senate – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Georgia on my Mind

David Posnett — Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:40:05 +0000

a classic

OK. We can either listen to this classic… or get active… or both!

Joe Biden continues to pick up votes in Georgia after clinching the presidency.

According to WSBTV.com News Staff. Updated November 9, 2020 – 4:55 PM

Vice President-Elect Joe Biden holds a lead of 10,195 votes over President Donald Trump in Georgia as ballots continue to trickle in.

There are insufficient outstanding votes to overturn these results and a recount is unlikely to do so either.

All eyes are now on Georgia as the state prepares for two crucial Senate races that could determine the balance of power in Washington.

Kelly Loeffler is slated for a runoff with Raphael Warnock and David Perdue will face Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff on January 5.

Below is information included in today’s Hubbell newsletter about ways to work for the democratic candidates in the senate runoff elections in Georgia in January.

The Georgia Senate Races. Per an interview with Stacy Abrams, you can contribute to Fair Fight, where you can split your contribution with Jon Ossoff, Rev. Raphael Warnock, and Fair Fight (to help with voter protection efforts). You can also sign up for phonebanking opportunities at Fair Fight. If you live in Georgia, you can request an absentee ballot here: “Georgia Absentee Voters / January 5, 2021 Runoff.” If you would like to help turnout by calling voters in Georgia, see SwingLeft / Georgia. If you are a postcard writer, check out Flip the West / Postcards to Georgia Voters for U.S. Senate Runoff Race! Both Ossoff and Warnock’s campaigns have volunteer opportunities outside of phone banking, including hosting a grassroots fundraiser and attending virtual events: Jon Ossoff for U.S. Senate and Rev. Raphael Warnock for U.S. Senate.

Flip the Senate

David Posnett — Wed, 23 Sep 2020 18:06:40 +0000

From: Nigel Noble and his DC based lawyer friend

Dear Friends and Family,

This email is a follow up to my correspondence several weeks ago on our efforts to defeat Trump and flip the Senate. You may recall that I am working with a group of politically experienced and knowledgeable people to identify the strongest candidates to support and to encourage registration and voting among young voters. I promised to provide you with ongoing assessments, and this email reflects recent activity and our latest recommendations.

Most Recent Senate Analysis

Based on recent developments, we want to offer some new insights. Every candidate that we identify in this email is worthy of your support. As a group, the Democratic challengers are impressive, honorable, politically savvy, right for their states and are running good campaigns. If you are in a position to contribute to them all – by all means, do so. But for those who are looking for priorities, our group is offering these suggestions.

Our goal in developing these recommendations is to invest in candidates who have the best chance of helping to recapture the Senate. We looked at data on contributions, cash on hand and polls, and we talked to a lot of people involved in the elections.

We are not recommending races where there are Republican incumbents who, emotionally, we would love to ditch, but where the odds just don’t seem to be there. Similarly, we are not recommending “headwind” races where Trump is likely to have too big a lead to be offset by enough voters willing to split their ticket, or races where there is simply not enough information to evaluate.

We now have two categories of races for you to consider, based on our assessment about how much of a difference your contributions could make. Each list includes links to the Democrats’ websites for more information and to make contributions.

Our First Priority Group includes the following races:

Greenfield (vs. Ernst) in Iowa — https://greenfieldforiowa.com/
Bullock (vs. Daines) in Montana — https://stevebullock.com/
Gross (vs. Sullivan) in Alaska — https://dralgrossak.com/
Cunningham (vs. Tillis) in North Carolina —https://www.calfornc.com/
Gideon (vs. Collins) in Maine — https://saragideon.com/
Sen. Peters (vs. James) in Michigan — https://petersformichigan.com/

This group includes our original “Best Buy” races, (Iowa, Montana and Alaska). Elections are less expensive in these states, the candidates are very strong, polls are close and each state has some history of ticket splitting. Republicans have noticed and are in hot pursuit, but all three remain encouraging.

We are adding the very promising races in North Carolinaand Maine which we previously characterized as “Best Bets.” Both races are generally viewed as toss-ups. Although both Democratic candidates appear to have slight leads in the most recent polls, there remains a significant undecided vote in North Carolina and Republicans are likely to go all out to save Collins in Maine.

The sixth race, Democratic incumbent Gary Peters in Michigan, is new to our list. We previously explained that Democrats would need to pick up five seats if Trump wins or four seats if Biden wins to control the Senate. This presumes the loss of only one seat currently held by Democrats (Doug Jones in Alabama is running a strong race, but may be facing insurmountable headwinds.). It now appears that Sen. Peters may be in a tight race. Michigan is a must win for Trump and a top priority for Biden, and the polls have edged closer. The Republican challenger (John E. James) has raised a ton of money and Peters needs more.

Our Second Priority Group includes the following races:

Kelly (vs. McSally) in Arizona — https://markkelly.com/
Hickenlooper (vs. Gardner) in Colorado —https://hickenlooper.com/
Harrison (vs. Graham) in South Carolina —https://jaimeharrison.com/
Ossoff (vs. Perdue) in Georgia — https://electjon.com/

Recall that the criterion for prioritizing a race is how much of a difference your contributions could make. In the case of Colorado and Arizona (from our original Best Bets list) both races have raised a great deal of money and both candidates currently have good polling results. At the moment, these are the states where we have the best chances of flipping seats.

Two other races, which we previously regarded as third priorities based on the degree of difficulty of winning, have moved into our second priority group — South Carolina and Georgia. Both Jaime Harrison and Jon Ossoff are great candidates and have proven that they are serious contenders. The challenge for both Harrison and Ossoff is overcoming the headwinds for Trump and the power of incumbency. However, both Harrison and Ossoff are polling just about even with the incumbents.

