You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘universal healthcare reform’ tag.

     The US Senate just voted, on party lines, 51-47, not to repeal ObamaCare.

     This outcome was not unexpected, but despite what the critics say, it by no means ends the repeal and replace efforts where ObamaCare is concerned.

     Now begins the arduous task of dismantling and/or defunding the monstrosity—- now that we know what is in it.

     The very first step in the Senate was done at the same time as the repeal vote, with a repeal of the onerous requirement that businesses provide the IRS with 1099’s on all of its vendors. While the White House supported the repeal, it wanted the “funding” for that provision left in, and in their control. The Senate version of the repeal keeps the funding away from the White House slush fund.

       The repeal defeat is not a defeat for the GOP– it put the 23 Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2012 on record as supporting the legislation that is, in its present state, unconstitutional.

     Even as the President was saying that healthcare should be “slowed down”, and Scott Brown seated as the new Senator of Massachusetts, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was still trying for an “end run” around the will of the American People.

     The House had the option of taking the Seante version of the ObamaCare, unchanged, and vote upon it. If it were to pass (218 votes), it would go to the President for his signature. The plan was to convince the members that any issues would be “corrected” in later legislation.

     The Speaker has announced today that the option to adopt the Senate version is dead. She cannot muster the votes among the Blue Dog Democrats and others to reach the 218. This gos along with her “180” change in rhetoric this week, from “Massachusetts won’t change anything” to “we need to listen to the people”.

from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

The New York Times has an editor’s note today:

“On July 12, the Op-Ed page published an article by Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T., on health insurance and taxation. On Friday, Professor Gruber confirmed reports that he is a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that his contract was in effect when he published his article. The article did not disclose this relationship to readers.

“Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship. Had editors been aware of Professor Gruber’s government ties, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his article.”

In November this blog, too, cited Gruber’s work with no disclosure (and no knowledge) that he had nearly $400,000 in lucrative contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services.

Gruber has been a go-to voice for reporters seeking a respected academic view on health care reform costs — and as far as I can tell, few if any knew that in March he was awarded a $95,000 contract with HHS and in June a $297,600 contract with HHS for providing “Technical Assistance in Evaluating Options for National Healthcare Reform.”

A Dec. 28, 2009 Washington Post op-ed by Gruber made no such disclosure. The piece, titled “‘Cadillac’ tax isn’t a tax — it’s a plan to finance real health reform” makes that case, strongly opposed by labor unions, that the Senate health care bill’s proposed “40 percent assessment on insurance plans with premiums of more than $8,500 for singles and $23,000 for families … would reduce the incentives for employers to provide excessively generous insurance, leading to more cost-conscious use of health care and, ultimately, lower spending.”

For Jake Tapper’s full post: