The decision last week by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reject the appeals of scores of religious leaders and retain a very narrow “religious” exemption from Obamacare’s so-called contraception mandate has ignited an uproar among Catholic leaders, as well it should — because it’s hard to fathom a government dictate more offensive than this one.

Here’s how we got where we are: Obamacare includes within its massive delegation of power to the federal government the authority to define what constitutes “preventive services” that must be covered by all health-insurance plans sold and purchased in the United States, including plans sponsored by employers. Services defined by HHS as preventive for purposes of this provision are required under the new law to be covered by the insurer or employer with no charge to the insurance plan’s enrollees.

Keep reading this post . . .

If Mitt Romney wants to win the Republican nomination for president this year — and he clearly does — he has one big hurdle to overcome, and it has to do with his anger. Or rather, the lack of it.

During the final debate before the Florida primary, the former Pennsylvania senator, and actual winner of the Iowa caucus, Rick Santorum took the opportunity to show some contrast between himself, frontrunner Romney, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He homed in, as he had in the previous Florida debate, on the health-care plan Romney had shepherded into law while governor of Massachusetts. 

Keep reading this post . . .

Last August, under authority granted by Obamacare, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius published an “interim final rule” for comment that would require private health-insurance plans to cover, as “preventive services,” all FDA-approved “sterilization procedures” and “contraceptive methods” — and without deductibles or co-pays. We and other critics raised numerous objections, none of which were addressed last Friday, when Secretary Sebelius announced the final promulgation of the rule, which will go into effect August 1.

Since the FDA approves, as “contraceptives,” drugs such as Plan B and Ella that may cause early-stage abortions, the federal government could force nearly every employer in America to pay for abortions and sterilizations. Colleges and universities providing insurance to their students will face the same requirement.

Keep reading this post . . .

Last week, the White House issued a new “study” on the supposed progress states have made in implementing the “health exchanges” that are central to constructing the Obamacare system. According to the administration’s spin, some 28 states are “on their way” toward establishing the exchanges, so everything is apparently well under control. In other words, nothing to worry about here. Full speed ahead!

But is that really what’s going on here?

Keep reading this post . . .

After Rudy Giuliani, my old boss, dropped out of the 2008 GOP presidential sweepstakes, I supported Mitt Romney. That was not a difficult choice for me. The former Massachusetts governor is a good man and he loves the country as is. That I wish he were more conservative is not a deal-breaker for me. I wished the same thing about Rudy. Mitt, like Rudy, would make a fine chief executive.

More to the point, the choice in a nomination contest is not candidate A versus one’s ideal nominee. It is candidate A versus candidates B, C, D, et al. On that score, the contest was no contest — Mitt was easily, in my mind, the best remaining in the field.

Keep reading this post . . .

Most people have heard that Obamacare is being challenged as unconstitutional because it contains an individual mandate forcing people to purchase health insurance. That challenge is due to be heard by the Supreme Court this year. But while the mandate is certainly problematic in a system that, at least notionally, is one of limited and enumerated powers, the mandate is not the worst part of this bill — not by a long shot.

Truly, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) belongs in a museum somewhere in an exhibit about what can happen when you elect Democratic majorities to the House, Senate, and White House. Like so much else in the Democratic agenda (Dodd-Frank, environmental regulation, mortgage relief), it relies not on incentives, competition, or patient choice, but on blatant government coercion.

Keep reading this post . . .

In its review of Obamacare’s constitutionality, the Supreme Court will examine two substantive parts of the law: the “individual mandate” that compels private citizens to purchase health insurance, and the statute’s massive expansion of Medicaid rolls. While the mandate question holds great constitutional interest, the outcome won’t greatly affect Obamacare’s operation one way or the other. The Medicaid question, in contrast, is crucial. The expanded program is expected to provide health coverage for an additional 16 million poor and near-poor, heretofore-uninsured individuals, at a cost of upwards of $500 billion between 2014 and 2019. In a brief filed earlier this week, the litigating states claim that the statute unduly “coerces” them into participating in the program, in violation of the constitutional federalism balance. Should they prevail, all of Obamacare will have to be renegotiated.

That renegotiation, of course, is the holy grail of conservative agitation. However, the states won’t prevail on their Medicaid claim. Nor should they. Conservatives’ vocal support for the states’ opportunistic position is incoherent as a matter of both policy and federalism theory.

Keep reading this post . . .

There are many reasons to be grateful for the introduction of the Medicare “premium support” plan by Democratic senator Ron Wyden and Republican House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan.

In some respects, it represents an improvement over the design of previous versions of premium support. Whereas the original Ryan plan offered seniors a subsidy based on a predetermined formula, the Wyden-Ryan plan relies on competitive bidding for setting the government’s contribution rate. Competitive bidding has the potential to cut costs even more than a predetermined index, because an index tends to lock in today’s wasteful spending. Of course, Wyden-Ryan also very usefully shook up the political debate over premium support, making it much more difficult for Democrats to demonize the concept.