If you have questions about these recommendations, please feel free to contact me.

Kavanaugh’s 1982 Calendar: damning!

David Posnett — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 19:48:39 +0000

“go to Timmy’s for [Brew]skis (beer) with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi”

(Provided by Brett Kavanaugh to the Senate Judiciary Committee)

During Thursday’s dramatic questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, he was quizzed repeatedly about the calendars he provided to bolster his case that he didn’t assault Christine Blasey Ford while a high school student in 1982.

Ford alleges that she attended a party at someone’s home that summer, where, she alleges, Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge pushed her into a bedroom and locked the door and where Kavanaugh then began to try to remove her clothes. Among the others at the party, Ford alleged, was another friend of Kavanaugh’s named P.J. Smyth. Kavanaugh denies the allegation and told Fox News’ Marth MacCallum that while he might have met Ford, he didn’t know her. Judge said in a statement that he doesn’t remember any such party. Smyth made a similar statement.

It was Kavanaugh’s hope that providing those calendars would show that he attended no such gathering. He insisted, in his testimony Thursday, that any party of the sort must have been on a weekend (since he and his friends had jobs) and that the calendars showed that essentially all of the weekends were booked with other activities. (His friend Mark Judge, in a memoir about his past drinking problem, wrote that this wasn’t a concern of his: He’d regularly show up at work hung over or drunk.)

Rachel Mitchell, hired by the Republican majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee to navigate the questioning of Kavanaugh and Ford, pointed to one particular calendar entry that got some attention after the calendars came out. It read:

Tobin’s House — Workout / Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi

The reference to “skis” is apparently to “brewskis,” or beers. The entry was July 1, a Thursday. Mitchell asked him about it.

MITCHELL: The entry says, and I quote, go to ‘Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi?’

KAVANAUGH: Squi. It’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: [after explaining the “Tobin’s House” part] It looks like we went over to Timmy’s. You want to know their last names, too? I’m happy to do it.

MITCHELL:If you could just identify: Is ‘Judge’ Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is. It’s Tim Gaudette, Mark Judge, Tom Kaine, P.J. Smyth, Bernie McCarthy, Chris Garrett.

Notice two things here. First, that “Squi” was in attendance at the party — someone who, we learned thanks to Mitchell’s questioning of Ford, was going out with Ford over the course of that summer. Second, notice those two other attendees, one of whom Mitchell highlighted: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth.

Mitchell’s questioning continued.

MITCHELL:Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, it certainly appears that way, that’s what I was doing in the summer of 1982. You can see that reflected on several of the– several of the entries.

MITCHELL: If a gathering like Dr. Ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that?

KAVANAUGH:Yes, because I documented everything, those kinds of events, even small get-togethers. August 7 is another good example where I documented a small get-together that summer. So yes.

During her testimony, Ford made clear that the event at which she says she was assaulted was a casual get-together before the others (who were older than her and had a later curfew) went to other, bigger parties. Kavanaugh says that the gathering at Timmy’s on July 1 was essentially that.

We noted Thursday, too, that the time frame of this July 1 party fits with Ford’s testimony. She says that six to eight weeks after the alleged assault, she saw Judge working at a store in the area. Judge’s book indicates that he was working at that store for several weeks in early to mid-August.

This is a central point to Ford’s allegation. Kavanaugh denies knowing her, denies being at a party with her. Here is an event in July where he was with several long-standing friends, two of whom were named by Ford and one of whom she’d been going out with.

But Mitchell’s next question completely fumbles the point.

MITCHELL:Have you reviewed every entry that is in these calendars of May, June, July and August of 1982.

KAVANAUGH:I have.

MITCHELL:Is there anything that could even remotely fit what we’re talking about in terms of Dr. Ford’s allegations?

KAVANAUGH: No.

That was it. Mitchell changed the subject.

There were all sorts of ways that Mitchell could have pressed the issue. How, for example, might Ford have been able to identify by name two of Kavanaugh’s close friends if she didn’t know him or had barely met him? Why isn’t it possible that this July 1 get-together was precisely the sort of event at which Ford alleges she was assaulted? That more than remotely fits the allegation? But she didn’t ask.

Mitchell had been stepping in for Republican senators during the day’s questioning, a tactic that helped the majority avoid the spectacle of men grilling a woman about an attack she says she experienced. There was no break in that pattern — until the July 1 question. After that series of questions, Mitchell didn’t speak again.

Update: On Friday morning, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) outlined the points above. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the committee, responded by noting that the calendar indicates that there were at least seven boys at the party, while Ford’s allegations only mentioned four.

Ford addressed the number of attendees during her testimony on Thursday, also responding to a question from Mitchell.

“I can’t guarantee that there weren’t a few other people there,” Ford said, “but they are not in my purview of my memory.”

Comment (D. Posnett): It is interesting. to see what our congressman, Lee Zeldin, thinks of Brett Kavenaugh. Thanks to David Friedman for this:

Dear America: An apology for Roy Moore, and all the rest

David Posnett — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:08:28 +0000

By Josh Moon

Alabama Political Reporter

Dear America,

We’re sorry.

I’m speaking for all of us here in Alabama, even if some of these people will never apologize and never believe that they’ve done anything wrong.

The rest of us know better, though.

We know what we’ve done to all of America over the past year, when the Alabamization of this country began. You weren’t ready for it, and I told you last November that no amount of lowering expectations could possibly prepare you for the river of lunacy that was rushing towards you.

