ThinkProgress Logo

Health

Health Reform And The Midterm Elections — A Historical Perspective

By Igor Volsky on Nov 1, 2010 at 9:57 pm

NBC’s presidential historian Michael Beschloss added one more important point of historical context to the ongoing question of how much the actual policies in the Affordable Care Act have contributed to the Democrats’ poor showing in the polls and tomorrow’s expected Republican electoral wave. Beschloss recalled that despite a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate, President Lyndon B. Johnson recognized that he had a narrow window of opportunity to pass Medicare and other “Great Society” programs before the public turned against him.

He did and they did:

BESCHLOSS: Look at 1965. Lyndon Johnson came in, if you can believe it Rachel, two-thirds of the senate was Democrats, two-thirds of the House was Democrats. But even despite that, LBJ said, this doesn’t happen very often, I’ve got six months. He used those six months to get through the Great Society, Medicare, voting rights, very basic programs. He said after that they’re going to start voting against me and there will be a backlash. He was absolutely right. The Democrats had huge setbacks in Congress in 1966, but LBJ and the Great Society had probably more of an influence on Americans in terms of saying where the Democratic party is, for well or ilk, than probably any other president of the period.

Watch it:

If anything underscores the point that these kinds of social reforms are investments that could yield long-term dividends for the country it’s that today most Republicans are pledging to protect Medicare from the cuts in the health law and are campaigning against reform’s cuts to the program.

Of course, what’s unique about the health reform debate is that Republicans are still opposing the legitimacy of the law. As James Morone — a professor of political science at Brown University — has pointed out, “Normally in our political system, when we have enormous battles over legislation, most political actors consider the politics done when the legislative battle is over. What’s new here is the idea that the battle goes on into the implementation phase. This wasn’t true for Social Security, it wasn’t true for Medicare, it wasn’t true for civil rights.” “I’m not sure the Democrats have been quite this insistent after losing legislation. To have the Republican Party be this forceful about a position after the normal political process has run its course is pretty extraordinary,” he added.

Politics

GOP Rep. Cynthia Lummis Says Return Of Estate Tax Is Leading Her Constituents To Commit Suicide

By Zaid Jilani on Nov 1, 2010 at 9:27 pm

The federal estate tax is currently “in limbo,” as congressional negotiations have bogged down and created a situation in which the tax isn’t in effect at all this year. If no action is taken, it will return next year at a rate of 55 percent (up from 45 percent) and exempt no more than $1 million of a person’s estate (congressional negotiators are trying to devise a different arrangement).

Capitalizing on this current state of this estate tax, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) wildly claimed during a news conference Friday that some of her “constituents are so worried about the reinstatement” of the tax that they are actually planning to discontinue “life-extending medical treatments” so that they die before the tax is reinstate on January 1, 2011. “If you have spent your whole life building a ranch, and you wanted to pass your estate on to your children, and you were 88-years-old and on dialysis, and the only thing that was keeping you alive was that dialysis, you might make that same decision,” she told reporters:

U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis said Friday that some of her Wyoming constituents are so worried about the reinstatement of federal estate taxes that they plan to discontinue dialysis and other life-extending medical treatments so they can die before Dec. 31.

Speaking at a news conference she called to discuss the creation of new jobs in Wyoming, Lummis declined to name any of the people who have made the comments about preferring death to a tax increase. The Republican is running for a second term as the state’s lone voice in the U.S. House.

Lummis said many ranchers and farmers in the state would rather pass along their businesses — “their life’s work” — to their children and grandchildren than see the federal government take a large chunk.

“If you have spent your whole life building a ranch, and you wanted to pass your estate on to your children, and you were 88-years-old and on dialysis, and the only thing that was keeping you alive was that dialysis, you might make that same decision,” Lummis told reporters.

While Lummis is irresponsibly warning of the estate tax spawning mass suicides, it’s important to remember how few Americans the tax actually even applies to. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes, “only the largest 1 in 500 hundred estates pay any tax; that is, 99.8 percent of estates are passed on completely tax-free.” Given that “In 2006-8 the Wyoming the inflation adjusted per capita income was just over $27,873,” it is unlikely that many of Lummis’s constituents at all are likely to ever have to pay the estate tax. Citizens for Tax Justice “estimated that under the 2004 rules (when the exemption was only $1.5 million) only 62 Wyoming estates of any kind owed tax.”

