Republican governors are not alone in being concerned about what the proposed health care legislation might mean for their already overstrained budgets: Democrats share the same worries.         “We’ve got concerns,” Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware said in an interview Wednesday, hours before getting elected as the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. “And we’re doing our best to communicate them. We understand the need to get something done, and we’re supportive of getting something done. But we want to make sure it’s done in a way that state budgets are not negatively impacted.”From the start, Republican governors have been more outspokenly critical about the health care legislation – in particular, the bill proposed by Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader – which they said would saddle them with millions of dollars in additional Medicaid costs as insurance coverage is expanded. At their own meeting two weeks ago in Texas, Republican governors declared Democrats felt the same way as they did, but were less apt to say it out of loyalty to President Obama.Asked about that, Mr. Markell responded: “Perhaps we’ve expressed some of our concerns less publicly. But I believe all governors are certainly concerned about what the potential impact is of some of these bills.”Mr. Markell said that there was no division between governors and the administration on the need to get some sort of health care bill through; he said that he was reminded of the need in conversations with small businesses struggling with health care costs and constituents who have been unable to get health care coverage. He said his concern was some of the bills being considered would do that by shifting some of the costs to the state – but said he remained confident, after conversations with the White House, that would not be the case.Whatever the outcome of the health care deliberations, Mr. Markell said he did not believe it would affect the electoral outcome for governors in 2010, a year in which 19 gubernatorial seats currently held by Democrats are on the ballot. The key issues, the governor said, were jobs and the economy.And to that regard, Mr. Markell said that he was hopeful that the White House and Congress would dispose of the health care deliberations and move on to discussing some sort of jobs creation legislation.“Right now I believe we need to be focused really significantly on the state level on jobs and on the economic climate overall,” he said. Asked if Mr. Markell thought Mr. Obama and Congress were spending too much time on health care at the expense of the economy, he responded: “Well I feel it would be terrific if they could finish health care and move on.”

Popularity: -14% [?]

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander released a statement this morning saying the Senate-approved health care bill is riddled with “sweetheart deals” that will increase taxes and damage education.Fellow Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, said the bill is “fundamentally flawed” and called for bipartisanship.The bill, approved on a 60-39 vote, must still be merged with legislation passed by the House.“The Senate health bill will prove to be an historic mistake if this or anything like it is ultimately signed by the president,” said Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.“Congress set out to reduce health care costs to Americans and Democrats have managed to do the exact opposite. Their written-in-secret bill will increase health insurance premiums, raise taxes, cut Medicare and dump millions of Americans into Medicaid.“For Tennessee, Medicaid’s expansion and the bill’s ‘sweetheart deals’ would cost our state more than $750 million over five years when fully implemented, forcing tax increases or damaging higher education—or both.“Instead, we should start over and move step-by-step to reduce health care costs using the steps that Republicans have repeatedly proposed: let small businesses pool resources for health insurance; allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines; end junk lawsuits against doctors; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; expand health savings accounts; and promote wellness and prevention.”Corker said in his statement, “I’ve spent almost three years and countless hours in bipartisan meetings working toward reforms that would enable all Americans to access affordable, private health insurance.“I wanted a bipartisan health care reform bill that would stand the test of time. Instead, we were forced to vote on a 2,000-plus page, fundamentally flawed, partisan bill that expands Medicaid by sending $25 billion in unfunded mandates to states, takes $464 billion away from Medicare and leverages it to create a new entitlement, uses budget gimmickry to hide its true cost; increases federal costs, and actually causes Americans to face increased taxes and premiums.“It’s my sincere hope that Congress returns in 2010 more willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, and my work on financial regulatory reform gives me hope that that’s possible.”

Popularity: unranked [?]

For almost 35 years, the law of the land has been an explicit prohibition against federal taxpayer dollars being used to pay for elective abortions, known as the Hyde amendment, after the late great Illinois congressman. This is a policy supported by the majority of the American people.

In fact, this hard-fought explicit ban was included in the health care bill that passed the House last year. Regrettably, the Senate did not follow suit and instead passed a bill that would allow hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortion. That is a simple fact. Unfortunately, in a mad rush to secure enough votes, leading House Democrats now intend to take up the Senate-passed bill, arguing that the Senate language prohibits federal funding of abortion. Besides that fact that this simply not true, it also demonstrates the lengths the president and his allies will take to pass this bill against the will of the American people.