And, well, let’s just say I nailed that one.

Over the last year, America has been treated to the Alabama “superfecta” of governance: Scandals, criminal indictments, bigotry and stupidity.

These things are shocking to most of you, but in a state that rarely has a governor complete a term without a criminal conviction and that has seen its Governor and House Speaker convicted and tossed from office in the current election cycle, it is like a warm cloak of familiarity.

It’s how we live; how we choose to live.

We thrive on corruption and chaos and unbelievable ignorance.

Like Roy Moore.

Where else could a man be booted from the Supreme Court for failing to follow the law, get elected Chief Justice again, get booted again, and now be on the verge of the same state electing him to the U.S. Senate?

That probably should be explained, because, to be quite honest, Moore is too bat-guano insane for even most of Alabama.

The reality is it took the most Alabama-level of political corruption in history to get us here. We needed the House Speaker convicted, the Governor to go down in a blazing flame of vomit-inducing text messages to his 40-year-younger mistress, a bumbling goof of a state AG, and for nearly 90 percent of the registered voters in the state to ignore an election for U.S. Senate.

And because this is Alabama, we got all of that.

So, here’s Roy Moore, set to star on the big stage.

And make no mistake, if given the opportunity to do so, Alabama voters are going to elect this man. That’s probably the most infuriating piece of this whole thing — that so many voters would do so little to prevent a man who they know is bad for Alabama from becoming one of two people who represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Honestly, I have no decent explanation for it. I mean, I know why it’s happening, but the reasoning is neither logical nor acceptable.

Basically, it’s two things: Alabama voters have been conditioned to think of each election as a game that must be won by their “side” — no matter who is representing their side — and they have been conditioned to do this through the use of fear.

The fear of Hell. The fear of black people. The fear of Mexicans. The fear of Muslims. The fear that something in their life won’t be tomorrow what it is today.

We are the most easily frightened bunch of snowflakes in American history. It’s why so many people here carry guns and vote for dopes who promise to save them from things like Sharia law. Our people are convinced that if a decent, good man like Doug Jones is elected to the U.S. Senate, what will follow are mass abortions and a Christianity ban.

That’s absurd, of course. And if any of them would bother checking the history books, they would understand that the majority of Alabamians do much better when the government is controlled by progressives than when it’s controlled by austerity-pushing conservatives.

But I suppose checking history is too much to ask from a group that’s currently tripping over themselves to defend Moore from mounting allegations of sexual assault on minors. They, like me, have no idea if the allegations are true, but they are convinced that the women are money-chasing Democratic plants who want to destroy the “good” name of Roy Moore.

They have bought — hook, line and sinker — the absurd excuses from conservative mouthpieces, such as Sean Hannity and Breitbart. They have chosen to listen to the people who tell them what they want to hear instead of those who tell them the truth.

And really, that’s always been Alabama’s problem — so many opportunist politicians playing upon the fears of common people for their own benefit, truth and consequences be damned. It has been a problem that has held this state down for decades.

And now, it seems, we’re infecting the rest of the country with this stupid disease.

For that, we owe you an apology.

The Seventeenth Amendment Is Under Attack By The Right

David Posnett — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 19:30:03 +0000

What is the 17th Amendment?

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The 17th Amendment removed a firewall of privilege — which is why the Right doesn’t like it

But Does the Amendment ‘Harm’ the States?

Just after the 2010 election, Justice Antonin Scalia decided to explain the parts of the Constitution he doesn’t like.

“The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously,” Scalia said. “We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the twentieth century.”

A sinister “burst of progressivism” is unconstitutional — and so, Andrew Napolitano of Fox News insists, is the 17th Amendment itself, because it was added “at the height of the progressive era, when the government started telling us how to live.”

Today, far-right dogma insists that popular election of senators marked the end of their mythical Great Republic. Former Sen. Zell Miller explained that “instead of senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds, as they did during the Senate’s greatest era of Clay, Webster and Calhoun, we now have many senators who are mere cat’s paws for the special interests.” George Will wrote in a 2009 column that “the Framers established election of senators by state legislators, under which system the nation got the Great Triumvirate — Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun — and thrived.”

Did the 17th Amendment in some way harm the states? The answer depends on what you mean by state. If by “California,” say, you mean the people of California, the answer is clearly no. Senators are still elected by state, and still work hard to represent their states on Capitol Hill. Senators consult with governors and state governments and advocate for their interests on the floor. The state governments maintain effective lobbying presences in Washington, and, as a result, general federal statutes often include provisions exempting state governments from their provisions or permitting state governments a significant say in how federal programs are administered. But the legislators don’t call the shots: senators must closely attend to what their people want if they want re-election. And special interests spend freely to influence elections, but it’s harder to tip a hundred thousand votes than to buy a hundred politicians.

When the far right says the 17th Amendment harmed “the states,” they mean it harmed state governments. But the state governments are not “the state”; they are simply another institutional player in our complex federal scheme. The “state,” properly considered, is the people of the state. Who is the best judge of the people’s interests — the state legislative majority or the people themselves?

Properly viewed, governments do not have “rights.” A right is a prerogative that an individual can exercise exactly as he wishes. When you exercise your right to free speech, you can say silly things, or smart ones, or you can just keep your mouth shut. You aren’t accountable to anyone for the decision.