But if Lummis is really concerned that working-class Wyomians who spent their lives building ranches are threatened by the estate tax, she could champion the proposal by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that would enact a special “billionaires’ surtax” on the estates of the super-rich and exempt estate values below $3.5 million from the tax altogether. As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo writes, the proposal would be “a good way to raise revenue with exceedingly minimal impact on the wider economy.”

Health

HHS Expected To Issue Looser Regulations Of Student Health Plans

By Igor Volsky on Nov 1, 2010 at 7:30 pm

Insurance industry sources are telling the National Journal’s Meghan McCarthy that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may be “leaning” toward allowing student health plans (SHP) — health insurance policies offered to college students — to be classified as “short-term-duration” coverage, potentially exempting these policies from some of the law’s consumer protections. The news comes after various youth groups had been lobbying the agency to classify SHPs as individual health plans to ensure that the policies have to abide by the regulatory baseline created in the Affordable Care Act. McCarthy reports:

Whatever the final determination, HHS has yet another difficult decision to make on how specific consumer protections in the health care law will apply to a subset of insurance plans before exchanges start operating in 2014.

Health insurance coverage offered to students by colleges and universities arguably falls into a gray area under the health care law, especially when it comes to deciding whether certain consumer protections apply to the plans. That’s because the law, as written, applies certain consumer protections only to individual, small-group, and large-group plans.

Insurance companies and colleges argue that their student health plans do not fall within any of those categories, but are instead “short-term” coverage, a categorization that could ultimately exempt the plans from many consumer-protection regulations.

But those colleges — represented by The American Council on Education — that are lobbying for the “short-term coverage” label are insisting that their goal isn’t to exempt plans from the minimum standards. “First, colleges are not seeking either an exemption or a waiver from the law,” Terry Hartle, senior vice president of ACE and Steven Bloom, the organization’s assistant director of federal relations write in today’s Inside HigherEd. “[W]e have asked HHS to provide rules of the road on two key topics: What insurance reforms in ACA apply to student health plans?… [and] Assuming student health plans incorporate required insurance reforms and provide at least a minimum ACA-defined level of coverage, will that satisfy the individual mandate to purchase health insurance under ACA?”

Presumably, if the plans do meet the minimum standards for coverage — that is, by 2014, if a student is enrolled in a SHP she or he will meet the individual requirement — the plans will have to abide by the basic floor of coverage and will thus have to comply with at least some of the consumer protections found in the health law — regardless of their legal classification. And if that’s the case, then regulators will have to ensure that the industry cleans up some of its most egregious practices.

A recent investigation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for instance, found that some college plans “provide woefully deficient coverage, with maximum overall caps or limits on particular types of services which can leave students with large, unreimbursed medical bills.” What’s more, the investigation found that “[m]any student plans payout far too little in claims compared to the premiums charged to the students,” exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions, and “provide no coverage at all for preventative services which college students typically need.”

Climate Progress

Election 2010 open thread

By Joe Romm on Nov 1, 2010 at 7:17 pm

The consensus of the pundits appears to be the House flips to GOP, perhaps decisively, but the Senate stays Democratic.

With detailed analyses from Nate Silver and others for all to see, I’m not certain there’s any point in asking readers to offer your own specific predictions.

Read more

Politics

Senate Candidate Ken Buck: The First Goal In Afghanistan Is To Make It ‘As Safe’ As Terrorist Safe Havens

By Tanya Somanader on Nov 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Colorado’s Senate candidate Ken Buck (R) offered several nuggets of wisdom concerning his policy positions this year. On reproductive rights: “I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest” for abortion procedures. On religious freedom: “I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state.” And on climate change: “Global warming is the greatest hoax.”

During a debate with his Democratic opponent Michael Bennet last week, Buck announced another firm view on a salient policy issue: the Afghanistan war. Believing “we have the wrong policy in Afghanistan” and that “it is a mistake to set a timetable to tell your enemy when you’re leaving,” Buck outlined his three “goals” for the region. The first goal, he said, is to make Afghanistan as safe as the terrorist safe havens in Somalia and Yemen:

BUCK: The first thing I think we need to do is to make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. And when I say safe haven, I’m not talking about that there isn’t a possibility of a terrorist in Afghanistan. I’m saying that when you look at other countries similarly situated — Somalia, Yemen, other countries — that Afghanistan is at least as safe as those countries.

Watch it:

Buck’s standard is certainly perplexing considering that the terrorist activity in Somalia and Yemen practically make them the antonym of “safe haven.” With “no effective government” in place, Somalia has long been an “attractive location for terrorists,” including al Qaeda members.

