Healthcare and Medicine « Nebraska Pulse Political Blog

State Legislatures Don’t Like Obama’s Medicine

March 30th, 2010 Posted in Healthcare and Medicine, Social Issues

Mar, 30 2010

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) predicted Sunday that a wave of state legislatures would fight to resist federal healthcare reform that will add billions in costs to their budgets.

The prediction signals that Republicans plan to take President Barack Obama up on his challenge to “go for it” and attempt to repeal the $938 billion reform measure.

“This fight won’t wind up being just in Washington, it’s going to spread to every statehouse in the nation and we’re going to have referendums on this bill throughout every statehouse in the nation,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Can the states afford what Washington did to them?”

Graham estimated that 16 million additional people would be placed on Medicaid rolls as a result of Democratic healthcare reform.

“My state is going to get killed by having to serve more Medicaid people,” said Graham. “It’s going to hurt state budgets.”

Attorneys general in more than a dozen states have announced plans to sue the federal government over healthcare reform, alleging the new law violates the constitution.

A Washington Post poll published Sunday showed that 50 percent of people oppose the law while 46 percent support it. The poll showed that public support for the reform has not improved much since Obama signed it into law, even though a USA Today poll from earlier in the week showed the proposal gaining favor, with 49 percent describing it as “a good thing” compared to 40 percent who disagreed.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) gave a preview of how the fight over healthcare reform may play out in states around the country.

Rendell has called on his state’s Republican attorney general, Tom Corbett, to drop a suit challenging the new law.

In Mississippi, Barbour and the Republican lieutenant governor Phil Bryant have pressed Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, to challenge the law, but so far Hood has resisted.

Barbour has threatened to file a lawsuit himself if Hood, who plans to run for a third term in 2011, doesn’t act.

Rendell said suits challenging the new law are “frivolous” and “a waste of taxpayers’ dollars at a time when all the states are fighting to preserve those dollars.”

Rendell defended the federal government’s power to regulate interstate as well as intrastate activity.

“This is not a government takeover; we left the private health insurance companies intact,” Rendell said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”

Barbour, who appeared on the same program, argued that the federal government has never had a recognized power to force citizens to buy products such as health insurance.

“The fact of the matter is this is an issue that under our Constitution, where the powers of the federal government are limited, does the federal government have the power and authority to require, force every citizen to buy a product, in this case health insurance,” Barbour said.

“I do not believe the United States governor has the authority or power to force us to purchase health insurance any more than in the name of homeland security they can force every American to buy a gun,” he added.

In six states, there are clashes between governors and attorney generals over legal challenges to healthcare reform.

In Colorado, Michigan and Washington, Democratic governors have also opposed plans by Republican attorneys general to file suit.

In Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) has pushed the Democratic attorney general to challenge the law but the state’s lead solicitor, Thurbert Baker, has said the case lacks legal merit.

Look to Europe For Health Reform’s True Costs

March 30th, 2010 Posted in Economy, Healthcare and Medicine

Mar, 30 2010

No Comments »

Just as the U.S. enacts its own version of an universal health-care system, Europe is struggling with how to trim costly social-welfare benefits that have acted as a long-term drag on hiring and economic growth.

That’s according to an article Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, a sister publication of MarketWatch, in a frontpage article titled, “Europe’s Choice: Growth or Safety Net.”

Of course, the U.S. is still far from becoming a European-style social democracy, but Republicans plan to try to paint President Obama as exactly that in the fall elections. They argue that higher taxes to pay for the new health-care law and proposed regulations on key sectors like energy and finance will hurt U.S. competitiveness at a time of high unemployment.

If the jobless rate stays near its current rate of 9.7% when the November elections arrive, that argument might just hold some sway with the public.

Democrats scoff at the notion, and Obama has taken delight in mocking opponents who accuse him of being a socialist. He and other party leaders say the public will view health care more favorably as the benefits become known and some of wilder claims of Republicans fail to pan out. They insist there’s no turning back and vow to defend the health-care overhaul vigorously.

“We are not going to let them take it away from the American people,” an emotional Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said Thursday after the Senate passed a fix-it bill to the main health-care law.

In a turnabout, Europe is having a different debate. They are trying to figure out ways to cut the costs of their social-welfare state, boost efficiency and competitiveness and create more jobs. They are loathe to become identical to the U.S., whose system they view as too callous, but they are worried about their future prosperity and their ability to fund existing programs.

According to the Journal article on the European Union: “Its 16 member nations now face a stark choice. They can spur economic growth across the region by following through on long-overdue pledges to trim benefits and free up labor markets. Or, many economists say, they can face a decade of economic stagnation.”