How can a state government have “rights” in this sense? Should state legislators have the “right” not to approve a budget because they don’t feel like it — or, for that matter, not to elect a Senator because it’s just not convenient this year? State governments, like the federal government, have powers, and they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Appropriate state powers are actually protected by the Constitution, and by decisions of the Supreme Court. The federal government can offer incentives to state governments, but it cannot reach down and tell a state legislature what to do. Congress does not send representatives to vote in state legislatures; state governments should have no corresponding right to control Congress.

The popular clamor against the 17th Amendment is worth studying. It shows that much of the “constitutionalism” being peddled to the people is highly selective, and much of the history that supports it, like Will’s fatuous yearning for the “Great Triumvirate,” is a pseudo-patriotic fable.

The real reason the Scalias, Millers, and Wills of this world favor repeal is simply this: a legislatively appointed Senate could be relied on to block progressive legislation. Left to themselves, those idiot people might have another “burst of progressivism.” Right-wing objections to senatorial election (like so much right-wing “constitutionalism”) are a disguised way of saying they want the Constitution to ensure their side never loses a vote.

To hell with that.

McConnell’s Unbelievably Reckless Plan B: Repeal ACA With Nothing to Replace It

David Posnett — Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:53:09 +0000

Published on

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Indivisible Guide

Indivisible Project

11 Comments

A repeal-only bill, explains Indivisible, is “the most extreme attempt yet at dismantling people’s healthcare.” (Photo: Amirah Sequeira/TwitPic)

Republicans considered going this same route in January but abandoned that approach after just a few weeks of thinking about it. That’s because the effects of full repeal are devastating, and even Republicans know it:

The Medicaid expansion ends in just two years
Tax credits to help people afford insurance would disappear completely
The wealthy and corporations would get a $631 billion tax cut

And unlike earlier versions of TrumpCare—as entirely inadequate as they were—there isn’t even an attempt to replace the ACA. Under this framework, which repeals as much of the law they can get away with through reconciliation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 18 million Americans would lose their insurance in the first year, and a staggering 32 million by 2026. CBO also said premiums would increase by 25% in the first year and that they would double by 2026.

Every Republican but Senator Collins is on record supporting this approach

The Senate passed full repeal in 2015, knowing they didn’t need a replacement. That’s because everyone knew at the time President Obama would veto the repeal bill, so Republican Senators didn’t bother to come up with a different way to help people afford insurance once the tax credits were repealed, or a way to replace the coverage millions of Americans got for the first time through the Medicaid expansion. They didn’t have to consider that their plan would cause premiums to double. Unfortunately, it passed the Senate with 52 Republican votes, including many of the Senators now expressing doubts about TrumpCare. It was a reckless bill that would have been a catastrophe for the American people that fortunately died a prompt death under President Obama’s veto pen.

But, like all Republican health care bills apparently, it has now risen from the dead.

Republicans may try to argue that they are repealing now and will work on a replacement later that Democrats will be forced to negotiate on. This is nothing short of holding millions of lives hostage for their failed partisan agenda. Considering Republicans have been talking about this for 7 years, and McConnell just tried to construct a replacement that would pass the Senate—only to utterly fail—there is no reason to think they could craft a replacement later. And while McConnell plays this political game, millions of people will lose insurance, see their premiums skyrocket, delay important medical care, or go bankrupt.

How Republicans are trying to do this

The first hurdle Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans have to clear is a procedural vote called the “motion to proceed.” That vote means the Senate is agreeing to debate the bill. He intends to use the TrumpCare bill the House narrowly passed in May—the American Health Care Act—as the vehicle for this full repeal bill. That means when the Senate votes on the motion to proceed, they’ll actually be agreeing to debate the House bill. But the first amendment that McConnell will offer is one that strikes the entire House bill, and replaces it with the repeal bill from 2015.

We can stop them

No Senator should support this bill, whether they supported TrumpCare or not. The full repeal goes far beyond even what TrumpCare would do. That means every Senator should oppose both the bill and the motion to proceed, but especially the ones that “had concerns” with previous versions of TrumpCare. This is the most extreme attempt yet at dismantling people’s healthcare, but we’ve stopped or delayed all previous attempts. We can kill this bill, too.

SAMPLE CALL DIALOGUE

Caller: Hello! My name is [name] and I’m calling from [part of state]. Can you tell me how Senator [ ] plans to vote on the motion to proceed on the health care bill?

Staffer: The Senator hasn’t made a decision on that yet.

Caller: That’s terrible. Senator [ ] should absolutely oppose any attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is a reckless move that Mitch McConnell is making out of desperation with no plan whatsoever as to how the ACA would be replaced. The Congressional Budget Office says 32 million people will lose their insurance and that premiums will double. How could Senator support that?

Staffer: But those numbers aren’t accurate because this is just repealing now with a replacement to come later. We won’t let people go without health insurance.

Calle: That’s ridiculous. If Congress can’t find a compromise today, why should we believe it will find one in a year or two? This is playing games with people’s lives.

Staffer: Again, Senator hasn’t made a decision yet.

Caller: Well I want Senator [ ] to make a decision, and oppose any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, especially if there is no plan in place to replace it. I want the Senator to vote against the motion to proceed and against the bill itself.

Staffer: Thank you. I’ll let the Senator know your thoughts.

Caller: Thank you. Please take down my contact information so you can let me know how Senator [ ] votes.

New Senate health bill shows no love for New York

David Posnett — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:13:58 +0000

http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/15/new-senate-health-bill-shows-no-love-new-york/

By Jerry Zremski | Published July 15, 2017 | Updated July 15, 2017

WASHINGTON – To hear New York health care experts tell it, the Republican senators’ new plan to replace Obamacare is the legislative equivalent of a grave pre-existing medical condition, made worse through a haphazard quack treatment.