Keep reading this post . . .

Here’s a roundup of this morning’s must-read budget and economic stories:

The Hill, The New York Times, Politico and The Washington Post report Senators agreed to and passed a two month extension of the 2010 payroll tax cut, which is set to expire Dec. 31.

The House will take up the extension today, but according to The New York Times (here too), Politico, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, it doesn’t appear it will pass due to House Republicans opposition.

According to The Associated Press, President Obama would still like the payroll tax cut extended for a full year.

Reuters says the size of the U.S. debt and deficit could affect health care innovation in the country.

Reuters and The New York Times update readers on Europe’s efforts to control the continent’s debt troubles.

Here’s a roundup of this morning’s must-read budget and economic stories:

The New York Times, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post report that fears about the U.S. economy and the level of debt in European nations took their toll on the stock market Thursday.

The New York Times says Congress has left a lot of tough budget decisions on the table.

Politico examines the impact the debt ceiling deal will have on the implementation of the 2010 health care law.

The Associated Press and Politico discuss the defense cuts contained in the debt ceiling deal.

The New York Times looks at Republicans’ pursuit of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

On the opinion pages: Stephen Moore argues that it is time for tax reform; L. Douglas Wilder says Washington has a spending problem; Michael O’Hanlon debates how much to cut defense spending; and Charles Krauthammer argues the upcoming Congressional fiscal committee could be a success.

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district was the hands-down winner in the latest set of health care law waivers announced by the Obama administration. 

More than three dozen businesses with locations in Pelosi’s district were granted temporary exemptions from the law in April, according to information released by the Department of Health and Human Services. The businesses — mostly restaurants and cafes, with a few upscale hotels and clubs mixed in — accounted for about 20 percent of all waivers granted last month. 

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear why so many of the affected businesses were in her district, though HHS says it determines its waiver policy based on whether businesses can prove they need them to avoid “a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.” 

Pelosi was among the most vocal champions of the health care law as she and other Democrats helped shepherd it through Congress in 2009 and 2010. 

Nevada, the state represented by Pelosi’s then-counterpart on the other side of Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also just received a partial exemption from a provision in the law requiring companies to spend at least 80 percent of premium money on medical care and related expenses. HHS will allow Nevada to keep that rate at 75 percent in 2011, out of concern that major insurers could otherwise withdraw. 

The waivers in Pelosi’s district pertained to a different requirement in the health care law dealing with annual benefit limits. The latest set brings the total number of such exemptions since the law’s implementation to 1,372 nationwide. More than 3 million people are enrolled in plans affected by these waivers. 

On the list of San Francisco businesses with a reprieve were The Stinking Rose, an Italian restaurant; TRU Spa, a day spa in the city; and the upscale Hotel Nikko. Daily Caller first reported on the exemptions in Pelosi’s district. 

The latest list quickly raised questions among Republicans. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement that the waivers are a “tacit admission that the health care law is fundamentally flawed.” 

“Despite the president’s promise, it appears that just because you like your health care plan does not mean that the administration will allow you to keep it,” Upton said. 

Newly seated Nevada Sen. Dean Heller also said the Nevada waiver exposes the law’s flaws. “It is clear that the unique health care needs of individual states were not taken into consideration, and this is why Obamacare will not work for Nevada,” he said in a statement. 

The waivers are not intended to be permanent. The waivers granted to the San Francisco businesses last for one year at a time, and are meant to exempt certain companies from rules that restrict annual benefit limits. For 2011, the law prohibits most health plans from setting an annual benefit limit lower than $750,000 per individual policyholder. The law would eventually end annual limits, but in the meantime allows companies to apply for a waiver if they still have limits lower than the law allows. 

The exemptions are meant to “protect coverage for these workers,” according to HHS.

On the first anniversary of President Obama’s health care reform act being signed into law, the Washington based GOP super think tank known as Crossroads GPS plans to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday in D.C. District Court against the Department of Health and Human Services.

Fox News has learned the group is seeking documents to better understand how HHS makes decisions to grant waivers to the new health care law.

Click here to read the Crossroads GPS lawsuit.

At issue is the Obama administration’s criteria for granting 1,040 of the temporary health care reform waivers to businesses, labor groups and a handful of states. Those organizations are being allowed to opt out of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — at least until 2014 — in order to let them develop systems and alternatives to meet the health care reform law’s strict coverage requirements.

HHS data suggest more than 2.6 million people, or 2 percent of people with private insurance, will not be required to enter the new federal system.

Crossroads GPS submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to HHS on Jan. 7, 2011.

HHS acknowledged receipt that day but despite repeated attempts to get a reply, Crossroads says there has been no action taken even though there is a 20-day statutory limit for federal agencies to respond. The group wants to find out who makes the waiver decisions, and with what input and guidance.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and others have complained about the lack of transparency in the waiver process.

