Unemployment benefits extension hits snag in Senate

WASHINGTON –  Senate Democrats’ plan to extend long-term jobless benefits has hit political turbulence after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed a reworked version but blocked Republicans from offering any changes.
The dispute threatened to stall the legislation, just days after it narrowly cleared a Senate hurdle.
“Indiana voters didn’t send me here to be told just to sit down and forget it,” said Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., complaining Republicans had been sidelined.
The original version of the bill was a three-month, $6 billion extension that was not paid for. Republicans objected, and Reid came back with a 10-month extension that was paid for.
But he then moved to block Republicans from offering amendments, going so far as to accuse Republicans of “continually denigrating our economy, our president and frankly, I believe, our country.”
Coats, who had earlier in the week helped advance the bill, expressed anger he hadn’t been consulted about changes in the legislation. By Thursday evening, most of the Republicans who had been on board with the plan earlier in the week signaled they’d be pulling their support.
The now-expired law provided a maximum 47 weeks of payments after an unemployed worker had used up state-funded benefits generally capped at 26 weeks.
The re-worked legislation reduces the 47 weeks to a maximum of 31 weeks, based on a sliding scale that dates to the expired program. Reducing the number of weeks would save about $8 billion, a Senate source told Fox News.
The first tier of additional benefits would be six weeks, and be generally available to all who have used up their state’s eligibility.
An additional six weeks would be available in states where unemployment is 6 percent or higher; an additional nine weeks in states with a joblessness rate of 7 percent or higher; and 10 or more weeks in states where unemployment is 9 percent or more.
The cost, which Republicans had issue with, would be offset in part by extending a previously-approved reduction in Medicare payments to providers. It would also be paid for by extending the sequester cuts to mandatory spending by another year, which would save around $17 billion.
Additional funding would come from limiting or eliminating the ability of people on Social Security disability from also receiving unemployment benefits, which the Senate source told Fox would save another $1 billion.
Senators from the two states — Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada — were central to the talks, and the White House was also being kept informed.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters that administration officials have indicated they would be satisfied with a deal that won the backing of Senate Democrats.
Another Senate vote is tentatively scheduled for next week.
Any legislation that clears the Senate would also have to pass the House, where Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he is only willing to consider an extension of the expired program that is fully paid for.
Calls to Boehner’s office Thursday by FoxNews.com were not immediately returned.

San Francisco environmentalist group wants global warming warning on gas pumps

Bailey comment: " Ever notice that our idiot politicians all across America use California as their role models".
First cigarettes, now gas pumps.
A group of San Francisco environmentalists want to remind drivers that refilling their cars with gas is leading to global warming by slapping a sticker on gas pumps similar to those you find on a carton of cigarettes, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
"The goal isn't to take transportation away from people and say, 'You're a bad person,'" Jamie Brooks, a member of the Bay Area chapter of 350.org, told the paper. "The goal is to create a signal saying, 'You need to change your behavior.'"
350.org is a group that seeks to build a global grassroots movement to "solve the climate crisis," according to its webpage, and the group made clear that the warning label fight is solely an initiative by the Bay Area branch.
The label's design is straightforward. It has white on black writing, topped off with "Warning" in bold on an orange background. The text reads, "The state of California has determined that global warming caused by greenhouse gases poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and the environment of California."
The Bay Area group is pitching the idea to local government. Gas station owners and oil companies would likely fight a ruling in favor of the warning labels.

Reid Overstates Reduction in Uninsured

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid incorrectly claimed that 9 million Americans “have health care that didn’t have it before” because of the Affordable Care Act. That figure includes an unknown number who previously had insurance but switched to a policy sold through the exchanges, plus an unknown number of Medicaid recipients who renewed their coverage.

 

Reid made the statement on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Jan. 5, saying:

Reid, Jan. 5: [R]ight now, as we speak, there are 9 million Americans … who have health care that didn’t have it before. We have, as you know, we have 3 million Medicare [Medicaid]. We have 3 million on their policies because they haven’t reached, they haven’t reached age 26. And we’ll have more than 2 million. They’re coming.