More than 1.5 million Somalians “have been displaced as a direct result of the terrorist activities.” Yemen is also “a major new battleground for al-Qaeda.” Beginning with the suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, the burgeoning al-Qaeda franchise in Yemen has executed a series of terrorist attacks that put it “at the forefront of the next wave of jihad.” As if to underscore the point, the same week Buck dubbed Yemen a model example, the U.S. uncovered a terrorist plot involving packages containing explosives on U.S.-bound cargo planes originating from Yemen.

LGBT

Desegregation And Ending The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy

By Igor Volsky on Nov 1, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Back in July, I reported that prior to President Truman’s 1948 executive order integrating the armed forces, the various military branches conducted a number of surveys of the attitudes of enlisted and nonenlisted troops towards black people and racial issues. At the time, the military — along with the overwhelming majority of the country — opposed integrating black servicemembers into the forces and preferred a ‘separate but equal’ approach that would have required the military to construct separate recreation spaces and facilities. According to the surveys, 3/4 Air Force men favored separate training schools, combat, and ground crews and 85% of white soldiers supported building separate service clubs in army camps.

Truman’s decision to desegregate the forces — despite the opposition of the troops — may hold important lessons for President Obama and Congress as they prepare to review the Pentagon’s year-long review of the policy, which includes separate surveys about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And, interestingly, so do the stories of black veterans “who served among the military’s first desegregated units during the Korean.” As the AP explained on Saturday, “Though the military may now seem to lag behind America’s acceptance of gays in civilian life, the armed forces led the charge in ending racial segregation in the 1940s and ’50s”:

“Many people used that same argument against African-Americans serving in the same units as whites,” said Cox, who teaches black military history to Citadel cadets. “Many people said it’s the end of the military. But the result was there were very few problems, the military ran very efficiently.”

The integration of blacks into all-white units in Korea was so uneventful that white soldiers like Phil McCraney hardly noticed. McCraney, 78, says his Army company of 150 troops had only four or five blacks by the time he returned home in 1951.

“It wasn’t that big a deal I don’t think,” said McCraney of Bartow, Fla. “We didn’t mistreat them by any chance. But we just didn’t associate with them that much.”

It was the battlefield pressures of war that ultimately pushed the armed forces into full-scale desegregation.

While the Navy had begun integrating crews aboard its warships in 1946, the Army and Marines resisted even after Truman’s 1948 order. They came around only after suffering heavy combat losses in Korea in 1950. [...]

“Our commander made a very simple statement: When a rifleman comes in with a certain skill, put him where he’s needed,” recalled retired Army Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton Jr. “We became an integrated regiment.”

Becton, 84, of Springfield, Va., deployed to Korea in the summer of 1950 as a platoon leader in the all-black 3rd Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment. Then a lieutenant who had served in World War II, it wasn’t long before he was commanding white soldiers.

If there was resentment among the white soldiers taking orders from him, Becton insists he never heard it. “I suspect there may have been some of that, but you don’t have much choice when you’re being shot at,” he said. “I don’t think that white guy from Mississippi or that black guy from New York is going to care too much about who’s giving orders.”

Significantly, the early leaks from the Pentagon’s DADT survey suggest that today’s military is far more receptive to serving alongside openly gay and lesbian servicemembers than white soldiers were of black troops. According to military sources who have seen the report — which is scheduled for release on December 1 — a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers. On Thursday, NBC’s Richard Engel reported that for most soldiers, “it wasn’t that big of a deal.” “The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care,’” he said, adding “That’s significant.”

LGBT

Court Of Appeals Permanently Reinstates Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell While Govt Appeals Lower Court Ruling

By Igor Volsky on Nov 1, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Moments ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s request to stay a federal district court’s injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, pending the government’s appeal of the ruling. The court had previously extended only a temporary stay “to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented.” In an eight-page decision, the justices identify “three reasons that persuade us to grant a stay pending appeal”:

- First, Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional, creating an equity in favor of the government when balancing the hardships in a request for a stay pending appeal.

- Second, “‘judicial deference . . . is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies.”

- Third, the district court’s analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal: the First, Second, Fourth, and Eighth.

“Accordingly, we conclude that the government’s colorable allegations that the lack of an orderly transition in policy will produce immediate harm and precipitous injury are convincing. We also conclude that the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military–if that is what is to happen–strongly militates in favor of a stay,” the court concludes.

