Mediaboss Marketing

Congratulation, Montana GOP! Once again we are the subject of national news as we look like idiots to the rest of the world.

Do you suppose that people wonder about the sanity of a Republican House representative and a Republican Senate member proposing a mail-in ballot for the upcoming election for state representative to save the counties $750,000, only to have Jeff Essmann, GOP chair, say no dice because more people might vote? Do we need a sanity test, Republicans?

Let me see if I understand this. The clerks of every county begged their representatives in Helena to find a way to keep the counties from spending money that they don't have. Two sane people came up with a bill to save our bacon and yet Essmann is so frightened about the current atmosphere and the anger of the citizens of this state that he is bullying the sane members of his party to dump a bipartisan bill.

If you thought we were angry and outspoken before, try pulling this bull puckie. Our country is in peril. When will the patriots of this state stand up and put country before party and stop this insane action? Shame on you, Essmann! Shame on the Republican Party for raising taxes on seniors to try to keep your party in a power position, if they allow this bully to toss this bill.

Read more:
Republicans may need sanity test - The Missoulian

MADISON, Wis. Republican lawmakers want to prohibit University of Wisconsin employees from performing abortions or providing training at facilities where abortions are performed, other than hospitals.

Rep. Andre Jacque and Sen. Chris Kapenga are circulating a bill targeting an arrangement between Planned Parenthood and the University of Wisconsin in which faculty members work part-time at the organization's Madison clinic.

"The university has been acting as a contractor for Planned Parenthood," Jacque said. "That is not the role of the government."

Agreements between a handful of physicians from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin have been in place since 2008. Under the current agreement, which has been in place since 2012, physicians provide family planning, disease screening and surgery services including abortions to patients in exchange for an hourly fee of $150. The agreement estimates 16 to 20 hours of services will be provided per week.

Lisa Brunette, a spokeswoman for UW Health, said fewer than 10 faculty members provide services at Planned Parenthood. She said obstetrics-gynecology medical residents receive abortion training at the clinic. National guidelines require the school to offer such training, but residents can opt out.

The school "will vigorously defend its commitment to train medical residents in all specialties, including ob-gyn," she said.

Spokeswomen for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin did not immediately respond to several questions submitted to them.

The Planned Parenthood clinics in Madison and Milwaukee are the organization's only two Wisconsin clinics that still perform abortions. These two clinics perform about 3,400 abortions combined each year.

Under current state law, government funds cannot be used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is endangered. This proposal would also include those exceptions.

A handful of other bills proposed this session involve abortions. One GOP proposal introduced last month would ban the sale of fetal tissue, which Republicans have been trying to do for years. But Jacque and others who are staunchly anti-abortion have said the proposal would be ineffective because it essentially duplicates federal law. Support for a version Jacque introduced last session fizzled after researchers argued it could hurt potentially life-saving research. At least two other fetal tissue bills are still in the works.

Another GOP proposal this session would prohibit the state's insurance board from covering abortions for state workers and state annuitant retirees.

Democrats have proposed two measures that would protect access to abortions.

Read the original post:
Republicans target faculty's deal with Planned Parenthood - Minneapolis Star Tribune

By Topher Spiro By Topher Spiro March 3 at 6:00 AM Topher Spiro is the vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress and a former staffer to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

At a news conference, March 2, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spoke about Republican lawmakers' plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. (Reuters)

Public opinion about the Affordable Care Act is consistently favorable and on an upswing. Faced with the prospect of repeal, crowds of constituents are confronting lawmakers across the country to express their anguish in town halls. But still, Republicans are rushing to rip apart the health insurance coverage that millions of people depend on.

That rush is a particularly bitter irony for anyone who, like me, worked on writing the ACA originally. Republicans accused Democrats eight years ago of drafting the health-care law in secret, despite dozens of public hearings and work sessions. But now its their own process that is highly secretive, with U.S. Capitol Police guarding a basement room where the draft legislation is kept hidden from voters, the news media and even members of Congress.

The GOP tried to use one quote in particular to drive itsmessage back then. In 2010, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. What Pelosi meant was that people would realize the benefits of the law once they became tangible which is exactly what polling shows has happened. But Republicans spun and truncated the quote to suggest that Democrats were hiding something.

