legislation, and came as senior House Democrats disclosed they are considering a new tax on employer-provided health benefits to help pay for expanding coverage to the 50 million uninsured. President Barack Obama opposed a tax on benefits during last year's campaign and aired numerous television commercials criticizing the idea when his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, proposed it.

Several officials also said an outline of emerging legislation in the House envisions a requirement for all individuals to purchase affordable coverage, with an unspecified penalty for those who refuse and a waiver for those who cannot cover the cost.

"There's no sense having a mandate unless you have a contribution," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Monday. He referred to the suggestion as "play or pay."

Rangel and other senior Democrats arranged to bring members of the party's rank and file up to date at a midday session Tuesday on the effort to draft health care legislation at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt the presentation to rank-and-file Democrats on Tuesday.

Under an outline of the House Democratic plan, individuals and small businesses would be able to purchase coverage from a "health exchange" and the government would require all plans to contain a minimum benefit. No applicant could be rejected for pre-existing conditions, nor could one be charged a higher premium.

The outline shows Democrats want to provide subsidies to families up to about $88,000 a year to help them pay for insurance, and to require new policies to limit out-of-pocket spending as a way to prevent personal bankruptcies.

House Democrats also are considering a wide-ranging change for Medicaid that would provide a uniform benefit across all 50 states and increase payments to providers, according to several officials. Medicaid is a joint state-federal program of health coverage for the poor.

The measure also envisions several changes to Medicare, the government program that provides health care to seniors, although details are lacking.

According to the outline, the gap between primary care physician fees and those of specialists would be narrowed, and beneficiaries would not incur out-of-pocket costs for preventive services. The outline also mentions unspecified improvements in the prescription drug benefit. Democrats vociferously opposed that benefit when Republicans passed it, saying it provided billions in unnecessary subsidies to pharmaceutical companies.

The outline does not include an overall cost for the legislation, which is expected to exceed the $1.2 trillion, 10-year price tag Obama's proposal carried last winter.

Part of the cost would be covered in the form of cuts in the government payments under Medicare plans run by private insurance companies, which receive more per patient than the cost of traditional coverage.

Strikingly, the outline made no mention of the possible tax on health benefits, or of the proposed penalty for those refusing to purchase affordable insurance.

Several officials stressed that no final decisions would be made for several days on the possible tax on health benefits.

The idea has been gaining currency in recent weeks as Congress intensifies its search for more than $1 trillion to help pay for a health care overhaul.

America… Do your homework, contract your Representative and Senator (no matter which side you are on) and do not let them pass this legislation without reading it, without having ‘real’ funds to pay for it and a real plan, and without being satisfied that you will be receiving and will continue to receive the same or better health care treatment than you do today… which means better than the care in any country that now has socialized or nationalized healthcare. If not… do not let the government force you into a plan of worse healthcare that nobody can pay for!!

Source: Associated Press/MoneyNews.com

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill

Posted Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, at 10:30 am

Yesterday I posted and described the draft Kennedy-Dodd health care bill. Today I would like to do the same for an outline produced by House Democrats.

Here is a three-page outline of “Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the House of Representatives,” dated yesterday (June 8, 2009).

The three committees are:

The House Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).
The House Energy & Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ).
The House Committee on Education & Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). The Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ).

The document suggests this is a joint product of the three committees and/or their subcommittees. My sense, however, is that it is Speaker Pelosi who is driving the bus. This is in contrast to the Senate, where the committee chairmen (Kennedy/Dodd and Baucus) appear to have the pen, in less well-coordinated efforts.

Kennedy-Dodd and the House bill outline are remarkably similar. Whether this represents House-Senate coordination or parallel thought processes is unclear.

I think the easiest way for me to present the House bill outline is in comparison with the Kennedy-Dodd bill. So here my description from yesterday of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, with today’s comparison to the House bill outline in red. I hope it’s comprehensible and useful this way. If you read yesterday’s post, you can skim the text in black and focus on the new text in blue.

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill and the House bill outline.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
The House bill also contains an individual mandate. The outline is less specific but parallel: “Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship.”
The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.
The House bill outline also contains an employer mandate that appears to parallel that in Kennedy-Dodd: “Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers.”
In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
1. All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
  The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?
  
  Like the Kennedy/Dodd bill, the House bill outline would preclude health plans from imposing lifetime or annual limits on benefits: “Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.” This would raise premiums for new policies.
  
  The House bill outline “introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.” I don’t know what this means, but suggest keeping an eye on it.
2. A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.
  Same: “… by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements…”. It also contains this addition relative to Kennedy-Dodd: “… with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans.”
  