Judge William Fletcher dissented in part, noting that he too would stay the district court’s injuction, but would prevent the government “from actually discharging anyone from the military, pursuant to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, during the pendency of the appeal.”

In September, Judge Virginia Phillis struck down the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy as unconstitutional in a case brought forward by the Log Cabin Republicans. In an 86 page opinion, Phillips ruled that DADT violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the servicemembers’ First Amendment rights. Phillips later issued an injunction of the policy, denying the government’s request to stay her decision. For a period of eight days, the Pentagon followed Phillips’ order and allowed gay people to enlist and announced announced that it would limit who could authorize discharges once the temporary stay went into effect.

The government will not be required to file its appeal brief until Monday, Jan. 24, 2011.

Read the full decision here (pdf).

Update

From SLDN:

“It is really unfortunate that the government has tricked the Ninth Circuit into believing that ‘enormous consequences,’ ‘immediate harm,’ and ‘irreparable injury’ will result from a continuation of the injunction,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the only named veteran plaintiff in the case. “By the government’s own admission elsewhere, none of these predicted consequences or injuries have come to pass while the law has been enjoined, and the Defense Department has even voluntarily created a de facto moratorium on discharges by further increasing the level of discharge authority. It is concerning that the government can so blatantly pull one over on an appeals court, and it is equally frustrating that such a distinguished court would allow itself to be fooled so obviously and so publicly in the name of ‘deference.’ Abdication is more like it.”

In light of this stalling of justice, the very narrow legislative path remains the only way by which the President, administration officials, and the congressional leadership can keep their promise to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year. In order for there to be any chance for legislative success, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid absolutely must bring the National Defense Authorization Act back up on the Senate floor before the Senate recesses for Thanksgiving.


Update

,From the Log Cabin Republicans:

“Log Cabin Republicans is disappointed that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will continue to burden our armed forces, undermine national security and limit the freedom of our men and women in uniform,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. “Despite this temporary setback, Log Cabin remains confident that we will ultimately prevail on behalf of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. In the meantime, we urge President Obama to use his statutory stop-loss power to halt discharges under this discriminatory and wasteful policy. The president claims to want to see ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended. It is time that he stop talking and start working to make a real difference for gay and lesbian Americans by pushing for repeal when Congress returns.”


Update

[/update]

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm

You are never there:

— I bought a LivingSocial deal for Indique and will benefit if I can persuade you to click the link and do the same.

— You’ll have to await tomorrow for my Official Election Predictions.

— Ben Bernanke could fix the economy pretty quickly.

— All about FreedomWorks.

— Height, health, and IQ.

— Pundit bingo.

— Have presidential administrations gotten too unwieldy?

La Sera, “Never Come Around”

Security

Speculation Abounds On Arizona Immigration Law Verdict

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Nov 1, 2010 at 6:00 pm

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Arizona’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that blocked the most controversial provisions of SB-1070 from taking effect. The heated exchange that took place between the three judges and both the deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler and Arizona’s lawyer, John J. Bouma dropped a few notable hints as to how the judges will rule.

In July, federal district court judge Susan Bolton blocked the most significant sections SB-1070 from taking effect, arguing that “the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that…[they] are preempted by federal law” and the “United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm” in the absence of an injunction.

However, at least one of the appellate judges, Judge John T. Noonan Jr., took issue with the federal government’s federal preemption argument. In a testy exchange, Noonan told Kneedler: “We’ve read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument.” Noonan went on, “We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive…You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption…I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.” Bea was similarly unimpressed, stating, “It’s up to the state how they want to use their people.”

Bouma didn’t get off easy either. Noonan shared concerns expressed by the federal government that the failure to immediately verify lawful presence could result in the prolonged detention of lawfully present immigrants and citizens. “I don’t know any provision of federal law that goes that far, now isn’t that getting into federal territory?” asked Noonan. “How can we construe it so that detention does not exceed what would be possible under federal law?” “How long would that be?” chimed in Judge Richard A. Paez. “Twenty-four hours? Forty-eight hours? A week?”

Judge Carlos Bea appeared to take issue with Section 5 of the law which criminalizes the solicitation, application for, or performance of work by an undocumented immigrant. Bea pointed to a previous court case which affirmed that congressional intention is not to punish employees. “I’ll tell you what the problem is Mr. Bouma, is that you’re arguing something which is simply foreclosed to us,” said Bea.