Just this week, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement saying, “Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures.”

First, the Senate bill allows elective abortions to be offered through the newly-created individual state health insurance exchanges and multi-state health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and through federally-subsidized plans in already-existing community health centers.

Second, there is nothing in this legislation that requires any of these programs to live up to both the spirit and letter of the Hyde amendment that Congress has included each year in spending bills that fund the government. This not only prevents federal funding of elective abortions, but also erects an iron-clad firewall against any private money for abortion being mixed with any federal or state health program receiving federal dollars. This applies, for example, to Medicaid, a health program for the economically disadvantaged that is funded by both federal and state governments. If any resources are used for elective abortions that money must be kept completely separate from Medicaid. This is sound policy that must be maintained.

Regrettably, the Senate-passed bill doesn’t include this firewall. Anyone who doesn’t earn enough money would qualify for a federal subsidy to help pay for their health plan in the state exchanges, including plans offering elective abortion coverage. Some argue that under the Senate-passed bill, federal funding would be “segregated” so no federal money would pay for abortions. But this is a violation of the Hyde amendment, which also prevents the federal funding of insurance that covers elective abortion.

Furthermore, it is entirely possible that there would only be one health plan in any given state that does not include elective abortion. And even if you are opposed, you may well be railroaded into choosing a plan that covers it, because you might be looking for the best plan to treat a sick child or your own health condition.

What’s more, passing a new state law is the only way an individual state could truly ensure that elective abortions are not included in the plans offered through a state insurance exchange. That would be easier in some states than in others, but that’s unfair to those who are morally opposed to federal funding of abortion and happen to live in states where passing such a law would be extremely difficult.

Lastly, under this proposal, community health centers would receive a dedicated stream of money outside the annual congressional process to fund the government which is where the Hyde prohibition is maintained. So that means that for the first time federal money could be used to fund abortion at a community health center.

Those are the facts, and anyone who thinks the Senate abortion language is strong enough should think again. That is because, regardless of one’s position on this controversial issue, it is entirely reasonable to expect that a person who is fundamentally and morally opposed to abortion should not have to sanction its use with their hard-earned tax payer dollars.

Popularity: -5% [?]

Most Americans are aware that buried somewhere in the 2,000-page health care reform bill are provisions for cutting the already- strapped Medicare program by billions of dollars. Few are aware that the bill also cuts expenditures on county hospitals currently serving the poor.In Chicago, for example, those without health insurance go to the county hospital where they are treated without regard to whether they have health insurance. If the bill is passed, however, many of these county hospitals will either have to close their doors or deny treatment to those without health insurance.Although the bill passed by the Senate has been depicted as using coercive means to require those currently uninsured to buy insurance they cannot afford, or as imposing additional new taxes on the American working man and family, that bill is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how the health care needs of the nation’s poor are currently served.The desperately poor, many of them unemployed, are not equipped to deal with complicated insurance programs, deductibles, co-pays and all the other accoutrements of the typical health care policy. They are poor, they are unemployed, they are sick, they need a place to go to be treated without red tape and procedural obstacles.County hospitals across the country that have provided that place are now threatened with a cut-off of funding and in many cases with extinction by the current health care reform bill passed by the Senate.A number of proposals for making health care affordable for all Americans have been put forward by those who have sought to be heard during the legislative process. All these proposals have been rejected by a Congress determined to impose government control of health care.Among these rejected proposals is to allow people to buy health insurance they can afford. Currently, government mandates require a single man to buy maternity coverage he will never use, or to pay inflated premiums to insure against going insane. It would be similar to a government mandate requiring every person to buy a Rolls Royce instead of a Ford. And then when people can’t afford to buy the Rolls Royce, they’re without any car at all.Another rejected proposal is to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines, thus increasing the competitive pressure to provide affordable insurance. Proposals for modest curbs on the multimillion-dollar malpractice suits that divert billions of dollars away from health care and into the pockets of high-rolling trial attorneys have also been rejected.Even proposals for limited but cost-effective catastrophic government insurance have been rejected by those determined to have government take over health care across the board.

Popularity: unranked [?]