Special deals

We all know that Obama lied to us all when he promised in the election campaign,“These negotiations will be on C-Span, and so the public will be part of the conversation and we’ll see the choices that are being made.”

One of the biggest problems in the Obama Healthcare bill is that all the special deals that were cut behind closed doors.  In an earlier posting, I pointed out that in fact the very first special deal that was cut on this bill was by Obama himself soon after he was elected, and he did it with the DRUG companies!  http://theohiolaborlawyers.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/obama-in-bed-with-drug-companies/

The simple fact is that there are SO MANY special deals cut to get this monster passed, that it has overwhelmed us all.  In fact, I cannot find a single source that lists “ALL” the special deals that were cut.  What we know right now are just the “big ones.” However, some web sites are misleading and they list items such as the following to be all the special deals:

Cornhusker Kickback:  Perhaps the most well known in the Senate bill, the provision, included at the behest of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), ensures that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.

The Louisiana Purchase:  The Senate bill provides extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area.  Because of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana is the only state that would qualify for the money.  The $300 million provision for Louisiana was slipped in late in the process to persuade Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to support the health care takeover.

Gator Aid:  At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts.  The formula would only apply to five states, most notably to Florida in which 800,000 of the state’s one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.

New England Handouts:  In addition to the $100 million included in federal Medicaid payments for Nebraska, the bill provides two New England states with even more money Medicaid funding.  According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding.  Despite claims that these cushy extras for a few states would be scaled back, reports indicate that the White House is still making deals so these states can keep the handouts.

The Dodd Clinic:  Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school.  Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that he was securing the money for the University of Connecticut, and then Dodd bragged that, “These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut’s residents can receive quality, affordable health care.”

Montana Medicare Earmark:  A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside “in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” The area the bill refers to is an asbestos contaminated area near Libby, Montana, for which Sen. Max Baucus has been trying to secure funding for years.

See, http://www.atr.org/full-list-backroom-health-deals-inbr-a4672

But even though this posting thought it was listing ALL the back room deals on this bill, in fact this is just the low hanging fruit. 

What I find most interesting is that not even the Republicans have posted on their web site ALL the special deals cut on this bill!

The way to defeat the Democrats in November is with the truth.  Just list all the special deals that this bill has in it and will fall under its own weight.

If there is anyone out there in blog world who knows of a list of ALL the special deals cut on this bill, please write me and let me know.

Stupak: Health fight has been 'living hell’

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/87519-its-been-a-living-hell-says-rep-stupak

By Jeffrey Young and Bob Cusack - 03/18/10 06:00 AM ET (Vote was on 21th)

Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

The telephone lines in his Washington and district offices have been “jammed” and he’s gotten more than 1,500 faxes and countless e-mails — most of which he says don’t come from his constituents.

The fight has taken a toll on his wife, who has disconnected the phone in their home to avoid harassment. 

“All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

Stupak has become a nationally known figure because of his demands for tough language in healthcare legislation to prevent any federal subsidies from being used for abortion services. 

He voted for the House healthcare bill in November after leaders met his demands, but has vowed to lead a group of 12 Democrats in voting against the Senate healthcare bill. 

Stupak deems language in the Senate bill too weak on restricting federal funds from being used for abortion services. 

Stupak said he didn’t anticipate how big the abortion issue would become during the healthcare reform debate, nor did he figure to find himself a household name. 

“I’m a little surprised,” Stupak said. 

The worst part has been the pressure from groups and individuals from outside his district on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

“How’s it been? Like a living hell,” Stupak said. 

The 57-year-old Democrat said he has a history of working behind the scenes with Democratic leaders on abortion. 

“In the past, we’ve always been able to work it out,” he said. “This is the first time we’ve not been able to work it out.”

Other anti-abortion-rights Democrats have said they’ll support the Senate bill. 

Rep. Dale Kildee, another Democrat from Michigan known for opposing abortion, released a statement on Wednesday supporting the Senate bill, which he said would prevent federal funds from going to abortion services. 

But the intensity of the resistance to Stupak’s position has, if anything, stiffened his resolve. He shows no signs of voting for the Senate healthcare bill, which could hit the House floor this week. 

“I’m pretty stubborn,” said Stupak, who keeps in his shirt pocket a list of lawmakers who are willing to vote no. The so-called Stupak Dozen met Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill to strategize and exchange stories of the pressure they are under.