In fact, the process to enact the Affordable Care Act was thorough and transparent. I was there for the whole thing, as a Democratic staffer for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

[Bernie Sanders: If Trump doesnt rescue Obamacare, he must admit hes a liar]

In the House, Democrats held a series of public hearings before introducing a public discussion draft in June 2009. The House then held more public hearings before introducing new legislative text in July. All three relevant committees held markups committee work sessions to amend the legislation and the full House vote on the amended legislation did not take place until November.

In the Senate, the HELP Committee held 14 bipartisan roundtables and 13 public hearings in 2008 and 2009. During the committees markup in June 2009, Democrats accepted more than 160 Republican amendments to the bill.

Beginning in May 2008 20 months before the Senate vote and six months before Barack Obama, who would later sign the bill into law, was even elected president the Senate Finance Committee held 17 public roundtables, summits and hearings. In 2009, Democrats met and negotiated with three Republicans for several months before the tea party protests caused the GOP to back away from negotiations. The Finance Committee held its markup in September, and the full Senate vote did not take place until December.

In both the House and the Senate, scores by the independent Congressional Budget Office were available before each vote at each stage of the process. These scores are estimates of the effects of legislation on the budget and on the number of people who would be covered by health insurance.

Thats not remotely like whats happening in Washington now. Its Republicans who are rushing to jam through their legislation to repeal the law in a highly secretive process. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said this week on NBCs Today show, Were not hatching some bill in a back room and plopping it on the American peoples front door. In fact, thats exactly what theyre doing.

Only Republicans can see the bill text before the markup next week, and its only on view in a basement next to the Capitol. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was denied entry into the room Thursday when he tried to go read the bill. Worse, Republicans plan to mark up the proposal and take a vote without having a score from the CBO which means no one will know what repealing the law will do to people who are covered under the ACA until after the committee votes on it.

[Why Trump is already waffling on Obamacare]

Republicans have held no public hearings on their restructuring ideas. They do not plan to have any committee markups in the Senate. Legislation is still not public one month from the planned vote in the Senate. And needless to say, Republicans made no attempt to conduct a bipartisan discussion about improving the Affordable Care Act instead of abolishing it.

Democrats used a special budget procedure known as reconciliation which can be used to avoid a filibuster to make tweaks to the Affordable Care Act after final passage. Now Republicans are using that very same procedure but right away, at the beginning of the legislative process, and to make radical changes.

Its true that some behind-the-scenes negotiation, discussion and drafting is part of every legislative process including the process to enact the ACA. But in that case, versions of bill text and their CBO scores were publicly available for many months before the final vote. An extended public debate took place for more than a year. Whats truly remarkable now is that the entire process has been behind closed doors.

Theres a reason, of course, why Republicans want to hide their bill and its effects: Under every iteration of their plan, deep cuts to Medicaid and much lower tax credits for private insurance would cause millions of people to lose their coverage.

Republicans are making their members walk the plank with blindfolds on because they have no other choice. They promised, over and over again, to repeal the ACA, and now theyre going to try to do it no matter how. Their internal divisions are rampant and grow by the day. This is no way in a democracy to consider and shape legislation affecting tens of millions of people with many lives hanging in the balance.

And ultimately, what was false about the Affordable Care Act is true about the secret basement bill: They have to pass the bill to find out whats in it.

View post:
We won't know what's in the Republican health-care repeal plan until they pass it - Washington Post

Photo: Michael Short, Special To The Chronicle

Assemblywoman Catharine Baker listens to state Sen. Steve Glazer at the town hall.

Assemblywoman Catharine Baker listens to state Sen. Steve Glazer at the town hall.

Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, right, speaks alongside Senator Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, during a joint town hall meeting held at City Hall in San Ramon, CA, on Thursday March 2, 2017.

Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, right, speaks alongside Senator Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, during a joint town hall meeting held at City Hall in San Ramon, CA, on Thursday March 2, 2017.

Senator Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, left, speaks during a joint town hall meeting held with Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, at City Hall in San Ramon, CA, on Thursday March 2, 2017.

Senator Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, left, speaks during a joint town hall meeting held with Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, at City Hall in San Ramon, CA, on Thursday March 2, 2017.

At East Bay town hall, Democrats and Republicans get along

State Assemblywoman Catharine Baker is a rare bird: a living, breathing Bay Area Republican elected representative in a sea of Democratic blue.

So at a time when town halls hosted by GOP politicians around the country have become the go-to venue for unleashing fury on the Trump administration and its policies, you would think that a Baker town hall would attract at least a bit of that wrath and protest.

But that was not the case at San Ramon City Hall on Thursday night.

