WASHINGTON

The 62-year-old, moderate Maine lawmaker voted on Tuesday for a Democratic health care bill, breaking with her party and giving a major boost to President Barack Obama’s drive to expand coverage to millions of Americans.

“When history calls, history calls,” Snowe told her colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, several hours into the debate.

Snowe had kept virtually all of Washington guessing how she would vote, not even letting Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., or Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana in on her secret. She did call her Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Tuesday morning to break the news about her plans.

When she did speak publicly in committee, she caught Washington’s attention.

“The status quo approach has produced one glaring common denominator, that is that we have a problem that is growing worse, not better,” she said in explaining her support for the bill.

There was much relief in Democratic ranks when she finally said, “Aye,” and the bill was approved 14-9. For months, Obama had pursued her support in phone calls and meetings. Snowe could be the Democrats’ 60th vote required to overcome Republican objections to the bill and give the final version the barest quality of bipartisanship.

At the White House, shortly before the vote, the president singled out “in particular Senator Snowe,” for thanks.

Republicans have for weeks grumbled about punishing Snowe should she vote “yes” at any stage of the lengthy process. One option long discussed: denying her the coveted senior Republican seat on the Senate Commerce Committee.

The best they could do publicly Tuesday was to make clear that she told them her decision before the Democrats found out and to keep communication open with her. Snowe, after all, might well be the sole Republican negotiator at the table when Reid hashes out a final measure for a Senate vote. If so, she represents the GOP’s best chance at winning votes on changes they want.

But Snowe signaled that this could be a one-shot deal.

“My vote today is my vote today. It does not forecast my vote tomorrow,” the third-term senator said.

Not so, said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.: “Trust me, trust me: A vote for this bill will be a vote for that bill.”

Breaking with her party is a role Snowe has played many times, from her vote for Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill to her defiance of then-President George W. Bush on a bill to provide health care to millions of uninsured children.

Snowe also was one of the “Gang of 14″ Democratic and Republican senators who resolved a standoff over judicial nominations.

In Maine, former Gov. Angus King, a political independent, compared Snowe’s decision to the late Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s “Declaration of Conscience” speech in which she called for the nation—and her own party—to reject McCarthyism.

“This is a vote of conscience and a vote of concern for her constituents and concern for the country. And I think it took plenty of courage,” King said. “I don’t think it’s possible for any of us to fully appreciate the pressure she’s under and has been under to vote with her Republican colleagues.

Said Maine Democratic Gov. John Baldacci: “She wants to move health care forward, she wants to be part of the solution.”

Snowe may face a rough time with her Republican colleagues in the Senate but not necessarily in fiercely independent Maine.

“I don’t think there’s any possible negative political implication,” said Sandy Maisel, director of Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. “She is untouchable electorally in the state of Maine.”

____

Associated Press writers David Sharp and Glenn Adams in Maine contributed to this report.

The US Senate Finance Committee voted today to pass the so-called Baucus Bill for health care reform.  The bill is not yet a bill yet, it’s only “conceptual language.”  It’s not real legislation.  It’s a collection of brainstorm ideas.  It’s “vaporware.”

But what we know of the concepts it includes are enough to know that it ought to be opposed.  The Congressional Budget Office scored it last week and rated that it would “save” $81 billion, but that score is base on several highly suspect features including the Obama administration’s widely panned economic forecasts.  The CBO’s score itself is misleading because it takes into account 10 years of higher taxes included in the “conceptual language” to pay for the plan, but only 7 years of its actual expenses.  That’s how they forced it into deficit neutrality to make it more palatable. If the CBO had forecast 10 years of revenues plus 10 years of expenses, the score would show a growing deficit.  The Democrats gamed the CBO to produce a score that doesn’t and never will reflect reality.  In addition to that blatant dishonesty, the Baucus Concept itself mandates massive new taxes, which will provide enough economic drag to render the Obama administration’s own economic growth forecasts meaningless.  So the bottom line is, this vaporware bill expands the already massive national debt and will hurt an already ailing economy, and for what?  To insure a few percent who are not currently insured.  And among those will be some who are forced to buy insurance, or be taxed to death for choosing not to.  That will hurt real families.  It will cost jobs.  It will do more harm than good, if indeed it does any good at all.  This is a bad bill and no Republican ought to support it, and any Texas Democrats who support it ought to be voted out of office.  We’re watching the Texas Democrats in Congress and will update our web site when they vote on this and other vital legislation that will impact Texas.  And have no doubt that the Baucus Brainstorms will impact Texas, since states will be expected to pick up much of the tab for Washington’s health care mischief.  In Texas we work to keep your taxes low, only to have the Democrats in Washington work to raise them.  Texas Democrats just want to help the Washington Democrats raise your taxes higher and faster.