Being seen as the one Democrat standing between the party and the achievement of one of its most coveted accomplishments weighs heavily on the lawmaker, who said it’s not fair to paint him as the chief obstacle to passing healthcare reform. 

“I can’t block it. Bart Stupak and his ‘dirty dozen,’ however you want to call it, we can’t block it. There’s 39 other people who didn’t vote for it,” said Stupak.

Stupak claims while Democratic leaders have peeled off a few of his group, he always had more than 12 and he stresses he still has 12 now.

The ideal outcome, Stupak said, might be for the House Democratic leadership to get the votes they need without him and for the bill to pass.

“You know, maybe for me that’s the best: I stay true to my principles and beliefs,” he said, and “vote no on this bill and then it passes anyways. Maybe for me is the best thing to do.”

Beyond the abortion issue itself, Stupak said he feels conflicted because he has always supported healthcare reform. 

Stupak sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which authored much of the House’s healthcare bill, and chairs its powerful Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. Stupak chaired memorable hearings last year at which he and his fellow panelists took health insurance executives to task over the practice of rescissions, or canceling policies when a patient’s bills get too high.

“It’s caused a lot of internal conflict. ‘Am I doing the right thing,’ you know?” he said. “I believe everyone should have healthcare. In all my correspondence — I’ve been saying for years — it’s a right, not a privilege.”

Stupak has never signed up for federal health benefits because he promised voters in 1992 that he wouldn’t until universal healthcare was enacted. 

He also said was denied coverage for a pre-existing injury when he got his insurance from the Michigan Legislature: “I can identify with those people who have been before my committee.”

But in the end, the abortion issue has trumped other concerns. “It’s a belief for me, so it’s easier to do. And it’s a belief for my district, so I guess it’s easier to do,” he said.

Threats to AIG: "We Will Get Your Children"

Getty Images

The anger in the threats against AIG executives is palpable.

"Get the bonus, we will get your children," someone identified only as "Jacob the Killer" hauntingly writes in an e-mail.

His is one of dozens of threats against AIG and its employees that were obtained from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office under a Freedom of Information Act request byNBC Connecticut. 

Surprisingly, some of those making the threats left their e-mail addresses and phone numbers - making the job of law enforcement officers easier.

Here are some of the highlights (or rather, low-lights).  We've cleaned up some of the nasty language, but you can use your imagination:

-- All you motherf***ers should be shot.  Thanks for f***ing up our economy then taking our money.

-- Dear Sir: Ya'll should have the balls and come clean and give back the bonuses. I know you would never do this so the gov't ought to take you out back and shoot everyone of you crooked sonofb****es...I would be very careful when I went out side. This is just a warning. If I were ya'll I would be real afraid. Thanks, Bill.

-- I don't hope that bad things happen to the recipients of those bonuses. I really hope that bad things happen to the children and grandchildren of them!  Whatever hurts them the most!!

-- You f***ing suck. Paying bonuses to the d*****s that made bad bets losing your company billions of dollars.  I want to f***ing puke.  Publish the list of those yankee scumbags so some good old southern boys can take care of them.

-- If the bonuses don't stop, it will be very likely that every CEO @ AIG has a bulls-eye on their backs.

-- We will hunt you down. Every last penny. We will hunt your children and we will hunt your conscience. We will do whatever we can to get those people getting the bonuses.  Give back the money or kill yourselves.

-- All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire around their necks --- my greatest hope.

-- You mother-f***ing, c***s***ing, d***l****ers need to be taken out one by one and shot in the head. There's a special place in hell for you pond scum. Watch your backs because someone will come to get you, you can be sure.

-- The Revolution is coming. The family members of your executives are not safe. Your blood will run through the streets in the coming months.

Among the documents is an e-mail from an unknown individual, who may be or may have been an employee:  "Just arrived home to several threats on the answering machine.  'Give your money back or else,' terrible things going to happen, etc.  Both private caller numbers."

The company presumably provided the threats to support their claim that testifying before a legislative committee Thursday would put their employees at physical risk.

AIG CEO Edward Liddy expressed fear during congressional hearings in Washtington D.C. last week that releasing the names of the executives who scored bonuses would put them at risk of violence from an enraged public.

So far, the only response from citizens angered by the bonus fiasco has come in the form of a small and peaceful protest Saturday in Connecticut at some of the lavish homes of AIG employees. Some executives in Connecticut have hired security firms to guard their homes, the Associated Press reported.

