Coralville Courier

40% Support Health Care Plan, 56% Oppose It

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.

Read On.....

Democrat health care bill is a dead skunk

"This Democrat health care bill is an unmitigated disaster. We just have to stop it. There's nothing in it that's worth fine-tuning.  There's nothing on the margins that could improve it.  This is a dead skunk.  There is no way you can beautify or bring back to life a dead skunk." - Rush Limbaugh

American Future Fund: Iowans can't afford any more boondoggles

Culver praises Obama’s health care reform plan while his Democrat colleagues oppose it

DES MOINES, IA. -- The newly appointed Chairman of the Democratic Governor’s Association, Jack Markell (D – DE) expressed his “concerns” yesterday over the proposed government-run health care legislation being debated in the U.S. Senate.

Even New Mexico Governor and former DGA Chair Governor Bill Richardson agrees. “We can’t afford that, and that’s not acceptable.” (AP 7/19/2009)

Pennsylvania Governor and former DGA Chair Ed Rendell shared the same sentiments, “I don’t think it’s an accounting trick, I think it’s an unfunded mandate … We just don’t have the wherewithal to absorb that without some new revenue source …” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 9/3/09)

Unfortunately for Iowans, Governor Culver disagrees with his colleagues, and is pushing for government-run health care that will further bankrupt the State of Iowa.

Just last week, Culver stated he is “confident we will get real health care reform signed into law in the weeks ahead.” (http://www.chetculver.com/news/governor-culver-s-jj-dinner-speech) Culver made this statement on the heels of a Des Moines Register Poll showing 47% of Iowans oppose health care reform.

“Not only do Iowans oppose government-run health care, but Iowa’s fiscal house is a mess. Culver has spent the state into a $1 billion deficit and further crippled the state with over $1 billion in debt to finance pork projects around the state,” said AFF President Sandy Greiner.

She continued, “I encourage Governor Culver to join his fellow Democrat governor’s in opposing this massive government-run health care program. Iowans can’t afford any more boondoggle spending programs that plunge us further into the red.”

62% Oppose Single-Payer Health Care System

Only 27% of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. That’s down five points from August.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% are opposed to a single-payer system and another 12% are undecided.

More Sunshine on the Reid Health Care Bill

Hello.  I’m sending a copy of a statement I made earlier today on the Senate floor.  I point out the major flaws in the way supporters of Senator Reid’s health care bill are spinning a new analysis of the health care bill’s impact on insurance premiums.  It says a lot about the failures of this legislation to reduce health care inflation and to make insurance more affordable for people who don’t get coverage from an employer.  The analysis is from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan official scorekeeper for legislation considered by Congress.  My speech is below.  – Chuck Grassley

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance
Analysis of Premiums by the Congressional Budget Office
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 

On Monday the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Senator Bayh that provides a comprehensive analysis of what health insurance premiums will look like as a result of the Reid bill.  I’m starting to wonder if anyone actually read the letter.  I hear a lot of people saying that this letter proves that premiums will go down under the Reid bill, even though that’s not what the letter says.  So, I’m down here to tell people what the letter really says.

The letter makes it very clear that premiums will increase on average by 10 to 13 percent for people buying coverage in the individual market.  I’ve even brought down a chart to show everyone, just in case you missed it.  The people who keep saying that premiums are going to go down conveniently forget to mention this 10 to 13 percent increase.  They prefer to talk about the 57 percent of Americans in the individual market who would get subsidies.  Yes, it’s true, the government is spending $500 billion to cover up the fact that this bill drives up premiums faster than current law.  I repeat, premiums will go up faster under this bill.  Supporters of this bill are just covering up this increase in costs by handing out subsidies.  And if you’re one of the 14 million who don’t get a subsidy, you’re out of luck.  You’re stuck with a plan that is 10 to 13 percent more expensive and an unprecedented new federal law that mandates you purchase insurance.