They say the bill is largely a status quo measure that preserves the quadruple whammy that could cost the state billion dollars more per year than a House-passed measure that leaves the state $7 billion short annually. But they also say the new Senate bill is worse in one way in that it threatens to eat away at a key consumer protection provided under state law.

Higher-income New Yorkers would be losers, too, under the measure, as the bill restores some of the taxes that would have been eliminated under the earlier version of the bill. That tax money would go instead to expanded health care subsidies for lower- and middle-income people who buy health insurance on their own.

One unlikely New Yorker emerges as a winner in the new legislation: Rep. Brian Higgins, a Buffalo Democrat who waged a lonely battle against tax breaks for insurance executives – and saw Senate Republicans drop those tax breaks in the revised bill.

Overall, though, the new bill is much more similar to the Senate’s previous version than it is to the law it aims to replace: the 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

“So far, I’m not seeing much that changes for New York,” said Bill Hammond, health-care analyst at the conservative-leaning Empire Center, an Albany think tank.

Just like its predecessor, the new Senate bill whacks New York’s Medicaid program – which serves everyone from poor children to seniors in nursing homes who spent all their assets on health care – in four ways. It would:

Reduce federal Medicaid payments to states over time by changing the way they are tied to inflation.
Trim payments to states with expensive Medicaid programs by including an “equity adjustment.”
Curb federal funding for states such as New York that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare in a way that will cost New York more than $7 billion more annually starting in 2024.
Keep in place the House’s controversial Collins-Faso amendment that ends New York’s practice of charging counties for part of the cost of Medicaid, pushing at least another $2.3 billion in costs annually onto the state.

Not surprisingly, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo appeared unimpressed with the new Senate legislation.

“The token changes to the Senate health care bill are a thinly veiled attempt to disguise the same cruel bill,” he said. “Far from improving our health care system, the Senate Republican health care bill is still a death trap for New York.”

Cuomo once again made his case against the Collins-Faso amendment, saying it could lead to cuts that would cripple hospitals, nursing homes and home care providers.

But Rep. Chris Collins, the Clarence Republican who sponsored the amendment with Rep. John Faso, R-Kinderhook, has said Cuomo is more likely to try to raise state taxes instead of finding savings in the state’s huge and costly Medicaid program.

“Through the Collins-Faso amendment, we’re on the verge of delivering the largest property tax reduction ever,” Collins said on Facebook. “Instead of making tough decisions, Governor Cuomo has threatened to push for new taxes on New York families.”

Beyond its impact on Medicaid, Hammond said the Senate bill – like the earlier version and the health bill passed by the House – threatens to eviscerate the state’s Essential Plan, which is aimed at state residents who earn just a bit too much to qualify for Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor and lower middle class.

And like its predecessor, the new Senate bill conflicts with existing state law in several ways. It bars people from using federal subsidies to buy insurance plans that cover abortion – yet New York law requires health plans to cover abortion. And the new Senate bill allows insurers to charge older people more for insurance, while New York law does not.

The new Senate measure also adds one new conflict with state law that could totally alter the market for individuals who have to buy insurance on their own – or that could amount to nothing.

The bill includes a provision offered by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that allows the sale of bare-bones insurance policies with low premiums and gigantic deductibles, all in an effort to make health coverage more affordable for people who probably wouldn’t buy insurance otherwise.

“I am encouraged that the revised bill ensures consumers have the freedom to choose among more affordable plans that are tailored to their individual healthcare needs,” Cruz said.

New York health experts such as Bea Grause are by no means so encouraged. The president of the Healthcare Association of New York State, Grause said the offering of the Cruz-backed cheap insurance plans would start “a race to the bottom for coverage and consumer protection.”

Higgins agreed, saying that those inexpensive plans are “junk health care” that could upend the insurance market. If healthy people flocked to those plans instead of buying more comprehensive insurance, anyone buying more traditional insurance plans would inevitably have to pay more, given that fewer healthy people would be subsidizing the cost of those better plans.

It’s unclear, though, whether such bare-bones insurance plans would be available in New York, given that current state law bans them from sale in the state. Federal law typically supersedes state law, though, which is why Grause and others fear that court action could open New York’s market to those new health plans.

“I think New York, like a few other states, has a robust regulatory infrastructure,” Grause said. “It would be a question of how or whether the Cruz amendment would apply.”

Despite Higgins’ concerns about the Cruz amendment, the new Senate health bill includes one change that the Buffalo congressman was happy to see. The bill no longer includes a provision that would have given health insurance executives tax breaks valued at as much as $500 million in total.

Higgins was one of the strongest voices in opposition to those tax breaks, railing against it in a committee hearing and on the House floor, calling it a giveaway to corporate executives who don’t deserve it.

He said Senate Republicans stripped that provision from the bill knowing that UnitedHealth, one of the nation’s largest insurers, is facing a Justice Department lawsuit accusing the company of Medicare fraud – and knowing that other insurers could end up in the same trouble.

“They’re saving themselves from further embarrassment,” Higgins said.

Then again, Republican senators were also looking for savings in the bill that allowed them to slightly expand the health insurance tax credits the bill will offer to help the lower middle class to buy insurance.

The new version also preserves taxes on high net worth individuals that were instituted under Obamacare but that were set for repeal under the original Senate health bill. But other Obamacare taxes on medical device companies and health insurers would be repealed, just as they would have been under the Senate bill’s first iteration.

Those changes were by no means enough to satisfy Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. He urged Republicans to abandon their current health care effort and instead work with Democrats to improve the current health care system.