  But note the “various levels of standardized benefits.” This appears to be more expansive government control of health plan design than in the Kennedy-Dodd draft.
3. Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
  This is unspecified in the House bill outline. We’ll have to wait to see legislative language. The House bill would require plans to “waive cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages.”
4. A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
  This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.
5. The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.
  The House bill outline is silent on this.
Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.
Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
The House bill outline is silent on guaranteed issue and renewal. I’m going to make an educated guess that the bill includes these provisions as part of “other discriminatory practices,” and they have just left them out of the outline. Given the philosophy behind this outline (with which I disagree), it would be a striking omission. But for now, the outline says nothing specific on these topics.
The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.
The House bill outline “expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations,” so we have no specifics other than that there’s an expansion. I cannot tell if this is expanding eligibility or benefits. The outline also “improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid.” I assume this means the bill would expand the Federal share paid of each dollar spent by a State Medicaid program on primary care, rather than the Federal government actually mandating specific payment rates to be implemented by States. Federal micromanagement of specific Medicaid provider payment rates was eliminated in the mid 1990’s.
People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.
The House bill outline has a sliding scale up to 400% of poverty. If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $88,000 would get small subsidy.
People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.
The House bill outline is not specific on this point. I would not expect it to be – this is something you can tell only from legislative language.
There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.
The House bill outline “creates a new public health insurance within the Exchange … the public health insurance option competes on ‘level field’ with private insurers in the Exchange.” There are no specifics on how the public plan would work, or on provider payment rates.
Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
The House bill outline is silent on this point.
States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.
The House calls it an Exchange rather than a Gateway. While the Senate bill would tell each State, “Create a Gateway or we’ll create one for you,” the House bill outline says to each State, “We’re creating a single new national Exchange. You’re in it unless you develop your own State or Regional Exchange.”
Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.
The House bill outline appears to parallel the Kennedy-Dodd draft: “Phases-in requirements to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.” This means that new plans will be more expensive than old plans. It also means they’re creating a bifurcated system with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences for employment flexibility.
The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
The House bill outline lists specific topics for changes to Medicare reimbursement:
- Changing (how?) the Medicare reimbursement for doctors, called the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR).
- “Increasing reimbursement for primary care providers”
- “Improving” the Medicare drug program. I won’t be surprised if, when I see the specifics, I disagree that their changes are “improvements.” In the past this has meant having the federal government mandate specific prices for drugs.
- Cutting payments to Medicare Advantage plans.
- Expanding low-income subsidies for seniors and eliminating cost-sharing for all preventive services in Medicare.
The House bill outline also uses positive language to describe things that might generate budgetary savings from Medicare and/or Medicaid. The hospital readmissions point is specific. The first two points could increase or decrease federal spending, depending on the specifics.
- “Use federal health programs … to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities.”
- “Adopt innovative payment approaches and promote[s] better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations.”
- “Attack the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.”
The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
The House bill outline is silent on this point.
The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates. (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.” (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)

I strongly oppose the Kennedy-Dodd bill and the House Tri-Committee bill.

If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Jim Capretta’s blog Diagnosis.

Source: Keith Hennessey.com

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Let Congress Hear You... Call, Fax, Email, Write or Show-Up In Their Offices!

The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by and credited to Mark Twain
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224 or 225 -3121
Senators from your State.
Call the White House at 202-456-1414 or 1111 and tell President Obama you have had enough!

Find Out Here: How Did Your Congressman Vote ????

Call the switchboard for the house of Representatives in Washington today... your Congressperson and Nancy Pelosi and tell them "NO on Cap and Trade" & NO on the Carbon Tax!!!

Stop the Insanity!!! Stand-Up American... You Are Not Alone!!!

"...there comes a time, ladies and gentlemen, when ideology can cause death. I am so tired, so tired, of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans. Do you think the brave soldiers and Marines operating in dangerous areas right now want [unreleased photos of alleged abuse of prisoners] all over al-Jazeera and the terror websites? So let's look out for the military, OK? Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to get the loons in her party under control. If the Speaker can't do that, she doesn't deserve her position." ... Bill O'Reilly

Saturday, June 13, 2009

House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update-2)

Thursday, June 11, 2009

How to Stop Socialized Health Care

Five arguments Republicans must make…

Democrats Set to Rush Through Government-Run Healthcare

Senate Democrats announced plans Tuesday to begin committee work next week on health care legislation designed to assure coverage for millions of Americans who now lack it, a key objective of the Obama administration.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill

Posted Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, at 10:30 am