In short, there’s no free lunch. Every benefit has a cost, and sometimes too many benefits can be just as harmful as too few. The U.S. and Europe are both groping for an ideal middle ground between social welfare and economic growth – a process that’s contentious as ever as the health-care debate showed.

Senator Ben Nelson Tries to Defend His Decisive Healthcare Vote

March 30th, 2010 Posted in Candidates & Elections, Healthcare and Medicine

Mar, 30 2010

No Comments »

The way U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson sees it, something had to be done.

Health care insurance premiums, which had been rising quickly, “will double in seven or eight years” if nothing is done, he told Norfolk business leaders on Thursday.

Nelson explained why he voted for the Senate’s version of health care reform — and discussed other issues — as he spoke via cell phone Thursday just outside the U.S. Senate floor to the Norfolk Area Chamber of Commerce’s legislative council.

Nelson, who was called to the floor to cast two votes during about a 25-minute conversation, said there are an estimated 30 million people who don’t have health insurance and show up at emergency rooms nationwide when they become ill.

“They get health care,” Nelson said. “They just don’t have insurance.”

That unpaid care gets passed on to everyone who has health insurance. So getting more people to have insurance will result in savings for those already covered, Nelson said.

Nelson said he voted in favor of about three-fourths of the amendments being offered Thursday on the reconciliation reform bill because “they are improvements to the overall bill.”

“If I would have had the opportunity to write this bill, it would have been a different bill,” Nelson said, “but I didn’t.”

More than a few Nebraskans have been critical of Nelson since he cast the 60th and decisive vote for the Senate health care bill late last year. Nelson said if he had not voted for the bill, a worse version of it would ultimately have passed.

That’s because any time there was not a 60th vote, the leadership majority in the Senate would have gone to reconciliation and got an “up or down vote” on the basis of the bill at that time, Nelson said.

“It would have been most likely the House version,” Nelson said. “It had the government-run operation and a whole host of other things that were objectionable. That’s why I voted to keep it in play so that we could scrub it clean and I could get the government-run public option provision out and suitable language in to make sure that abortions were not paid for by federal dollars.”

Former state Sen. Doug Cunningham of Norfolk asked Nelson if what’s being called the “Cornhusker Kickback” was an unfunded mandate or if it would be provided to other states.

Nelson said he never asked for the $100 million to cover the state’s new Medicaid costs.

Instead, Nelson said, he sought an option to allow states to “opt out” or have the federal government provide the money instead of making the states provide new Medicaid costs.

The new bill will treat all the states the same, Nelson said. It will be a “fully under-funded” federal mandate for “two or three years” and “then will have to be dealt with later.”

The mandate to extend Medicaid is going to cost $35 billion for the states or the federal government. But that problem was going to be there regardless, Nelson said.

“Until I blew the whistle on it, all $35 billion was going to be passed on to the states as an unfunded federal mandate,” he said.

Nelson said he knows the legislation won’t solve all the nation’s health care problems.

“It is what it is, and it’s better than what it was,” he said.

After the senator got off the phone to return to the Senate floor, the questions from the legislative council got more pointed for Zachary Nelson, the senator’s field representative for Northeast Nebraska.

Questions included how the government would be able to force people to buy health insurance and if illegal immigrants are covered. Several people expressed opinions that the legislation would eliminate private insurance and grow into a big government expenditure that would grow out of control.

Zachary Nelson said he disagreed with some of the comments, but he didn’t have answers for all of the questions.

Tom Schommer, a Norfolk businessman, said the new health care bill would cost small businesses so much that many small businesses would have to identify one or two employees to get rid of to pay for additional health insurance costs.

“Instead of job creation, it’s job elimination,” Schommer said.

But Zachary Nelson reiterated what the senator said earlier — that since 2001, wages have increased an average of 19 percent while health care insurance premiums have risen 78 percent.

“That is unsustainable,” he said.

Democrats Intimidate Companies Disclosing Real Health Reform Costs

March 29th, 2010 Posted in Healthcare and Medicine

Mar, 29 2010

No Comments »

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation’s top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances — a move one committee Republican describes as “an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats’ flawed health care reform legislation.”

On Thursday and Friday, the companies — so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M — said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation’s biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits — not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigative subcommittee. That subcommittee just happens to be chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who held out his vote on health care reform until a few hours before final passage on March 21, giving the bill’s opponents the unfounded hope that he might vote against it.

