ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Republicans Work To Undermine Affordability Measures In Kennedy Health Bill

During today’s mark-up session of the HELP Committee’s health care proposal, Republicans introduced at least seven amendments designed to lower the subsidies available to Americans who purchase coverage through the Exchange. Sens. Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) both argued that Americans above 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) — or $45,775 for a family of 3 — could easily afford health care coverage:

- Enzi 200: To eliminate subsidies for those above 250 percent of poverty
- Enzi 201: To eliminate subsidies for those above 250 percent of poverty
- Enzi 202: To provide for reductions in subsidies
- Enzi 211: To limit subsidies to those below 250 percent of poverty.
- Enzi 251: To limit subsidies to those below 250 percent of poverty
- Gregg 223: To limit subsidies to those below 200 percent of poverty.
- Roberts 203: Limiting Premium and Cost-Sharing credits to people below 200% of FPL

Watch a compilation:

In reality, millions of Americans at about 250% FPL are struggling to afford skyrocketing health care costs. A recent study concluded that medical debt contributed to 62 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies in 2007 — and 78 percent of bankruptcy filers had health insurance but “still were overwhelmed by their medical debt.“ One in five Americans had trouble paying their health care bills in 2007 and even moderate levels of out-of-pocket spending — spending that is as low as 5 or 10 percent of family income —created medical bill problems.

Health care reform must end medical debt and medical bankruptcy, but Republican affordability measures are simply insufficient. The question of affordability is two-fold: which income levels do we subsidize and how much subsidies should the eligible families receive. While the cost of living varies widely across the country, on average, a family of three would need at least $37,919 – or about 200% FPL – to afford their basic necessities not including health care costs. So families up to 200% need to be subsidized, but who else?

Well, researchers suggest that families that spend more than 5-9% of their gross income on health care begin confronting affordability problems. As Karen Pollitz points out, “depending on what premiums are charged for qualified health benefit plans” subsidies capped above a certain level “may prove to be insufficient to ensure affordable health care for all Americans.” Congress “might consider instead a rule that no individual or family will have to pay more than 10 percent of income on health insurance premiums….cutting subsidies off entirely at an arbitrary income level can leave families vulnerable,” she says. Families at approximately 500% FPL ($110,250 for a family of four), however, can typically afford the cost of coverage.

Of course, the entire goal of reform is to slow the growth of health care costs and lower premiums for families. In this sense, subsidizing coverage — that is, making sure that every family can afford to access needed services — is a way of saving money in the long haul. After all, the billions we’re spending on subsidies is a small fraction of the $40 trillion we’re projected to spend on health care in the next ten years if we fail to slow the growth of spending.

Climate Progress

Hansen mostly recycles myths in his mostly pointless attack on U.S. climate action

UPDATE:  Predictably, Swift Boat smearer Morano has made Hansen’s post his top story at ClimateDepotted, again revealing that Hansen’s recent attacks are helping the deniers and delayers.

Much as I am happy to devote many Climate Progress posts to publicizing Hansen’s leading edge climate science analysis (see links below), I am unhappy to have to waste any time at all debunking his bleeding edge climate policy analysis (see “Memo to Hansen: Your opposition to Waxman-Markey is ill-conceived and unhelpful. There isn’t going to be a carbon tax nor should there be. Get over it and move on” and “Memo to Hansen 2: Why is the country’s top anti-science blog reprinting your stuff?“).

Still, his arguments need debunking because he is mostly recycling myths that others are pushing — and with the country’s top climate scientist putting his name on this collection of false and misleading statements, they will no doubt be parroted by yet more people.  Hansen has just written, “G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change” for The Huffington Post.

Let me go straight to his needlessly (and pointlessly) provocative attacks on the “counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey,” which is filled with right-wing and left-wing myths — and very little understanding of the basics of either this bill or cap-and-trade systems.

Hansen claims “For all its ‘green’ aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like ‘cap-and-trade’ scheme.”  Not so.  I have previously explained why W-M takes us sharply off of the BAU emissions path over the next decade, probably reducing coal use more than 25% by 2020 (see “Game changer, Part 2: Why unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet“).  And then it requires a 42% emissions reduction by 2030 and an 83% reduction by 2050, which will drive a massive energy transition over the next few decades.

The global economy is indeed a Ponzi scheme, but this is the first piece of legislation by any major country that makes a serious effort to end that Ponzi scheme.

Hansen then lists “a few of the bill’s egregious flaws”:

  • It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

No.  The EPA doesn’t have the “ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.”  EPA might well use its recent endangerment finding to get that ability [partially and eventually], but it hasn’t asserted that regulatory capability yet.

More importantly, the CAA authority is most readily translated into regulating emissions from new power plants.  Regulating CO2 emissions from existing power plants would take a long time, engendering a great deal of litigation.  As John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said, “it would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation.”

Moreover, for a man who wants to “phase out coal emissions over the next two decades,” as Hansen does, this is a pretty pointless complaint.  The Obama EPA was certainly never going to use the endangerment finding to do anything like that.