An agreement was reached Wednesday to have Stephen Blake, AIG's head of human resources, testify about the structure of the bonus awards.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/AIG-Threats-We-will-get-your-children.html

Professors slam scholarships for children of dead soldiers

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2722557#ixzz0jDiRjQ31

REGINA -- A group of professors at the University of Regina is protesting a scholarship program for the dependents of dead soldiers, arguing it promotes militarism.

"We think this program is a glorification of Canadian imperialism in Afghanistan," said Jeffrey Webber, one of 16 professors who drafted an open letter to university president Vianne Timmons.

The program, called Project Hero, provides financial aid for children of Canadian Forces personnel who have lost their lives while serving in an active mission. Individual universities establish the terms and conditions for the scholarship including value, duration and application process.

The open letter, endorsed by Mr. Webber and his colleagues, asked for three things: the immediate withdrawal from "Project Hero," public pressure on government to provide funding for universal access to post-secondary education and a public forum on the war in Afghanistan and Canadian imperialism to be held before the end of semester exams.

Barb Pollock, a spokeswoman for the University of Regina, defended Project Hero.

"The decision was made by the executive of the university," she said. "Other universities whom we respect are involved in it and we thought it was a good thing to do."

She did not expect the reaction from the group of protesting professors.

"We have diverse opinions on moves the university makes all the time and the decision has been made at this point.... That's where it's at." But she said university will "not have a debate" on the issue and has made its decision to go through with the program.

The professors' objections begin, but don't end, with the name of the program.

"Project Hero" has dangerous cultural underpinnings, implying that Canada's military activity in Afghanistan is heroic, said Mr. Webber.

"We disagree with that. We think it's a military occupation of a sovereign country," he said. "It's not the position of the university administration to take a position in favour of this war."

"We think it's aligning a public university -- without any consultation with its students or staff, or the broader community -- with support for this war."

Andrew Tyler, a fourth-year history major and naval reservist -- who said his opinions are his own, not that of the Canadian Forces -- said he was "upset" and "irritated" by the professors' letter.

"This is providing to the children whose mothers and fathers have been lost in overseas operations," said Mr. Tyler. "Why make a big deal about this?

"These are ultra left-wing people who have no idea what it's like to be in the boots of a soldier. I'm tired of (them) pontificating to us about what we should do."

One person conflicted about the debate was Ben Walsh, the father of deceased soldier Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh, who considered the Hero Project a "gift" that the "university's initiated."

"I don't think it was the families who asked for this help," said a grateful Mr. Walsh, grandfather of three. "But it's not fair to students who need financial help and don't have soldiers in their families."

Mr. Walsh said universities should "match" help to dependents of fallen soldiers with other needy students who don't have any military connections.

He also wondered if universities talked to families with fallen soldiers prior to program implementation.

"It's honourable, but they should've talked to some of the families to get their feelings on it."

Ms. Pollock said starting in the fall of 2010, the university will waive tuition and course fees and provide $1,000 per year to successful applicants of Project Hero. Applicants must be under age 26, full-time students in an undergraduate degree program and maintain an average of 75% each semester to remain eligible.

Canwest News Service

Obama's Aimless and Confused Foreign Policy: A French View

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-a-levine/obamas-aimless-and-confus_b_484426.html

This article appeared in the French newspaperLibération on November 12, 2009. I strongly disagree with most of it, but I think it expresses an important point of view. The translation is mine, corrected by the writer, Olivier Debouzy. Mr. Debouzy is a graduate of France's elite Ecole Nationale d'Administration, a former government official, and a lawyer. He is an informal advisor to the center-right government of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but it should be noted that Liberation is a center-left daily. Far from being a classical America-bashing French "intellectual", M. Debouzy is a knowledgeable friend of the United States.

(This translation is published with the permission of
Libération and Olivier Debouzy.)

Obama's aimless and confused foreign policy

In the last nine months, the Obama administration has suffered many problems that have hindered its mounting a coherent foreign and defense policy. There is no indication that this will change in the near future.

The first problem is that contrary to Presidents Nixon or George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama has near him no strategist equivalent to Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft: that is to say no person capable of long-term thinking and reflecting on the role that the United States wants to play in ten or twenty years and the overall strategy for getting there. General Jones, his National Security Advisor, is a crisis manager who copes with emergencies when they appear, but from whom the President asks no conceptual input. Nor does he belong to the inner circle of counselors to the President, composed essentially of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, which is interested only in domestic policy. The National Security Council (NSC), with the biggest number of staff members since the creation of that institution, can do nothing other than assist in this task, thus creating multiple frictions with the State Department, the Pentagon and the many "czars" named to handle specific problems (the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, etc.).