Based on today’s oral arguments, many are speculating that the Appeals court will not uphold the injunction on the part of the law which mandates police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if they reasonably suspect the person is in the country illegally. Meanwhile, it seems likely that the court will uphold the injunction on provisions relating to detention and the criminalization of certain immigration offenses that are considered minor under federal immigration law.

In the end, speculations are merely guesstimates. This past summer, one reporter dissected Bolton’s statements, concluding that Bolton seemed “skeptical” about the federal preemption argument and appeared to support the argument that certain provisions are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of U.S. citizens. In the end, Bolton supported both arguments when she enjoined parts of the law.

It’s also important to remember that today’s hearing wasn’t on the constitutionality of the law itself, but rather on whether certain provisions of the law should be allowed to take effect before a final decision is made concerning its overall legality. With that said, part of the court’s decision will be based on the “likelihood of success” which will likely preview any future decisions they will make on the law.

Politics

To Pay For Mortgage And Health Care, Woman Forced To Sell Letter From Obama Saying ‘Things Will Get Better’

By Zaid Jilani on Nov 1, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Every single day, President Obama receives a special memorandum with “10 pieces of correspondence addressed to” him from Americans of all walks of life, a tradition he has kept up since he made the request to receive these letters on the second day of his presidency.

In January of this year, Obama read a letter from Jennifer Cline, a 28 year-old woman living in Monroe, Michigan. Cline informed Obama that she and her husband had both lost their jobs in 2007 and fallen on hard times as a result. “I lost my job, my health benefits and my self-worth in a matter of five days,” she wrote. Following the loss of her job, Cline “was diagnosed with two types of skin cancer, and she had no health insurance. She signed up for Medicaid, and treatment was successful. She went back to college after her unemployment benefit was extended.” She hoped that in “just a couple of years we will be in a great spot.”

After reading the letter, Obama chose to reply with a handwritten note on White House stationary. He wrote, “Thanks for the very kind and inspiring letter. I know times are tough, but knowing there are folks out there like you and your husband gives me confidence that things will keep getting better!”

But things, unfortunately, did not get better. Crunched by the costs of a down payment on her home and cancer treatments, Cline has been forced to sell her letter from the president to earn some money. She is selling the letter to autograph dealer Gary Zimet for $7,000, who will then sell it on his website momentsintime.com, which markets autographs:

But things didn’t immediately improve for Cline, who’s now agreed to sell the letter to autograph dealer Gary Zimet for $7,000. He tells us, “The letter is a historical document, and it is very hard for her to part with it. It’s very timely considering the elections. But I don’t think she’s disillusioned with Obama — this is just about surviving and practicality. She is selling it to pay for a house, which I think is poetic justice.”

Zimet plans to sell it on his Web site, momentsintime.com. He noted, “Handwritten letters of any sitting president on White House letterhead are extremely rare. It is certainly worth more than I am paying for it.” Zimet, who took possession of the letter on Saturday, added she was “selling the letter for a down payment on a house and to pay off medical bills from her cancer treatment.” Cline and the White House did not get back to us.

Cline’s story is tragic, but unfortunately her circumstance of having to take desperate measures just to keep her home is not unique. The housing market has been a nightmare since the housing bubble burst, with countless homeowners being unable to make the payments to keep their homes. By 2009, three million homeowners received at least one foreclosure notice, and as of July 2010, one in seven mortgages were delinquent.

The administration’s primary policy response to the foreclosure crisis was the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which started in June 2009 and was “meant to keep 3 to 4 million troubled borrowers in their homes by lowering their mortgage payments to a sustainable level.” Yet by Aug. 2010, 40 percent of homeowners who had participated in the program had dropped out. “HAMP has not put an appreciable dent in foreclosure filings,” noted a report from the Special Inspector General for TARP that same month. “Foreclosure filings have increased dramatically while HAMP has been in place, with permanent modifications constituting just a few drops in an ocean of foreclosure filings.” The program’s problems stem from banks’ inability to process enrollments in a timely manner and a lack of incentive for banks to ensure that borrowers successfully complete the program.

The administration and Congress have not stepped up to the bat for tougher measures that would help homeowners. Legislation that would allow for “cramdown” — which would let a third party re-negotiate mortgage terms — has been voted down multiple times by legislators, and was met with little backing by the Obama White House. While leading progressive politicians and economists continue to argue in favor of a moratorium, the administration continues to oppose one.

Older

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

Sign Up