Some may say that this is just the individual market.  It only accounts for a small portion of the total market.  Well, if you’re comfortable with 14 million people paying more under this bill than they would under current law, let’s look at the employer-based market.  CBO’s analysis says that this bill maintains the status quo in the small group and large group insurance market.  Is that really something worth celebrating?  Are expectations so low at this point that Democrats are celebrating that this bill will increase premiums for some and maintain the status quo for everyone else?  And I’m being generous in using the phrase “status quo” because this bill actually makes things worse for millions of people.

This bill is so bad that Democrats are trying to convince the American people that this is just more of the same, when even that isn’t the case.  Whatever happened to bending down the growth curve?  What about the President’s promise that everyone will save $2,500?  According to CBO, almost every small business will pay between one percent more to two percent less for health insurance.  That means that compared to what businesses would have paid under current law, this bill will either raise premiums by one percent or decrease them by a whopping two percent.  That doesn’t sound like this bill is providing any real relief or $2,500 dollars in savings for every American, as President Obama pledged repeatedly during the campaign.  

Larger businesses will pay the same or up to three percent less for health insurance.  Once again, that doesn’t sound like relief.  It sounds like more of the same.  In fact, CBO has confirmed that between now and 2016 premiums will continue to grow at twice the rate of inflation.  I thought Congress was considering health reform to put an end to the unsustainable premium increases.

So, this bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion, raises taxes by $500 billion, restructures 17 percent of our economy, and spends $2.5 trillion, and some of my colleagues on the other side of  the aisle are celebrating that they have achieved the status quo, when in fact they’ve made the situation worse.  

I thought the status quo was unacceptable.  I thought businesses couldn’t afford the status quo.  I thought the status quo was killing American businesses, killing jobs and making this country less competitive.  But member after member keeps coming down to the floor to celebrate spending $2.5 trillion on the status quo.  We could have done that for free.  Am I missing something?  Did people actually read the same letter that I did?

When President Obama visited Minneapolis, in September, he didn’t sound like he would celebrate maintaining the status quo.  On the contrary, he said, “I will not accept the status quo. Not this time. Not now."   Some members seem to disagree.  Some members are celebrating that they are making things worse for millions of Americans and maintaining the status quo for everyone else.

And, here is what Vice President Biden said, “the status quo is simply unacceptable. Let me say that again -- the status quo is simply unacceptable. Rising costs are crushing us.”  That doesn’t sound like a call for more of the same.  But, once again, members on the other side of the aisle seem quite comfortable investing $2.5 trillion in more of the same.  That’s taxpayer dollars we’re talking about.

I think if I asked most Iowans how they’d feel about the government spending $2.5 trillion, and premiums would still increase as fast or faster, they’d say that was a pretty bad investment.  I can’t argue with that.  This CBO letter tells me that we are debating a pretty bad investment.  Our constituents want lower costs.  That is their main concern.  But this bill fails to address that concern.  It raises premiums.  And, despite offering new ideas throughout the committee process and on the floor, Republicans are being accused of supporting the status quo.

Well, CBO has spoken, and it’s pretty clear my colleagues across the aisle are not only okay with the status quo, they’re okay with making things worse:  Higher taxes.  Higher premiums.  Increased deficits.  Less Medicare.  They’re celebrating that they spent $2.5 trillion to raise premiums for 14 million people, not bending the growth curve, and not cutting costs.  Don’t take my word for it.  Read the letter from the Congressional Budget Office.  It’s right here in black and white.

U.S. Sen. Grassley: Exposes carve-out in Reid health care bill

Iowa senator prepares amendment to reverse carve-out, also include White House in new health care exchanges

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator Chuck Grassley said it is unacceptable that staff of Senate leadership and committees is now exempted from the requirement that members of Congress and congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges that would be created for the rest of the country under the Senate Majority Leader’s health care legislation.

A Grassley amendment adopted by the Finance Committee in September established this requirement for all congressional staff, along with members of Congress.

“Careful examination by the Congressional Research Service of the bill that Senator Reid brought to the floor revealed that one of the things that happened behind closed doors was that leadership and committee staff ended up being carved out from having to live under the new health care exchanges that this legislation would create and impose on the rest of the country,” Grassley said. “This creates a double standard. It’s inexcusable.”

Grassley said he’ll offer an amendment to restore his amendment, which the Finance Committee accepted without objection, and which the Congressional Research Service said made clear that leadership and committee staff would be required to access the new exchange.

Grassley said his floor amendment also will expand the requirement to include the President, the Vice President and all political appointees in the executive branch. “The President, the White House staff and cabinet secretaries are working very hard for this massive overhaul of America’s health care system. It’s only fair and logical that if this bill becomes law, these leaders should themselves be subject to the reforms,” he said.

Currently, members of Congress, congressional staff, the President, Vice President, cabinet secretaries, and political appointees participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The exchange that would be established by the legislation pending in the Senate is modeled after this federal employees’ program and is supposed to give participants the same kind of choices and options for health care coverage as federal employees.

Grassley’s interest in having policy makers participate in the exchange is consistent with his long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country. In 1995, President Clinton signed into law the Congressional Accountability Act, which Grassley authored and fought to advance for six years before it was enacted. Grassley’s Congressional Accountability Act gives employees of the legislative branch protections under 12 civil rights, labor and workplace safety laws by making those laws apply to Congress.

Before enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, Congress had exempted itself from these laws:

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Veterans’ employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

The Congressional Accountability Act was amended in 1998 to include certain provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998.

U.S. Sen. Grassley: Grassley seeks information about impact of proposed Medicare tax increase

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator Chuck Grassley said today that he’s asked for information from the Joint Committee on Taxation about which taxpayers would be impacted by the Medicare payroll tax increase in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009.

“If Democratic leaders want to increase Medicare taxes, the revenue should go to Medicare, with Medicare’s Hospital Insurance trust fund scheduled to run dry in eight years and the payroll tax having been established to fund the Medicare program, not for other government spending,” Grassley said.

Beyond that, Grassley said there’s little understanding at this point as to which taxpayers earning less than $200,000 could end up being affected by the Medicare tax increase proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “The unintended consequences could be significant,” he said.

Specifically, Grassley said he’s asked the nonpartisan congressional tax experts to determine how this Medicare tax increase could become like the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, where the tax didn’t affect many taxpayers in the beginning but has ended up becoming a major tax burden for more and more taxpayers because it wasn’t indexed. Reid’s Medicare tax increase isn’t tied to inflation, so it will creep down the income ladder like the AMT.

Grassley said the new tax also would impose a marriage penalty. For the first time, under Reid’s proposed Medicare tax increase for couples earning over $250,000, there would be two separate tax rates on the payroll tax base. Married couples would pay higher payroll taxes due solely to being married. Grassley has asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation for information about who would be hit with this marriage penalty if Reid’s bill became law.

Finally, Grassley said senators should consider how “Democratic congressional leaders may be tempted, even very soon, to impose this new Medicare tax on people earning less than the threshold that’s proposed today, as Medicare’s financial health continues to deteriorate, jeopardizing the program for seniors, and the new entitlement spending in the health care bill becomes increasingly more expensive,” he said.

Editor's Note:  Have you ever seen something like this coming out of the Harkin camp?

Advertisement

UI QuickCare - East opens in Iowa City

UI QuickCare, a walk-in health care clinic offered by UI Health Care, has opened a new location at 1843 Lower Muscatine Road, just north of Sycamore Mall, in Iowa City. Free parking is available at the new site, UI QuickCare - East.

UI QuickCare is available to anyone age 6 months or older who has a common illness or condition not serious enough for an emergency room visit, but is not able to see their regular doctor. No appointment is needed to visit any of three convenient locations in Johnson County.

UI QuickCare provides services for common illnesses such earache, strep throat, pink eye, sinus infection and flu. Payment is due at the time of service, and cash, checks and debit or credit cards are accepted. Most insurance plans are also accepted.

Extended evening and weekend hours are available at UI QuickCare - East, which is open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.

Two other UI QuickCare locations are UI QuickCare - Old Capitol Towne Center and UI QuickCare - North Liberty, which is located at 3 Lions Drive in North Liberty.

For details about hours, locations and services, visit http://www.uihealthcare.com/quickcare.