By the way, the Democrats know that whatever bill ultimately passes the full Senate will have to get reconciled with whatever passes the House.  And Sen Harry Reid is already larding up the Baucus Bluff with junk from some of the even more leftwing bills.  That’s one reason they’re working from “conceptual language” rather than an actual bill.  They don’t want the American people to read and understand just what it is the Democrats plan to do to the one-sixth of our economy that is the health care sector.  They want the power, sure.  They just don’t want to have to answer for how they use it until it’s too late to stop them.

Texas Republicans favor a few simple, consumer-friendly reforms to get health care prices under control. These reforms include tort reform to end the frivolous lawsuits that drive up health care costs, a reform that the CBO estimates would truly reduce the deficit.  Republican reforms also include allowing interstate competition for health care plans, and increasing portability.  We also support support allowing small businesses to join together to purchase quality health care benefits for their workers at a more affordable price, just as many large businesses and unions are allowed to do.

We strongly oppose government-centered, top-down statist “solutions” like those the Democrats are proposing.  The Democrats’ plans will increase government power and reduce individual freedom, and will not rein in health care costs.

Other articles of interest:

Pessimism:  Obama’s Political Ally

Breaking: Snowe defects on committee vote

Magic Number in Politics

Does Obama even understand the fundamentals of economics?

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. “Distorted and flawed,” said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. “Fundamentally dishonest,” said AARP’s senior policy strategist, John Rother. “A hatchet job,” said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

But the health insurance industry’s top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry’s concerns could be amicably addressed.

At the heart of the industry’s complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.

Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.

The drama threatened to overshadow Tuesday’s scheduled vote by the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-year, $829-billion plan that Baucus has touted as the sensible solution to America’s problems of high medical costs and too many uninsured.

The Baucus bill is still expected to win Finance Committee approval. The insurance industry is trying to influence what happens beyond the vote, when legislation goes to the floor of the House and Senate, and, if passed, to a conference committee that would reconcile differences in the bills.

It’s at that final stage where many expect the real deal will be cut.

“We’ve got ourselves a real health care shooting war now,” said Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned consultant. “The industry has come to the conclusion that the way things are going in Congress, we’ll have a … formula that will be disastrous for their business, so they can’t stand on the sidelines any longer.”

Questions about the technical soundness of the industry analysis by the PricewaterhouseCoopers firm was a big part of the discussion Monday. The release of the study late Sunday on the eve of the federal Columbus Day holiday had Democrats crying foul.

“The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Democrats have reason to worry. Insurance industry opposition helped sink President Bill Clinton’s health care plan in the 1990s by fanning fears that people with coverage would wind up paying more.

Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is “a world-class firm” with “a stellar reputation,” she said.

The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.

In 10 years’ time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.

Finance Committee aides to Baucus said it’s impossible to predict premiums down to the dollar because there are too many variables involved.

The technical issues behind the study are complex, and it will take time for neutral experts to deliver a final judgment. The issue boils down to questions of coverage and cost shifting.

The industry is arguing that the consequences of the bill will be shifted onto those who are already covered. Insurers are not alone. Representatives of the hospital industry have raised similar concerns, though in less stark terms.

The study finds fault with what Baucus sees as one of the crowning achievements of his bill. Even with a tight budget, it would cover an estimated 94 percent of eligible Americans, up from about 83 percent now. The study – and the insurance industry – say that’s not enough, particularly since senators have weakened the stiff fines Baucus originally proposed for ignoring a requirement to get coverage.

“You really have to have a coverage level in the high 90s to make this work,” Ignagni said.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers study also assumes that proposed taxes on high-cost insurance, new levies on insurers and other health industry firms, and Medicare cuts will be directly passed on to privately insured policyholders.

Critics of the study said it tilted those assumptions too far toward a worst case, ignoring the bill’s potential to curb costs.