Waxman’s demands came Friday in letters to several executives. “After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance,” Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be “evaluating prospective changes” to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman’s letter suggests he does not accept the company’s decision. “The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies’ decisions, Waxman wrote, “appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

Waxman’s demands for documents are far-reaching. “To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing,” he wrote to Stephenson, “we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Waxman’s request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

The particular problem for the companies involves the prescription drug coverage they offer retired workers. In 2003, when President Bush and the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, they offered a tax break to companies that continued to provide drug coverage for their retirees, rather than forcing them into the Medicare system. The new national health care bill ends that tax break, making it more expensive for the companies to continue offering the coverage. Ultimately, some analysts believe, the companies will stop covering the retirees, pushing them into the government system.

Waxman’s action took Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee by surprise. Contacted Saturday, Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, who is the ranking Republican on the investigations subcommittee, said, “The timing of the letters and the hearing and the scope of information requested looks an awful lot like an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats’ flawed health care reform legislation, which is unfortunately the law of the land.”

Burgess added, “I heard from several businesses back home in North Texas that the Democrats’ health reform would be bad for business, so I am not surprised that companies are beginning to announce that it will cost them…I look forward to hearing more from the officials at these companies about the adverse effects of the Democrats’ health reform will have on their business.”

In coming days, Republicans are likely to emphasize the costs, both financial and human, of the new law. In an interview Thursday, Rep. Tom Price, head of the House Republican Study Committee, said his party’s first priority will be to “identify as often as possible the detrimental and remarkably consequential effects of this bill on communities.” Price specifically pointed to the Caterpillar and Deere announcements as examples of what GOP lawmakers will cite as the adverse effects of the law. (At the time Price spoke, AT&T had not yet announced its decision.)

Given that, it’s no wonder Democrats are planning an aggressive campaign against the businesses involved. Elections are coming up, and Democratic leaders are in no mood to hear discouraging words about what they regard as their signature achievement.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-threaten-companies-hit-hard-by-health-care-bill-89347127.html#ixzz0jbbliRh2

Senator Johanns Release Highlights Real Healthcare Reform Costs

March 29th, 2010 Posted in Candidates & Elections, Economy, Healthcare and Medicine

Mar, 29 2010

No Comments »

Sen. Mike Johanns today issued the following statement after a string of reports on the negative impact the new health care law is having on America’s businesses and their employees:

“The President signed the new health care law just three days ago, and already, several major American companies are reporting its dramatic financial impact. The announcement today that AT&T will have to make a $1 billion revision to its first quarter balance sheet because of the new health care law comes on the heels of similar announcements from other major employers such as John Deere and Caterpillar. Businesses large and small are struggling to stay afloat and make payroll, yet Washington continues to swamp their boats with higher taxes and more regulations. Throughout the health care debate, I repeatedly raised concerns that the new law’s burden on businesses and their employees would be harmful to the economy. Unfortunately, when Washington rams through a mammoth piece of legislation, outright rejecting improvements suggested by the minority, there will be negative consequences. I fear these stifling taxes on businesses are only the start. It’s only a matter of time before these burdens lead to decreased benefits and wages to employees or worse – more layoffs and less hiring.”

Background:

“AT&T Inc. Will Take A $1 Billion Non-Cash Charge In The First Quarter Because Of The Health Care Overhaul And May Cut Benefits It Offers To Current And Retired Workers.” (“AT&T Will Take $1B Non-Cash Charge For Health Care,” The Associated Press, 3/26/10)

“Deere & Company, Iowa’s Largest Manufacturing Employer, Said In A Statement This Morning That The Recently-Passed Health Care Legislation Will Cost The Company $150 Million After Tax This Year.” (“Deere Says Health Care Bill Will Cost It $150 Million,” Des Moines Register, 3/25/10)

“Caterpillar Inc. Said Wednesday It Will Take A $100 Million Charge To Earnings This Quarter To Reflect Additional Taxes Stemming From Newly Enacted U.S. Health-Care Legislation.” (“Caterpillar Takes Hit On Health Care,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/25/10)

“3M Company Today That It Expects To Record A One-Time Non-Cash Charge Of $85 To $90 Million After Tax… Resulting From The Recently Enacted Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act.” (“3M Anticipates New U.S. Healthcare Law to Result in One-Time Charge of $85 — $90 Million After Tax in First Quarter of 2010,” 3M, 3/26/10)

“AK Steel Holding Corp., The Third Largest U.S. Steelmaker By Sales, Said It Will Record A Non-Cash Charge Of About $31 Million Resulting From The Health-Care Overhaul Signed Into Law By President Barack Obama.” (“AK Steel Sees $31 Million Charge From New Health Law,” Business Week, 3/23/10)

Nebraska Tanning Salons Fear Future Under Obama Care Tanning Tax

March 24th, 2010 Posted in Business and Industry, Healthcare and Medicine, State of Nebraska

Mar, 24 2010

No Comments »

There’s a clause within the massive health care reform bill that will have a direct impact on the tanning salon industry. A 10 percent tax for indoor tanning services will take effect July 1 to help pay for the health risks associated with tanning.