Grassley: Senate healthcare bill is another big government spending plan

Senator Chuck Grassley issued the following comment about his opposition to the motion to proceed to H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. 

“This proposal is another big government spending plan, and after the bailouts for Wall Street and Detroit, a stimulus bill that left us with the highest unemployment in 26 years, and the Fed shoveling money out the door without any accountability, people across the country have had enough.

“Senator Reid’s claim that the cost is $848 billion is the ultimate Washington gimmick, at taxpayers’ expense.  To pull off the ruse, the health care changes in Senator Reid’s bill are delayed until 2014, even while his bill starts collecting new taxes, penalties and fees immediately.  So it’s 10 years of revenue for six years of expenditure.  When that accounting game is over, this bill’s full 10-year implementation cost is $2.5 trillion.  This bill will pile on deficit spending and increase America’s debt far beyond the $1.4 trillion the debt already has increased since President Obama took office.  This debt will diminish opportunities for the next generation of Americans, our children and grandchildren.

“We ought to be doing everything possible right now to create jobs, and taxes should be decreased in a recession, not increased.  Instead, Senator Reid’s bill raises taxes, penalties and fees immediately, choking off economic recovery.  The changes hit small business especially hard, and small businesses create 70 percent of new jobs.  That’s why the National Federation of Independent Business said this bill fails small businesses.

“It’s irresponsible for Democratic leaders to use their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and their control of the House and the White House to push through such massive legislation to reshape one-sixth of America’s economy.  The unintended consequences in this legislation could have a destabilizing effect at just the wrong time, as America’s economy struggles to recover and working families are doing everything in their power to hold on.

“This bill isn’t what people expected from health care reform.  They wanted Congress to lower health care costs that are growing at three times the rate of inflation, but this bill makes health insurance premiums go up, not down, and that’s according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.  This bill also hurts seniors with Medicare cuts so extreme that Medicare’s nonpartisan chief actuary concluded they will jeopardize access to care.  And, the bill uses those Medicare funds to start yet another unsustainable entitlement program.  With the bad fiscal shape that Medicare is in, it doesn’t make any sense to make new commitments to new entitlement spending, which this bill does.

“Congress should take steps to improve the health care system.  That includes common sense medical malpractice reform to stop wasting so much money on defensive medicine, ending discriminatory practices by health insurance companies, and empowering consumers to have a real choice of plans so that we can lower costs with competition, just like with other services we buy.  Congress should make market reforms that help small businesses and the self employed access health insurance.  These issues can be addressed without upending the entire health care system with a bill that really costs $2.5 trillion and means higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and an unsustainable tax burden for generations to come.”

Harkin votes to push ObamaCare, ducks constituents

Despite voter objection, Senate votes 60-39 to push government takeover of health care

In a late Saturday night vote, Harry Reid's 2,074 healthcare reform bill secured the 60 votes needed in the US Senate allowing debate to begin when Senators return on November 30.

Three Democrat senators whose support for the Reid bill has been in doubt, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said they would support the motion to debate.

In the first Senate test for ObamaCare, the final outcome was straight down party lines with 39 Republicans opposing the procedural motion to open debate on the bill in its present form.  Ohio Republican George Voinovich did not vote.

"If a bill like this can't get support broadly, then something is wrong with it," said Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA.).

"2,074 pages and trillions of dollars later, this bill doesn't even meet the basic goal the American people had in mind," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY.) said, "this bill will actually make the situation worse, and now we're about to vote on it."

Senate offices have been pummeled with emails, faxes and phone calls raising concerns about the Senate ObamaCare proposal.  Despite those objections, Iowa's junior Senator Tom Harkin (liberal) voted to push the ObamaCare agenda forward. 

After the vote, Senators departed Washington for the Thanksgiving holiday.  Senator Grassley is returning home to his Iowa farm for the holiday with events planned to include discussing the bill with constituents.  Senator Harkin is running away, staying either in his home in Alexandria, Virginia or his other home in the Bahamas.  He does not have a home in Iowa he sleeps in, he has no events scheduled and will not be engaging his constituents.