For example, the tax on high-cost health insurance that Baucus is proposing could lead employers and individuals to switch to lower-cost plans and avoid the levy. If that happens, there would be no additional costs to pass on to consumers.

The study “assumed the tax would have no behavioral effect, contrary to every other tax in the history of civilization,” said economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

Critics also said the study doesn’t take into account proposed insurance exchanges, a new marketplace that would be designed to foster competition and presumably drive premiums down.

There’s equally strong debate about the effects of $400 billion in proposed cuts in Medicare payments to insurers, hospitals and other service providers. The study assumes those costs would be shifted to people with private insurance, but the bill’s supporters say the reductions are aimed at reducing wasteful spending that drives up costs.

Until now, the health-insurance industry has mainly held its fire against the ObamaCare proposals in Congress, hoping that its givebacks would be enough to sate the Democratic class warfare that erupted this summer.  Now, however, they have apparently taken off the gloves with a new analysis by accounting firm PriceWaterhouse Coopers.  The study predicts that the Baucus plan would increase premiums for an average American family by $4,000 per year, a breathtaking increase from a plan that purports to save costs:

After months of collaboration on President Obama’s attempt to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, the insurance industry plans to strike out against the effort on Monday with a report warning that the typical family premium in 2019 could cost $4,000 more than projected.

The critique, coming one day before a critical Senate committee vote on the legislation, sparked a sharp response from the Obama administration. It also signaled an end to the fragile detente between two central players in this year’s health-care reform drama.

Industry officials said they intend to circulate the report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers on Capitol Hill and promote it in new advertisements. That could complicate Democratic hopes for action on the legislation this week.

That prompted a rather snide — and laughable — response from the Obama administration:

“Those guys specialize in tax shelters,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform. “Clearly this is not their area of expertise.”

Er, what?  Health insurance premiums are not the area of expertise for health-insurance companies?  Accounting is not the expertise of accounting firms?  We can compare that to the White House, whose expertise thus far has been in getting elected, and not much else — certainly not economics, military strategy, or governance.

This doesn’t surprise me in the least.  The Baucus plan is chock-full of fees and taxes, which Democrats keep insisting will punish those meanie insurance executives and doctors who steal tonsils and feet for big, big money.  As with all such penalties on producers, the costs get borne by the consumers.  Given the wide-randing taxes on medical devices and the “fees” Baucus envisions for an industry with an average profit margin of 3.3%. I’d actually guess that the $4,000/year increase may shoot a little low.

If we want to make health care more available and more affordable, we need to avoid imposing new costs on the industry and remove pricing opacity.  This isn’t brain surgery, another discipline for which this White House doesn’t have expertise.

Demacrats hae a plan to sneak in the public option

If you think that the omission of the Public Option from the Baucus, or the final senate bill in general, will kill the public option…think again.  The democrats have a plan in place that will be hard to combat if it gets far enough.  It does not matter what is in the Senate’s final bill, as the House plans on having the Public Option in theirs.  Because of this, a government controlled public option is still very much alive, even if it dies in the senate.

A progressive liberal author recently posted an article at the Huffington Post that explains their strategy.  It all rest with the Conference Committee, and with the democrats controlling both the House and Senate, one guess who will control the Conference Committee?

Read the article below.  You have been warned!

Conference Committee Counts This Time

Obama and Baucus will tax the sick

From DickMorris.com:

Faced with a need to scrounge for revenue to fund his plan for health care, President Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have come up with a brilliant new idea: Tax the sick!

In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.

Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayer is under 65.

Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!

For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of-pocket medical bills of $7, 500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.

And let’s remember who it is that they are taxing. This proposal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so highthat they exceed 7.5% of their pre-tax income.

Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.

The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending. But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.

Obama and Baucus have singled out the sickest among the middle class for this heinous tax. (The poor will not have to pay it because they are eligible for Medicaid). Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spends more than the 7.5% threshold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax. Now they just sock it to eight million sick, middle income Americans.

This tax, and their desire to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when I worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax the latter.

PIN Comment:  Dick Morris is a regular on the Fox News channel.  His recent book “Catastrophe” is a number one best seller, and a goldmine of information with regard to the current health care debate.  Morris is a former advisor to the Clinton Administration and a Political Strategist.

Not so fast!!!