A La Vista salon owner said running her shop is tough enough without adding an additional tax to her prices.

“I have a feeling it’s going to hurt and it’s really scary to me,” said Annette Ryan.

She said higher prices means her business would suffer.

“I don’t think you can pick on one industry alone,” Ryan said. “If you’re going to say tanning causes cancer, what about all the chemicals that are in fast food?”

Ryan said her business also has its health benefits.

“Customers tell me they’re here for eczema, arthritis, psoriasis, acne or season affective disorder, so it definitely benefits people,” she said.

As far as tanners are concerned, they said they don’t think the added tax or the health risks will keep them from the tanning beds.

“You put yourself at risk in anything you do. If you do anything you’re always putting yourself at risk. You get on the road you put yourself at risk. You wake up you put yourself at risk. It’s doesn’t make a difference,” said Matt Lee.

“I tried to quit for a long time, but then decided I like it and that I’m willing to pay for it,” said Tara Galvis. “If it’s going to be taxed, it’s just another part of life. Another thing they’re going to tax.”

Ryan said she and other tanning salon owners are joining together to form the Nebraska Indoor Tanning Association. They hope to have a stronger voice in government and avoid future taxes on their industry.

Nebraska to Challenge Obama Care in Court

March 24th, 2010 Posted in Healthcare and Medicine, State of Nebraska

Mar, 24 2010

No Comments »

NPtelegraph.com reports that “Nebraska will join a challenge to the new health care reform bill,” as “Attorney General Jon Bruning said he will join attorneys general from at least eight other states on a lawsuit to be filed Tuesday in Florida.”

According to the story, “the group contends the bill is unconstitutional, particularly its requirement for all Americans to have health insurance.”

The article notes that Gov. Dave Heineman supports the lawsuit and “is very concerned about the effects of Medicare cuts, increased taxes and the increase of insurance premiums on Nebraskans.”

Nebraska Hospitals Suffer Under Obama Care

March 24th, 2010 Posted in Healthcare and Medicine, State of Nebraska

Mar, 24 2010

No Comments »

KRVN.com reports that Scottsbluff’s Regional West Medical Center President Dr. Todd Sorensen “says the biggest immediate impact of the federal health care bill on medical providers will be regulatory costs.”

According to the story, Dr. Sorensen told KNEB News the hospital already has to deal with 150,000 pages of Medicare regulations and the bill passed Sunday will add another thirty to fifty thousand pages of regulations the hospital will have to spend money to deal with.”

The article notes that “Sorensen says at least 20% of the hospital’s annual expenses, or $30 million, goes to dealing with regulations.”

Dr. Sorensen told KNEB that while supporters of the bill say it will lead to savings, he is skeptical that such savings will be realized.

Nebraska Challenges EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation

March 23rd, 2010 Posted in Business and Industry, Energy and Oil, Healthcare and Medicine, State of Nebraska

Mar, 23 2010

No Comments »

The AP reports, “Nebraska has joined several other states in filing a challenge to the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are great enough to threaten public health and should face restrictions.”

According to the news service, “Nebraska and 11 other states have followed suit,” as Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning “says the EPA has no authority to impose such strict emissions regulations,” which he says would “hamper Nebraska’s agriculture industry and small businesses.”

Nebraska Pulse Political Blog

News and Views about Politics in the Great State of Nebraska

Look to Europe For Health Reform’s True Costs

Senator Ben Nelson Tries to Defend His Decisive Healthcare Vote

Democrats Intimidate Companies Disclosing Real Health Reform Costs

Senator Johanns Release Highlights Real Healthcare Reform Costs

Nebraska Tanning Salons Fear Future Under Obama Care Tanning Tax

Nebraska to Challenge Obama Care in Court

Nebraska Hospitals Suffer Under Obama Care

Nebraska Challenges EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

News and Views about Politics in the Great State of Nebraska

Categories

Recent Posts

Blogroll

Archives