“Any Republican who votes to proceed on this bill next week will have to look constituents square in the eye and explain why,” Schumer said. “Why did they move forward on such severe cuts to Medicaid? Why did they cut taxes for special interests? Why did you send my out of pocket costs skyrocketing?”

Meantime, though, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that Democrats were making the-sky-is-falling arguments that have no connection with reality.

“I’m sure we can expect many of the same tired and predictable attacks from the defenders of Obamacare’s failed status quo,” McConnell said. “It hardly matters what the draft says, they would launch the same kinds of attacks anyway.”

McConnell also noted that Democrats wrongly said Obamacare would lower costs and expand health care options while allowing everyone to keep their longtime policy if they chose to do so.

“They were wrong before,” he said. “They’re wrong again today.”

Related stories from the Buffalo News:

What’s at risk if Medicaid is scaled back under health bill? By Henry L. Davis | Published July 2, 2017 | Updated July 3, 2017

Senate bill a quadruple whammy to New York Medicaid program. By Jerry Zremski | Published June 24, 2017 | Updated June 26, 2017

See also the following related recent posts on R&R:

Rural hospital association representative: ‘This bill will close hospitals. … People will die’

Health of Suffolk County Hospitals?

Millions More Uninsured Could Impact Health Of Those With Insurance, Too

Senate’s health care bill will cost New York’s Medicaid program billions

Medicaid Cuts Will Drive Up Cost Of Private Coverage, Montana Insurers Say

Report: BCRA would mean more than 900K healthcare jobs lost

Zeldin’s Approval of Senate Healthcare Bill Reveals His Lack of Concern for Veterans

CONGRESS: KEEP AMERICANS COVERED

Summary of CBO Report on Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (Senate Bill)

David Posnett — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 01:20:04 +0000

June 26, 2017

Cost Estimate

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 would reduce federal deficits by $321 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to current law.

52849-hr1628senate.pdf

View Document

1.37 MB

Summary

An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute [LYN17343] as Posted on the Website of the Senate Committee on the Budget on June 26, 2017

The Congressional Budget Office and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed an estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017, a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1628. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting this legislation would reduce the cumulative federal deficit over the 2017-2026 period by $321 billion. That amount is $202 billion more than the estimated net savings for the version of H.R. 1628 that was passed by the House of Representatives.

The Senate bill would increase the number of people who are uninsured by 22 million in 2026 relative to the number under current law, slightly fewer than the increase in the number of uninsured estimated for the House-passed legislation. By 2026, an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

Following the overview, this document provides details about the major provisions of this legislation, the estimated costs to the federal government, the basis for the estimate, and other related information, including a comparison with CBO’s estimate for the House-passed act.

Effects on the Federal Budget

CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017-2026 period, enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $1,022 billion and reduce revenues by $701 billion, for a net reduction of $321 billion in the deficit over that period (see Table 1, at the end of this document):

The largest savings would come from reductions in outlays for Medicaid—spending on the program would decline in 2026 by 26 percent in comparison with what CBO projects under current law—and from changes to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) subsidies for nongroup health insurance (see Figure 1). Those savings would be partially offset by the effects of other changes to the ACA’s provisions dealing with insurance coverage: additional spending designed to reduce premiums and a reduction in revenues from repealing penalties on employers who do not offer insurance and on people who do not purchase insurance.
The largest increases in deficits would come from repealing or modifying tax provisions in the ACA that are not directly related to health insurance coverage, including repealing a surtax on net investment income and repealing annual fees imposed on health insurers.

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting this legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. CBO and JCT estimate that enactment would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. The agencies expect that savings, particularly from Medicaid, would continue to grow, while the costs would be smaller because a rescinded tax on employees’ health insurance premiums and health plan benefits would be reinstated in 2026. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of this legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.

Effects on Health Insurance Coverage

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance. By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent and an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.

Stability of the Health Insurance Market

Decisions about offering and purchasing health insurance depend on the stability of the health insurance market—that is, on the proportion of people living in areas with participating insurers and on the likelihood of premiums’ not rising in an unsustainable spiral. The market for insurance purchased individually with premiums not based on one’s health status would be unstable if, for example, the people who wanted to buy coverage at any offered price would have average health care expenditures so high that offering the insurance would be unprofitable.

Under Current Law. Although premiums have been rising under current law, most subsidized enrollees purchasing health insurance coverage in the nongroup market are largely insulated from increases in premiums because their out-of-pocket payments for premiums are based on a percentage of their income; the government pays the difference between that percentage and the premiums for a reference plan (which is the second-lowest-cost plan in their area providing specified benefits). The subsidies to purchase coverage, combined with the effects of the individual mandate, which requires most individuals to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, are anticipated to cause sufficient demand for insurance by enough people, including people with low health care expenditures, for the market to be stable in most areas.

Nevertheless, a small number of people live in areas of the country that have limited participation by insurers in the nongroup market under current law. Several factors may lead insurers to withdraw from the market—including lack of profitability and substantial uncertainty about enforcement of the individual mandate and about future payments of the cost-sharing subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket payments for people who enroll in nongroup coverage through the marketplaces established by the ACA.

Under This Legislation. CBO and JCT anticipate that, under this legislation, nongroup insurance markets would continue to be stable in most parts of the country. Although substantial uncertainty about the effects of the new law could lead some insurers to withdraw from or not enter the nongroup market in some states, several factors would bring about market stability in most states before 2020. In the agencies’ view, those key factors include the following: subsidies to purchase insurance, which would maintain sufficient demand for insurance by people with low health care expenditures; the appropriation of funds for cost-sharing subsidies, which would provide certainty about the availability of those funds; and additional federal funding provided to states and insurers, which would lower premiums by reducing the costs to insurers of people with high health care expenditures.