In the second place, the Obama administration is characterized by the multiplicity of often strong personalities, charged with responsibilities that overlap one another: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton feels imposed upon by the "czars" with whom relations are difficult--Richard Holbrooke (who wanted her job) and George Mitchell among others. Obama gives the impression of believing that he alone will synthesize the personalities who serve him and the advice they give him. He becomes de facto responsible for all and any diplomatic and military actions on all issues. Since his time is limited and absorbed in large part by domestic issues (economic and social), he does not make decisions on questions of foreign policy or defense, except in very general terms, and nobody takes his place.

Finally, Obama has, like all American politicians, and in spite of his origins, very limited international experience. He thus tends to bring to interchanges with foreigners--this is particularly true in the case of Iran--a rationality like that of all Americans. The result is that foreign governments are opaque to him. This last characteristic, blended with that of wanting to deal directly with the subjects of foreign policy and defense, leaves American policy in these domains in a state of chronic indecision and ineffectuality.

Moreover, European-American relations at the government level at least as seen from Washington, are characterized by indifference and incomprehension, not to say a sort of irritation. First, indifference. By all evidence, Europe is not the priority of the new administration. The idea of a G2 with China (at least in American thinking) eclipses European allies, judged as archaic and timorous. The Obama administration thinks that Europeans should simply defer to the directions of Washington, together (in NATO) or individually. As a result, the reticence of the majority of Europeans to contribute to the military effort in Afghanistan is perceived as the confirmation that they are not good for anything.

Next, incomprehension. The Obama administration understands the roots of European economic and social equilibrium no more than its predecessors; nor does it try to understand the reticence of certain Europeans to consider the idea of eliminating nuclear weapons; it refuses to understand the problems encountered by the Europeans (notably the French) with regard to the G2 and Russia, which are the objects of all its attentions in trying to rebuild a framework of foreign policy and begin reducing a defense budget which the Democratic electorate relentlessly criticizes for its size, at the expense of social programs.

Finally, irritation. European firmness on the issue of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and Iran illuminates American incoherence and procrastination, which in turn irritates even more the representatives of the Obama administration who have the impression that in any military action it is the United States that would assume the essential task of defending the Gulf states, even though the U.S. would currently be incapable of doing that, because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American position is even weaker because it is quite unlikely that the Senate will ratify the Nuclear Complete Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by 2011 or sooner, which highlights the paradox that the United States, in the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, would preach non-proliferation even though being itself incapable of implementing what it recommends for others.

In the personal dimension, Obama, cerebral and undemonstrative, sometimes appears to think that European rulers are trying to instrumentalise him for reasons of domestic policy or international recognition. He is sharply conscious of American superiority, and thus his own role vis-à-vis his international colleagues, and he expresses it by a sort of distance quite unusual in American politicians, which complicates personal relations with him, as more than one European chief of state or government can attest.

The preceding analyses lead to a relative pessimism for the short-term evolution of the European-American relationship and the possible results of Obama's foreign and security policies. Further, the American political cycle exerts pressures Europeans seldom take into account, and foreign policy will not win the midterm election of 2010. The European allies of the United States may come to regret George W. Bush ...

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.
Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.
Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.
Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?ref=opinion

Boxer Falling Behind Republican Challengers In Field Poll

http://www.ktvu.com/politics/22873447/detail.html

OAKLAND, Calif. -- California Senator Barbara Boxer could be in for a real battle when she comes up for re-election in November according to an exclusive new KTVU field poll indicating any of the three Republican candidates might pose a challenge.

How serious are boxer’s problems? KTVU has learned President Obama plans to visit California next month to campaign for Boxer.

Even in the liberal Bay Area, it seems voters have tired of Senator Boxer.

This year anybody could really win according to the new field poll. Even though most voters know almost nothing about Republican senatorial candidates Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore, all three are essentially in a dead heat with Boxer.

“It really doesn't matter who we put up against Boxer; it seems like a close race,” said pollster Mark DiCamillo.

Former Congressman Tom Campbell -- the most moderate of the three Republicans -- has a one point lead over Boxer. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, a bit more conservative, trails Boxer by a single point. The most conservative Republican -- Assemblyman Chuck Devore -- trails boxer by only four points, about the poll's margin of error.