The 9 million figure includes three categories of Americans: 2.1 million who have selected plans on the federal or state insurance marketplaces, or exchanges; 3.9 million who were determined to be eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (higher than the 3 million figure Reid used); and an estimated 3.1 million young adults under the age of 26 who were able to join their parents’ policies as a result of the ACA.

But it’s wrong to assume, as Reid does, that all of those people were previously uninsured.
Let’s start with those who were uninsured. Some may consider the inclusion of the 3.1 million young adults an attempt to puff up the numbers after a slow, glitch-filled and, by any standard, unsuccessful launch of the exchanges last fall. After all, this provision of the law was implemented in September 2010. But this is the one estimate that’s made up exclusively of those gaining insurance. The estimate comes from the Department of Health and Human Services, which said in a June 2012 press release that the figure was based on the National Health Interview Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, which found an increase in the percentage of young adults (age 19 to 25) with insurance between September 2010 and December 2011. (Some among this estimate may well have gained coverage in another manner — other than being added to their parents’ plans — but the number does represent an increase in the insured in an age group directly affected by the law at the time.)

It’s the other two categories that include folks who did have health coverage before, contrary to Reid’s remarks.

The 2.1 million people who selected exchange plans include some who had insurance but switched to these marketplace plans, such as those whose insurers canceled specific plans or even pulled out of the individual insurance market altogether. And, as Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler pointed out, it even includes Reid, who, like other previously insured members of Congress are required to get their coverage through the exchanges, rather than the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they did before.
Then there’s the Medicaid estimate. Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, announced on Dec. 31 that 3.9 million “learned they’re eligible for coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in October and November.” She noted: “These numbers include new eligibility determinations and some Medicaid and CHIP renewals.”

So, some portion of that 3.9 million — a figure that comes from state reports — includes Americans who already had Medicaid or CHIP and are simply renewing, and it could include those who had insurance through another source and are now eligible for Medicaid. CMS doesn’t have such a breakdown on these Medicaid-eligible folks. The figure also includes those who were previously eligible for Medicaid (before the ACA) and are now signing up. Some of those previously eligible folks may not have been influenced by the law; others may have been prompted to seek coverage because of the individual mandate, or because they’ve heard so much about the health care law.

One last note: Americans buying their own insurance don’t have to go through the exchanges; they can buy directly from an insurance carrier. It’s possible some of the previously uninsured have done so, but we know of no estimate for that.

What we do know is that it’s incorrect to say, as Reid did, that the 9 million figure represents “Americans who have health care that didn’t have it before.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in 2014, due to the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured would decline by 14 million, with 7 million joining the exchanges, 9 million gaining Medicaid and CHIP, and 2 million fewer Americans getting coverage through the individual market. It remains to be seen how closely reality will track with those estimates.

– Lori Robertson

Rodman

Any other time or place this creep would have been put against a wall and shot. They use to call them traitors, but now the kids call them basketball stars.

Chamber of Commerce vows to fight ObamaCare employer mandate in 2014

The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed Wednesday to fight ObamaCare's so-called employer mandate and other "onerous" provisions in the year ahead, even as the pro-business group acknowledged the bill as a whole cannot be repealed in the current climate.
The agenda was outlined by Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue, in his annual Washington address. Though the law's requirement on mid-sized and large businesses to provide health coverage to workers was delayed by a year, Donohue said the Chamber still plans to lobby against that mandate in 2014.
“In 2014, we will work to repeal onerous health care taxes; repeal, delay, or change the employer mandate; and give companies and their employees more flexibility in the choice of health insurance plans,” Donohue said. He also cited immigration reform, entitlement reform and more domestic energy production as other major objectives.
“We’re not going to get rid of [the Affordable Care Act] so we’re going to have to find ways to make it work,” Donohue said afterward. “It’s a massive tax bill. It’s a massive rules-and-regulations system. And lots of people are worried about how they are going to get their health care.”
In his speech, Donohue said the health insurance cancellations that “swamped” the individual market last year are expected to hit the small business market even harder this year. And many firms are not hiring and are cutting workers’ hours because of the law’s mandates, he said -- despite claims by the Obama administration to the contrary.
Donohue deflected a question after the speech about how long of a delay he wants for the employer mandate, which requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to offer insurance, saying only that he was speaking in “broad terms.”
“We’ll delay what we have to delay,” he said. “Whatever we have to keep, we’ll keep.”
As further indication that the chamber doesn’t support the ObamaCare repeal effort by the Tea Party and others in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party, Donohue suggested those trying to extract spending cuts or other deals when negotiating over raising the federal debt ceiling “are not helping us.”
He also made clear the Chamber will support candidates in the 2014 elections who “want to work within the legislative process.”
Despite the Chamber’s apparent resignation to ObamaCare being here to stay, he said the group would “head to court to sue” if necessary to achieve its objectives on health care and other issues.
Donohue said the Chamber repeatedly warned Congress and the administration about ObamaCare’s many flaws and argued problems with the president’s signature law go beyond the rollout of the websites on which Americans buy insurance policies from private companies.
“The administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place, so the Chamber has been working pragmatically to fix those parts of ObamaCare that can be fixed,” he said. “Computers can be fixed.”