The agencies expect that the nongroup market in most areas of the country would continue to be stable in 2020 and later years as well, including in some states that obtain waivers that would not have otherwise done so. (Under current law and this legislation, states can apply for Section 1332 waivers to change the structure of subsidies for nongroup coverage; the specifications for essential health benefits [EHBs], which set the minimum standards for the benefits that insurance in the nongroup and small-group markets must cover; and other related provisions of law.) Substantial federal funding to directly reduce premiums would be available through 2021. Premium tax credits would continue to provide insulation from changes in premiums through 2021 and in later years. Those factors would help attract enough relatively healthy people for the market in most areas of the country to be stable, CBO and JCT anticipate. That stability in most areas would occur even though the premium tax credits would be smaller in most cases than under current law and subsidies to reduce cost sharing—the amount that consumers are required to pay out of pocket when they use health care services—would be eliminated starting in 2020.

In the agencies’ assessment, a small fraction of the population resides in areas in which—because of this legislation, at least for some of the years after 2019—no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be offered only with very high premiums. Some sparsely populated areas might have no nongroup insurance offered because the reductions in subsidies would lead fewer people to decide to purchase insurance—and markets with few purchasers are less profitable for insurers. Insurance covering certain services would become more expensive—in some cases, extremely expensive—in some areas because the scope of the EHBs would be narrowed through waivers affecting close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect. In addition, the agencies anticipate that all insurance in the nongroup market would become very expensive for at least a short period of time for a small fraction of the population residing in areas in which states’ implementation of waivers with major changes caused market disruption.

Effects on Premiums and Out-of-Pocket Payments

The legislation would increase average premiums in the nongroup market prior to 2020 and lower average premiums thereafter, relative to projections under current law, CBO and JCT estimate. To arrive at those estimates, the agencies examined how the legislation would affect the premiums charged if people purchased a benchmark plan in the nongroup market.

In 2018 and 2019, under current law and under the legislation, the benchmark plan has an actuarial value of 70 percent—that is, the insurance pays about 70 percent of the total cost of covered benefits, on average. In the marketplaces, such coverage is known as a silver plan.

Under the Senate bill, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 20 percent higher in 2018 than under current law, mainly because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up. Those premiums would be about 10 percent higher than under current law in 2019—less than in 2018 in part because funding provided by the bill to reduce premiums would affect pricing and because changes in the limits on how premiums can vary by age would result in a larger number of younger people paying lower premiums to purchase policies.

In 2020, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals would be about 30 percent lower than under current law. A combination of factors would lead to that decrease—most important, the smaller share of benefits paid for by the benchmark plans and federal funds provided to directly reduce premiums.

That share of services covered by insurance would be smaller because the benchmark plan under this legislation would have an actuarial value of 58 percent beginning in 2020. That value is slightly below the actuarial value of 60 percent for “bronze” plans currently offered in the marketplaces. Because of the ACA’s limits on out-of-pocket spending and prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits on payments for services within the EHBs, all plans must pay for most of the cost of high-cost services. To design a plan with an actuarial value of 60 percent or less and pay for those high-cost services, insurers must set high deductibles—that is, the amounts that people pay out of pocket for most types of health care services before insurance makes any contribution. Under current law for a single policyholder in 2017, the average deductible (for medical and drug expenses combined) is about $6,000 for a bronze plan and $3,600 for a silver plan. CBO and JCT expect that the benchmark plans under this legislation would have high deductibles similar to those for the bronze plans offered under current law. Premiums for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent are lower than they are for a plan with an actuarial value of 70 percent (the value for the reference plan under current law) largely because the insurance pays for a smaller average share of health care costs.

Although the average benchmark premium directly affects the amount of premium tax credits and is a key element in CBO’s analysis of the budgetary effects of the bill, it does not represent the effect of this legislation on the average premiums for all plans purchased. The differences in the actuarial value of plans purchased under this legislation and under current law would be greater starting in 2020—when, for example, under this bill, some people would pay more than the benchmark premium to purchase a silver plan, whereas, under current law, others would pay less than the benchmark premium to purchase a bronze plan.

Under this legislation, starting in 2020, the premium for a silver plan would typically be a relatively high percentage of income for low-income people. The deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income—also making such a plan unattractive, but for a different reason. As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan, CBO and JCT estimate.

By 2026, average premiums for benchmark plans for single individuals in most of the country under this legislation would be about 20 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate—a smaller decrease than in 2020 largely because federal funding to reduce premiums would have lessened. The estimates for both of those years encompass effects in different areas of the country that would be substantially higher and substantially lower than the average effect nationally, in part because of the effects of state waivers. Some small fraction of the population is not included in those estimates. CBO and JCT expect that those people would be in states using waivers in such a way that no benchmark plan would be defined. Hence, a comparison of benchmark premiums is not possible in such areas.

Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on health care even though benchmark premiums would decline, on average, in 2020 and later years. Because nongroup insurance would pay for a smaller average share of benefits under this legislation, most people purchasing it would have higher out-of-pocket spending on health care than under current law. Out-of-pocket spending would also be affected for the people—close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs using waivers. People who used services or benefits no longer included in the EHBs would experience substantial increases in supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending on health care, or would choose to forgo the services. Moreover, the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state. As a result, for some benefits that might be removed from a state’s definition of EHBs but that might not be excluded from insurance coverage altogether, some enrollees could see large increases in out-of-pocket spending because annual or lifetime limits would be allowed.

Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates

CBO and JCT have endeavored to develop budgetary estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of potential outcomes. Such estimates are inherently inexact because the ways in which federal agencies, states, insurers, employers, individuals, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by this legislation are all difficult to predict. In particular, predicting the overall effects of the myriad ways that states could implement waivers is especially difficult.

CBO and JCT’s projections under current law itself are also uncertain. For example, enrollment in the marketplaces under current law will probably be lower than was projected under the March 2016 baseline used in this analysis, which would tend to decrease the budgetary savings from this legislation. However, the average subsidy per enrollee under current law will probably be higher than was projected in March 2016, which would tend to increase the budgetary savings from this legislation. (For a related discussion, see the section on “Use of the March 2016 Baseline” on page 15.)

Despite the uncertainty, the direction of certain effects of this legislation is clear. For example, the amount of federal revenues collected and the amount of spending on Medicaid would almost surely both be lower than under current law. And the number of uninsured people under this legislation would almost surely be greater than under current law.

Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Mandates

CBO has reviewed the nontax provisions of the legislation and determined that they would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting state laws. Although the preemptions would limit the application of state laws, they would impose no duty on states that would result in additional spending or a loss of revenues. JCT has determined that the tax provisions of the legislation contain no intergovernmental mandates.

JCT and CBO have determined that the legislation would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. On the basis of information from JCT, CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandates would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation).

Do or Die on Trumpcare

David Posnett — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:54:17 +0000

Senate Republicans want to rush a vote on Trumpcare in JUNE, whether they have the votes or not. The deciding moment may be near. Since much of this is behind closed doors and interest groups such as doctor associations, hospital associations, patients advocates, apparently represent a “half hearted opposition“….well it is up to us, the public, to raise all hell.

here are some breaking stories:

Nationwide blitz launched, in Forbes

The Senate Trumpcare bill

Senate Trumpcare behind closed doors

Sen. Tom Cotton, Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Rand Paul, all Republicans, have said in the past that they oppose the American Health Care Act and will vote against it.

AARP is targeting Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernest and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, with aggressive TV advertizing.

Kaiser Family Foundation lists 6 senators that could kill the Senate bill:

Senate Republicans who could stop the Obamacare repeal
SENATOR	STATE	STATE TRUMP MARGIN	STATE EXPANDED MEDICAID
Shelley Moore Capito	West Virginia	+42	✓
Bill Cassidy	Louisiana	+20	✓
Susan Collins	Maine	-3
Dean Heller	Nevada	-2	✓
Lisa Murkowski	Alaska	+15	✓
Rob Portman	Ohio	+8	✓

Here is a useful list with phone numbers:

The Trump/Bannon plan

David Posnett — Sun, 26 Feb 2017 20:54:50 +0000

Two seminal pieces were just published in the NYT. (1) A factual description of today’s growing and aggressive ICE. (2) An annotated and explained version of Bannon’s CPAC presentation.

These stories should be an eye opener for everyone.

Trump’s transition is far from chaotic. In fact, Executive Orders have been issued that address each and every one of Bannon’s priorities:

1) National security and sovereignty: the wall, the travel ban, revised immigration rules, pipeline, deregulation to strengthen big business; disruption of all trade agreements; legalizing the Church’s involvement in politics; nomination of a young, brilliant candidate for SCOTUS, who believes strongly in the Church’s role at the centre of national identity and law.

2) Deconstruction of the state: appointment of heads of each department that have long argued that their new departments should be defanged and in some cases eliminated; leaving some 2000+ positions vacant to allow heads of departments (Secretaries) room to eliminate positions and shrink the Federal Government.

3) Reinforcement of the power of the White House: a co-opted Congress; relentless campaign to delegitimize and sideline the free press as the sole remaining opposition of note; dissemination of propaganda “alternative facts” to justify their most outlandish policy measures and decisions; appointment of generals to key positions (National Security Adviser, Head of Homeland Security, Head of ICE, Defense Secretary) thus increasing ties between the military and the White House; strengthening of the role and expansion of ICE, border patrols, internal memos alluding to the option of deploying the reserves to patrol the streets and enforce new laws against migrants and foreigners; laying the foundations for a massive expansion of largely outdated and unnecessary military hardware that nevertheless are symbols of strength against the marauding hordes that are waiting to swoop on this weak and hitherto fore, defenseless country.

We do indeed have the seeds of a fascist state already in place.

This makes a lot of the wooly discussion of the Democrats vaguely tangential. We need to keep the eye on the ball if one is to nip this in the bud. We now need to be highly focused and disciplined. We need to prioritize.

It certainly does not bode well for an independent Congress. And whether SCOTUS will remain an independent branch of government remains to be seen. However, if one puts the above argument to the Republicans, some will see the light.

One way that Congress can reclaim their independence, and their constitutional role, is to investigate the Russian connection to the Trump campaign. Where there is smoke, look for the fire. One needs to collect evidence regarding violations of the emoluments clause. One needs to examine those tax returns. These are tools for Congress to fight back and save their very existence. Hitler dissolved the Reichstag (equivalent to the Congress) only 3 months after coming into power claiming emergency powers.

Our congressman in New York’s CD-1 is Lee Zeldin, and he is a jew. He is young, but I am sure he has some grasp of history. Keep reminding him that he can stand up to fascism and if he does, he will go down in the history books as having saved America. These times demand brave men and women.