“It is amazing. In the data in the field poll she is basically in a dead heat with three different candidates [with] three different ideological persuasions,” said UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Henry Brady. “So it looks like, no matter what is put up against Barbara Box right now, she is in trouble.”

Just two months ago, most Californians surveyed had favorable opinions of Boxer. The senator had double digit leads over all three republicans. Now most Californians give Boxer low marks.

“There has been this sea change in perceptions,” said DiCamillo.

The field poll's DiCamillo attributes it to the economy, people fed up with incumbents and the health care debate.

“The atmospherics surrounding health care is really -- I think -- a detriment to the Democrats right now,” said DiCamillo.

In the Republican primary, Campbell has a narrow lead over Fiorina, with Devore a distant third, but Devore's numbers are slowly improving. Many Republicans remain undecided.

“I am leaning toward anybody replacing Barbara Boxer. I think she has been in there long enough,” said Walnut Creek resident Jennifer Brunk.

Still, California is a blue state and a host of liberal voters still hold the senator in high esteem. And keep in mind: while the Republicans have been campaigning, Boxer hasn't even started yet. When she does, she'll likely have a fat war chest. Boxer has always been a prodigious fundraiser.

FACT CHECK: Obama plan only slows premiums rise

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Wed Mar 17, 5:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says hishealth care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care billpasses, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."

And that's not all.

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."

The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, caveats got left out.

A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.

Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.

But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent in 2016, compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.

For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now. However, the budget office estimated that about 4 in 10 customers shopping for an individual policy would not be eligible for tax credits — and would face higher premiums on average than without the legislation.

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama often cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.

But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.

"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."

US Israel criticism ignites firestorm in Congress

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100316/D9EFDS500.html

Mar 15, 8:25 PM (ET)
By MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration's fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America's top Mideast ally was misplaced.

Since the controversy erupted, a bipartisan parade of influential lawmakers and interest groups has taken aim at the administration's decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting on Tuesday and then openly vent bitter frustration on Friday.

With diplomats from both countries referring to the situation as a crisis, the outpouring of anger in the United States, particularly from Capitol Hill, comes at a difficult time for the administration, which is now trying to win support from wary lawmakers - many of whom are up for re-election this year - for health care reform and other domestic issues.

And those criticizing the administration's unusually blunt response to Israel say they fear it may have distracted from and done damage to efforts to relaunch long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

"It might be well if our friends in the administration and other places in the United States could start refocusing our efforts on the peace process," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Monday.

"Now we've had our spat. We've had our family fight, and it's time for us now to stop and get our eye back on the goal, which is the commencement of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks," he said.

McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., both urged the administration to ease the tone of the dispute, which they said was demonstrating disunity and weakness to steadfast allies of Iran.

"Let's cut the family fighting, the family feud," Lieberman said. "It's unnecessary; it's destructive of our shared national interest. It's time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the U.S. and Israel. It just doesn't serve anybody's interests but our enemies."

At least eight other lawmakers have offered similar concerns, and more are expected to weigh in after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton upbraided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the housing announcement in a tense and lengthy phone call on Friday and White House officials repeated the criticism on Sunday's talk shows.

"It's hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. He complained that the administration was attacking a "staunch ally and friend" when it should be focusing on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear problem.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., accused administration officials of using "overwrought rhetoric" in suggesting that the east Jerusalem housing announcement threatened U.S.-Israeli ties.

"The administration's strong implication that the enduring alliance between the U.S. and Israel has been weakened, and that America's ability to broker talks between Israel and Palestinian authorities has been undermined, is an irresponsible overreaction," she said.

With tensions still high, former Sen. George Mitchell, the administration's Mideast peace envoy, has delayed his departure to the region, where he is scheduled to hold separate talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, a U.S. official said.

Mitchell had been scheduled to depart Washington on Monday night. He still intends to go, but the timing is uncertain, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.

The State Department on Monday said it was still awaiting a formal response from Israel to Clinton's call and, while repeating elements of the criticism, stressed that the U.S. commitment to Israel's security remains "unshakable."

But spokesman P.J. Crowley also said a lot is riding on whether Israel agrees to take steps suggested by Clinton to underscore its commitment to the peace process and strong relations with America.

"We will evaluate the implications of this once we hear back from the Israelis and see how they respond to our concerns," he told reporters.

Reaction to the administration was particularly intense from pro-Israel groups.

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said he was "shocked and stunned at the administration's tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem."

"We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States," Foxman said.

---

Associated Press writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.