“The Obamacare waiver program has all the same flaws as the underlying law: unfettered government power, federal bureaucrats picking winners and losers and the appearance, if not the reality, of favoritism to political cronies,” said Crossroads President Steve Law. “Until President Obama is willing to grant the entire country a waiver from Obamacare, his administration needs to come clean on how they decide who wins and losers in the waiver lottery.”

President Obama, who famously promised as a presidential candidate to have the most transparent and open government in American history, was scheduled to receive an award for government transparency from a coalition of good-government groups last week. But at the last minute, the presentation was postponed to a future date.

A recent study by The Associated Press says the Obama administration has refused to release any materials in more than one out of three FOIA requests and when it did respond, the average wait times got longer not shorter. Only one out of five “urgent” FOIA requests, according to the AP, received replies in a timely fashion. That too is lower than the previous year.

There were 544,360 FOIA requests last year, up nearly 41,000 from the previous year but the government actually responded to nearly 12,400 fewer requests than the year before.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama once promised that negotiations over his health care overhaul would be carried out openly, in front of TV cameras and microphones. Tell that to the White House now.

Republican congressional investigators got the brush-off this past week after pressing for details of meetings between White House officials and interest groups, including drug companies and hospitals that provided critical backing for Obama’s health insurance expansion.

Complying with the records request from the House Energy and Commerce Committee “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking” and could “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests,” White House lawyer Robert Bauer wrote the committee. Translation: Nice try.

It’s one more roadblock for Republicans who tapped into widespread anxiety about the scope and costs of the new health care law to regain control of the House in last fall’s elections.

So far, they’ve been unable to repeal the landmark legislation they dismiss as “Obamacare.” GOP efforts to deny administration agencies the money to carry out the law are running into unintended consequences, not to mention the sheer difficulty of tracking those dollars. Now it looks like oversight isn’t going to be easy either.

“We are both concerned and disappointed by your response,” the committee chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., wrote back to Bauer. “The American public deserves the information we have requested. The secret meetings conducted by (White House officials) are a perfect example of why transparency in government is so important.”

Upton urged the White House to carefully reconsider, but it’s uncertain he’ll ever get what he wants. Even if the standoff dramatically escalates to a congressional subpoena, history shows that presidents usually succeed in keeping records away from snooping eyes.

President George W. Bush’s administration beat back efforts to reveal the dealings between Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force and industry. President Bill Clinton’s administration successfully resisted demands for records of its failed push to remake the health care system, which was overseen by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The request for records from Obama’s health care reform office is broad. The committee asked for a list of every meeting, briefing or telephone call regarding changes to the health care system, as well as notes or summaries of those encounters. It wants a list of every employee of the now-disbanded health reform office, including their salaries. Committee investigators are also seeking any written communications, whether by letter or e-mail, with outside groups.

White House visitor records released at the request of The Associated Press in late 2009 show that Obama’s top aides met frequently with lobbyists and health care industry leaders during the marathon congressional debate over health care overhaul.

The list included George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist representing Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, then head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association; and numerous others.

Nearly every health industry group has complaints about aspects of the final legislation. But they’re also working to carry out its provisions, even as challenges to the law’s constitutionality advance in federal court. Some sectors got significant concessions from the administration.

The pharmaceutical industry and hospitals agreed early on to tens of billions in savings to help finance new coverage for the uninsured. When an amendment to allow importation of low-cost prescription drugs came up in the Senate, the administration worked successfully to defeat it, although Obama had supported the idea as a presidential candidate. Hospitals won a reprieve of several years from cuts proposed by a new Medicare cost control board.

The White House sent the Energy and Commerce Committee some 100 pages of records that have already been made public, including visitor logs and press releases. That may be all they get for a long time.

Filed under: Health Care, Polls, Poll Watch

Eighty percent of Americans who go online use the Internet to track down health care information, a percentage exceeded only by users of e-mail and search engines, according to a study conducted last August and September by the Pew Research Center and the California HealthCare Foundation.

Since not all Americans get on the Internet, Pew says that the 80 percent who use online to search health care subjects works out to 59 percent of the overall adult population.

A plurality of these users (48 percent) say they are looking up the information on behalf of someone else, 36 percent say they are getting it for themselves and 11 percent say they are searching on behalf of both themselves and another.

The top health care searches are to find information on a specific disease or medical problem, certain medical treatments or procedures, doctors or other health professionals, hospitals or other medical facilities and health insurance.

That's followed by searches for news on food and drug safety, or recalls.

The researchers asked WebMD, which says its health network gets about 80 million unique visitors a month, which medical conditions and treatments drew the largest numbers of searches.