Obama's Supreme Court foe: Nuns who care for the elderly poor

For an administration seeking to win a skeptical public over to ObamaCare, the Justice Department could not have picked a more sympathetic foe for a Supreme Court fight than The Little Sisters of the Poor.
The administration is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by the non-profit, which does not meet ObamaCare's classification of a "religious employer"  because it hires and tends to people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds.
Supporters say The Little Sisters of the Poor epitomize service by caring for the elderly poor and those deemed "worthless" by society. In the United States, it runs 30 homes where hundreds of its employees provide nursing and end of life care.
"You know there's a lot of good Catholic organizations out there - the soup kitchens and the like," says Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, "But let's face it, when it comes right down to it in terms of one-on-one personal care, the work that the Little Sisters of the Poor are doing has no parallel."
Because it does not meet ObamaCare's definition of a "religious employer," lawyers for the Little Sisters of the Poor say the organization is not exempt from the contraceptive mandate in the health care law. That means it must provide the abortion pill to its employees - something that is strictly against its religious doctrine.
It is suing the administration to change that.
In an opposing brief to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department claims the Little Sisters are, in effect, exempt from the contraception mandate. The DOJ says the non-profit has the right to hire a third party to administer coverage and that by signing a simple two-page waiver, the Little Sisters can forego the mandate.
The brief says the Little Sisters are "under no legal obligation to provide the coverage after applicants certify that they object to providing it."
But lawyers for the Little Sisters doubt that. They cite other court papers in which the government has said it is considering other options to enforce the contraception mandate against churches and religious organizations.
Daniel Blomberg, an attorney for the Beckett Fund, which represents the Little Sisters  told Fox News, "The document on its face says when you receive this third party insurer, you have a legal duty to provide these drugs. Now, all the government is saying is, we can't enforce that legal duty. That'd be like the government saying, yeah, the speed limit is 55, but we don't have any police officers who can catch this particular type of vehicle right now."
If the Little Sisters don't sign the waiver, the organization could potentially be fined $4.5 million a year - about a third of its budget.
Last week Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary injunction preventing the government from enforcing the contraception mandate against the Little Sisters, while it is contested in lower courts. She can extend the injunction herself, or refer it to the whole court for arguments and then a decision would be likely in June.

ObamaCare subsidy for Congress

Sen. Ron Johnson told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Monday he decided to sue the Obama administration over the subsidy for lawmakers in the president’s health care law because it is unfair to give members of Congress special treatment.
Johnson, R-Wis., said the subsidy creates a double standard that favors members of Congress and their staff over other Americans, and should be eliminated.
“It’s a matter of basic fairness,” Johnson said. “It’s also a matter of standing up, ensuring that we actually enforce the rule of law because, let’s face it, this president across the board is pretty well just ignoring his ignoring his constitutional duty,  his oath of office to faithfully execute the law.”
Johnson said Congress has tried the legislative route to getting rid of the subsidy, such as amendments in the House and the Senate, but they failed. Johnson said since lawmakers exhausted all their legislative options, they must turn to the courts.
Johnson also said he hopes getting rid of the subsidy will show Democrats the reality of ObamaCare.
“The only way they are going to start changing this law, the only way they are going to start repairing and limiting the damage is if they feel the full, harsh realities of the law and that’s another thing this lawsuit would actually accomplish,” he said.

global warming?