First, estimates on a “plain language” version leave too many holes that can later be filled with the Democratic agenda, when the legislative language is constructed behind closed doors.  That version does not have to be set up for the 72-hour public viewing, as the Democrats already blocked that amendment.  In fact, it can be voted on immediately after construction, without being released to the public.

But even in the plain language version, there are plenty of points to argue. 

According to the Wall Street Journal:

• Most of the bill’s funding comes from $404 billion in cuts to Medicare and other government insurance programs
• $201 billion comes from a 40% excise tax on particularly generous health-insurance plans levied on insurers.
• “Considering that 25 million individuals will remain uninsured under this proposal, it does not solve our health-care issues,” said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, citing the budget office’s calculation of the remaining uninsured.
• Democrats, as well as Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe from Maine, a key swing vote, were concerned that the bill forced people who couldn’t afford it to buy insurance.

The bottom line is that the new proposal raised the 10-year cost estimate from $774 billion to $829 billion (a $55 billion increase), does not increase the coverage of the uninsured over the previous proposal, and decreases the effect on the 10-year deficit from $49 billion to $81 billion (a $32 billion difference) largely by increasing Medicare cuts and increasing taxes.

Once again, we leave it up to Dick Morris to put the Senate vote into perspective.  Dick advises that the two key players to watch as the health care vote moves forward, is Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-MA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) by saying “As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.”

Sen. Snowe, although publicly has stated that she will not vote for a public option, has been on the hot seat with the Republicans since she backed a so-called public option “trigger”.  As the CBO announced its latest analysis of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care proposal, Snowe insist on seeing the legislative version scored, not just the plain language.  The legislative language will be more complex, constructed behind closed doors and leaves the door wide open for measures not clearly defined in the plain language version.

Sen. Lincoln is up for re-election, and her constituents do not want her to vote for the Bacaus bill.  This is key.  If she sides with the Republicans, as Dick surmised, it will “…open a wound in the Democratic Party.  A domino effect will likely set in.”  Democrats, especially those from conservative districts, know that health care reform in its current form has continued to lose public support in their respective districts.

In conclusion, there is a long road ahead.  As the debate moves on, Democrats will continue to every measure to pass some sort of universal health plan controlled by the government.  Republicans will continue to try push for a plan with minimal government control to include interstate competition and tort reform.  As time runs out, the ugly head of desperation is being revealed.  What may have been, at one point in time,  a noble effort by the Democrats to provide more Americans with affordable health insurance, has now been overshadowed by a Democrat view that a defeat is not about American citizens, but a loss for the Democrat Party.

Remember, after all, it was President Obama who said this after he took his place as the 44^th President of the United States:

“I won. So I think on that one, I trump you.”

Although he was responding to an issue concerning tax credits for people who do not pay income taxes, it was a very telling moment in that it showed the true character of Obama, as it reflects the attitude of the Democrat Party.

Tell me again who this issue is about?

Related Articles:

Snowe and Lincoln will determine everything

Snowe Amendment Would Add “Triggered” Public Option to Baucus Bill

New Math Boosts Health Plan

Measure Giving Americans 72 Hours to Review Health Care Reform Blocked by Democrats– What are they hiding?

Image credit goes to frugal-cafe.com.

From Fox News:

Fearful that they’re losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party’s spines on the contentious issue, say it’s unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they’ve been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

“Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room,” said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Read more.

***PIN NOTE***  Giving illegals government jobs would probably help deter petty theft too, but it would take food off the table of LEGAL citizens who would then not have access to those jobs.  This is just another instance of the liberal agenda pushing for policies that would add additional burdens to an already overloaded system.  This is not just a small group of 20 Democrats pushing for this legislation.  I live in a small town in Texas and take a government course in a community college.  My government professor’s stance on this issue?  “I support handing them all Blue Cross Blue Shield cards when they cross the border.”  As if BCBS cards can be doled out free of charge.  It’s ironic how the left claims this is a pursuit for fairness, yet they fail to take into consideration the hardships that this type of thinking places on legal American citizens.  Fairness for whom?

Related stories:

Baucus Bill Would Bar Illegal Immigrants from Insurance Exchanges

Washington Times: Liberals Seek Health Care Access for Illegal Immigrants

Hot Air headlines

Joe Wilson Needs a Breathalyzer Test

Will the amendment pass, or be blocked like most of the other Republican proposals?

Video of address below