For medical treatments and ailments, the most commonly searched were shingles, gallbladder problems, gout, hemorrhoids, lupus, skin problems, allergies, heart disease, diabetes and sleep disorders.

When it came to people seeking information on treatments, the most commonly-searched were pain relievers, anti-depressants, high blood pressure medication, steroids, hysterectomies, diabetes medication, attention deficit order medication, antibiotics, colonoscopies and cholesterol-lowering medication.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

Visit the Poll Watch Home Page and see all the latest polls in one place

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

1.  Health Care Reform is Signed into Law
Democrats spent a big part of 2009 attempting to pass a comprehensive health care reform. On March 22, 2010, they finally rallied together and the reform was passed with a narrow margin. It was signed by the President four days later. Called the ObamaCare, it is undoubtedly the most significant health care reform in decades.

2.  Sarah Palin Mania
The former Vice-President candidate has become the most visible Republican in the country. Since 2009, Sarah Palin has refined her ability to generate media attention and popularity and has become a considerable political clout. She made headlines both in a positive and negative light, and comes only second to Obama for being the most followed American politician today.

3.  Afghanistan
In 2010, America lost the lives of 497 soldiers in the war in Afghanistan. However, the story failed to gather the appropriate public attention. This news is definitely important, but it seems the significance is lost to an American public that’s already too tired of the conflict and the continuing loss it brings.

4.  The Bush Tax Cuts
Amidst criticisms from the progressives, President Obama reached a compromise with Republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthy for an additional two years. In return Obama received a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits and a number of provisions.

5.  SB1070 Controversy
After the Arizona Legislature passed the controversial illegal immigration enforcement bill SB1070 in April, the Obama administration sued the state before the new law could be enacted, contending that the legislation encroached upon the federal government’s jurisdiction to control the state’s pesky illegal immigration problem.

6.  The Continued Decline of the U.S. Economy’s
“Jobless recovery” became a popular term around mid of 2010, but the so-called economic recovery didn’t feel like a recovery at all. The federal government may infuse a lot of cash to the economy, but it hasn’t done anything to convince Americans that the recession was over. A weak housing sector and continued high unemployment rate is more than enough evidence to the contrary.

7.  The High Unemployment Rate
One of the biggest controversies of the year was the continued efforts by Democrats to make unemployment benefits last, which has forced Republicans to concede extending the federal benefits plan incrementally throughout the year. In exchange for 99 weeks more of unemployment benefits, Republicans get to extend the Bush Tax Cuts across the board.

8.  Republicans Take Back the House
Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives. Their win in the 2010 midterm election will grant the GOP increasing power with which to barricade President Obama over the next two years.

9.  The Tea Party Movement’s Influence Grows
Delaware Republican Christine O’Donnell’s win in the state’s Senate primary election caused everyone to consider the Tea Party Movement as a considerable and growing force in American politics. As the Tea Party continues to gain power in 2011, most conservatives believe the mainstream GOP will be forced to embrace it. If not, party leaders may very well see a shakeup of revolutionary proportions.

10.  Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
The Gulf oil spill was easily the top story of 2010. Dominating the news for well over four months, it easily caused great political and economic repercussions to the whole country. The tragedy caused President Obama to face claims of inadequate response and has similarly damaged Republicans who made a number of verbal gaffes during the crisis.

Here’s a roundup of this morning’s must-read budget and economic stories:

The Senate Monday successfully invoked cloture on the bill that includes an extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. The successful procedural vote means the Senate could have a final vote on the package as early as Tuesday evening.

Roll Call takes a look at the “sweeteners” in the tax package.

Some Republicans are voicing opposition to the tax cut deal: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the package does nothing to reduce uncertainty. According to Politico, Issa called the package “an incomplete effort that fails to create a permanent tax structure giving businesses the kind of long-term predictability needed to support investment, economic growth and job creation.” In a USA Today op-ed former Gov. Mitt Romney hits on the same theme.

The Wall Street Journal takes a look at how temporary tax cuts and credits (the paper says there are now 141 temporary provisions in the tax code) affect taxpayers. Bottom line: “The level of uncertainty, unusual for developed nations, complicates planning and discourages hiring and investment, many economists and corporate executives say.”

In his departing speech Monday, former White House National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers warned against permanent tax cuts. The Huffington Post has a list of people under consideration for Summers’ job as top White House economic advisor.

Charles Kadlec writes in Forbes that taxing “the rich” actually hurts the middle class.

A judge in Virginia ruled yesterday that the part of the 2010 health care reform that requires individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. According to Bloomberg, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said the “’unchecked expansion’ of congressional power represented by the insurance requirement ‘would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.’” The Washington Post says it’s likely the case will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

A massive labor election has concluded with the Service Employees International Union retaining its rights to represent 43,500 health care workers statewide.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

A massive labor election has concluded with the Service Employees International Union retaining its rights to represent 43,500 health care workers statewide.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.