This “EPA can solve the problem on its own” myth is so commonplace that I will do separate post next week addressing it.  I certainly agree with NRDC that the bill should be changed to allow EPA to retain its CAA authority, but I wouldn’t list this among the bill’s top 4 flaws, let alone put it first.

Hansen’s next “egregious” flaw in W-M:

Read more

Economy

Right Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him

Some right-wing blogs have been pushing a USA Today analysis — which found that counties that supported President Obama in the election are getting more stimulus money, per person, than counties that backed John McCain — to claim that the stimulus is actually “an Obama-supporter-payoff scheme.” Steve Benen noted, though, that the conservatives crowing about this article clearly didn’t read all of it, as it includes these sections:

Much of [the money] has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulationThe imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch, explained that “it would be almost inconceivable for [the spending imbalance] to be the result of political tinkering.” But did this stop Fox News from picking up the story and promoting it in the exact same way as the right-wing bloggers? No, of course not.

Today, Fox News’ Stuart Varney premised an entire segment on the right-wing’s false claim, and wouldn’t concede the point, even when former Texas Rep. Martin Frost referenced the above sections of the USA Today story. Watch it:

A fair reading of the article supports the simple conclusion that economically-distressed areas voted for Obama.

This is not the first time that Fox has picked up a conspiracy theory from conservative blogs and run with it. But it’s a particularly egregious example since the second paragraph in the referenced article counters the conspiracy. Sean Hannity sent out a tweet about the non-story today.

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

Media

Right Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him

Some right-wing blogs have been pushing a USA Today analysis — which found that counties that supported President Obama in the election are getting more stimulus money, per person, than counties that backed John McCain — to claim that the stimulus is actually “an Obama-supporter-payoff scheme.” Steve Benen noted, though, that the conservatives crowing about this article clearly didn’t read all of it, as it includes these sections:

Much of [the money] has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulationThe imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch, explained that “it would be almost inconceivable for [the spending imbalance] to be the result of political tinkering.” But did this stop Fox News from picking up the story and promoting it in the exact same way as the right-wing bloggers? No, of course not.

Today, Fox News’ Stuart Varney premised an entire segment on the right-wing’s false claim, and wouldn’t concede the point, even when former Texas Rep. Martin Frost referenced the above sections of the USA Today story. Watch it:

A fair reading of the article supports the simple conclusion that economically-distressed areas voted for Obama.

This is not the first time that Fox has picked up a conspiracy theory from conservative blogs and run with it. But it’s a particularly egregious example since the second paragraph in the referenced article counters the conspiracy. Sean Hannity sent out a tweet about the non-story today.

Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.

Climate Progress

So how do you like the new redesign?

The long-awaited redesign has come.  I have tried to make use of some of your suggestions, such as putting recent comments on the sidebar (see “Site redesign coming “” any suggestions?“).

And yes, my old figures and pictures are now too narrow — but, on the bright side, new figures will be bigger and easier to read!  And the ad no longer interrupts the flow of the posts.

We’re probably not going to be making any more major changes anytime soon, but comments are welcome!

Justice

What The GOP Witness List Reveals About Their Anti-Sotomayor Strategy

hatch-and-grassleyThe Senate Judiciary Committee has released the list of witnesses who will testify at Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, thereby telegraphing much of their anti-Sotomayor strategy in the process.  Based on their lineup, it’s clear that Republicans plan to follow five lines of attack:

  • Ricci

Front and center in the list of GOP witnesses is Frank Ricci himself, the New Haven firefighter whose promotion test results were set aside by that city, along with Ben Vargas, a lieutenant in the same fire department and Ricci’s co-plaintiff in his now-famous lawsuit.  The list also includes Peter N. Kirsanow, a George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (and former witness in support of nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito), and Linda Chavez, a former Reagan and Bush I Administration official and the head of a leading anti-civil rights organization.

From this list, it couldn’t be clearer that the Ricci case will be the point of the conservative spear against Sotomayor.  While Kirsanow and Chavez can be expected to testify like the GOP political operatives that they are, expect Ricci and Vargas to offer compelling statements.  By all accounts, both men were caught in unfortunate circumstances that they did not cause, and there is no indication that they are anything other than dedicated firefighters.  In other words, Republicans hope that the American people will be moved by Ricci and Vargas’ testimony and wonder why Sotomayor did not show more empathy for their circumstance.  The reason, of course, is that Sotomayor was following a binding precedent, and judges aren’t free to ignore the law simply because they are faced with compelling plaintiffs.

  • Foreign Law

Recently, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) gave a floor speech claiming–falsely–that some judges believe that foreign court decisions should govern U.S. law.  No one, including Judge Sotomayor, believes this.  Nevertheless, the witness list includes Neomi Rao, Nick Rosenkranz and John McGinnis, all right-wing international law professors who are likely to share Sessions’ delusion.  David Rivkin, an advocate of limitless executive power, may also testify on the subject of foreign law.

  • Second Amendment

Next up are former NRA President Sandy Froman, along with David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, both of whom work on Second Amendment issues for the right-wing Independence Institute.  All three of them will probably make the false claim that Sotomayor was hostile to the Second Amendment when she followed a binding Supreme Court precedent holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.  Apparently, the law is optional when you are a conservative.

  • Eminent Domain

Ilya Somin is a radical libertarian law professor who filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse Sotomayor’s decision holding that land developers must file their eminent domain claims within the three year statute of limitations.  The Supreme Court did not take Professor Somin up on this offer; apparently land developers have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

  • Anti-Choice

Possibly the most interesting thing about the GOP’s witness list is that it only contains one anti-choice witness, Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life–additional evidence that cultural issues are losing their salience in American politics.

Additionally, the witness list contains one oddball, a management consultant named Tim Jeffries.  It’s unclear exactly what Jeffries has to contribute to this discussion.

Politics

Podesta: ‘We Just Can’t Settle’ For Excuses From The Democratic Leadership

When Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made clear that it didn’t necessarily mean that progressive legislation would be enacted because he wasn’t planning to twist any arms:

“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”

Peter Laumann from the University of Pennsylvania asked Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta about this statement at yesterday’s 2009 Campus Progress National Conference. Podesta said that while he recognizes the extraordinarily tough job congressional leaders have with an unruly, diverse caucus, progressives need to keep pressure on them to round up the votes on important issues:

PODESTA: And I think that — I suppose I have a little bit of sympathy for Sen. Reid, in the sense that I look around at his caucus and understand how hard his job is. But I don’t think you can settle for a statement like that. I think you have to call out the fact that we’re demanding serious change, and indeed, it is the job of the leadership to round up votes, to push legislation through, to try to get the kind of bold initiatives that the President is talking about passed, and to his desk, and signed. [...]

And that, I think, is what we should expect, that’s what we should demand, and that’s what we should put pressure on the members of their caucus to push back on their leadership. You just cannot settle for “What am I supposed to do? I’ve got one outlier who won’t vote for cloture.” We’ve got to both put pressure on the members who are not supporting a progressive agenda, but we’ve also have to put pressure on the leadership to come up with a strategy to find the votes to kind of get these things and move them forward. And we just can’t settle for less than that.

Watch it:

During the discussion, Podesta also said that while he’s generally been pleased with Obama’s agenda to this point, he would like to see him “use his executive authority to stop separating service men and women who are gay or lesbian under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” “He can push hard and sort of get in front, and not wait for a political consensus on Capitol Hill to resolve this question,” he said.

Transcript: Read more

Security

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Refuses To Cooperate With DOJ

1174027998_1171When the Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) following racial-profiling allegations, Arpaio said “bring it on.” Now, four months later, he has announced that he will no longer cooperate with DOJ officials. Instead, Arpaio, with the help of attorney Robert Driscoll, has filed a tit-for-tat request with the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the DOJ’s investigation of him.

Arpaio thinks the DOJ’s actions are politically-motivated and thus refuses to open up his doors so that the DOJ can “come in and find something.” At a press conference hosted yesterday, Arpaio complained that the DOJ is being a bully, saying “Don’t pick on me to show you’re doing something. If you’re going to do it, pick on someone that’s guilty — there’s a big difference here.” Arpaio’s lawyer also put his foot down and said, “there will be no wholesale cooperation until they can articulate what, specifically, he did wrong.” Driscoll explains:

“This case puts the constitutionality of the 287g program squarely into question and is therefore incumbent upon the federal government to defend its own statutes. Instead, the federal government is choosing to go after the Sheriff’s Office and the deputies who enforce their statute to the letter.”

However, the DOJ isn’t “going after” Arpaio for participating in the 287g program which gives local law enforcement officials the power to enforce federal immigration laws. They’re concerned about the way in which his office is implementing it. Sheriff Arpaio has had 2,700 law suits filed against him between 2004 and 2007 — 50 times the number of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston combined. The majority of inmates in his jails are, not surprisingly, Latino males. Also, you’d think being a hot-shot Washington lawyer, Driscoll might realize that the DOJ is in the process of conducting the investigation precisely to find out what, if anything, Arpaio has “done wrong.” Without Arpaio’s cooperation, it’s conveniently unlikely that they’ll come to a conclusion any time soon.

An Arizona local news station also brought Arpaio’s blatant hypocrisy to light. Not only did the Sheriff tell the DOJ, “be my guest” when the investigation began, he also attacked the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for not cooperating with his own investigation of them. Watch it:

Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox stated that Arpaio’s investigation of her was also politically-motivated, saying he was trying to intimidate her with a “vendetta” over her criticism of the way he enforces immigration.

Yglesias

Shawn Marion’s Three Point Shot

200px-shawn_marion

Thinking about the Dallas Mavericks’ acquisition of Shawn Marion, I looked up his numbers, and there’s really something strange going on with his three point shooting. From the 2002-2003 season through to the 2007-2008 season he consistently averaged over three three-point attempts per game, and shot them reasonably accurately. Not great, but good enough to make it a viable shot. He was a guy, in other words, that you wouldn’t want to leave open from long distance. Someone who can help space the floor and knock down shots.

Then in the 2008-2009 season his attempts crater to 0.8 per game. And a good thing, too, because his accuracy falls to .189 basically making him a guy who you never want to see take the long shot. I’ll confess that I didn’t watch him play in any games last season. Does anyone have a sense of what happened?

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up