In a display of bipartisan civility not seen much these days, Baker, the Republican from San Ramon, and Democratic State Sen. Steve Glazer of Orinda joined forces to give their Tri Valley constituency the latest news from the state Capitol. With more than 300 people in attendance half of them watching on a screen in the buildings rotunda the political odd couple of Contra Costa County talked about higher education, infrastructure, transportation, water storage, transgender rights, BART, high speed rail, health care and DNA testing.

What they didnt talk about, at least directly, was the man who could have a dramatic impact on all those issues: President Trump. Baker said that while attendance at her town hall meetings has doubled since Trump was elected, her constituents dont seem to hold her responsible for what comes out of Trumps mouth and administration.

I dont think you saw any of that here, Baker said afterwards. The real focus here is on exactly what it should be: what should we be doing, regardless of party, to improve the lives of people in this community. Its not are you toeing the line? What does your party say about this or that?

Republicans, with the exception of Baker, have not done well in the Bay Area over the last decade. The state Senate has 27 Democrats and 13 Republicans, but no Republicans from the Bay Area. The Assembly is made up of 55 Democrats and 25 Republicans, and only one, Baker, is from the Bay Area. None of the 14 California Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives is from the Bay Area.

And even in her own district, Baker is a minority. Republicans make up just 31 percent of her 16th Assembly District, compared with 39 percent Democrats. Trump got trounced in Contra Costa County, which covers much of the district, garnering 24.5 percent of the vote, compared with 67.5 for Hillary Clinton.

It might have helped that Baker did not endorse Trump and condemned him after audio tapes surfaced in which the president was heard bragging that he forces himself on women. I took a stand early and publicly not to support Donald Trump, and it lost me supporters, she said at the time. The most recent revelations of his taped statements about women re-affirm my stance not to vote for Trump. As a mother and a woman, I find his statements disgusting.

But while Glazer and Baker have different party affiliations, they agree on most things. Of the 1,210 bills that made it to both the Assembly and Senate for votes in 2016, Glazer and Baker voted the same 88 percent of the time. They both are unpopular with teachers unions because they support charter schools. They are both on the outs with BART workers because they think public transportation workers, like police officers and firefighters, should not be able to go out on strike.

Transit is an essential service its not a luxury, said Glazer at the town hall.

They both said they want infrastructure investment, but not waste. They both said high speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles is a waste of money. They both back Bakers legislation that would ensure that BART bond money is spent on system capital improvements, not administrative costs.

If we are taking money from you in the name of transportation, it needs to go to roads and infrastructure, Baker told the audience.

Perhaps out of politeness, audience members seemed to tread lightly around Bakers affiliation with the party of Trump. She was asked about the likely dismantling of the Environmental Protection Agencys greenhouse gas reduction efforts by new EPA head Scott Pruitt.

I was one of the only members of my party to support climate change and greenhouse gas reductions standards, she said. We need to blaze ahead ourselves as best we can.

In another break with the Trump administration, Baker also said she supports the right of transgender people to use whatever public facilities they feel comfortable using.

Several attendees showed up with signs that revealed their anti-Trump positions. Peggy Kroll of Danville had a sign saying Invest In People Not Jails. Connie Chilba of Moraga held a sign in support of Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, which would prevent local and state public resources from aiding federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement in deportation actions.

Chilba said she was very concerned about the hate and fear we are living under and appreciated the bipartisanship Glazer and Baker had on display. This kind of reaching across the aisle is an example for the rest of the county.

The joint town hall was the eighth in a series, and Glazer said they would keep doing them.

Our political world is getting pretty polarized, said Glazer. It seems like people are getting in their corners and are more interested in fighting than finding common ground.

J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @SFJKDineen

Read this article:
At East Bay town hall, Democrats and Republicans get along - SFGate

House Republican leaders feel so good about their bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act that theyre trying to hide it from public scrutiny until the last possible minute.

Bloomberg Politics and the Washington Examiner on Wednesday reported that GOP leaders are putting the finishing touches on the legislation, and are ready to show their colleagues what its going to look like. Nothing is quite final, but the tentative plan is to have the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of three House panels with jurisdiction, consider the proposal next Wednesday. If the committee signs off, it would be a major step toward legislation passing in the full House and, eventually, enactment of a law wiping the 2010 health care law off the books.

For now, according to Bloomberg, leaders are planning to make the bill available only to committee members, who will have to view a printout in a dedicated reading room. No copies will be allowed out of the room.

Committee rules call for making legislation public no less than three calendar days before hearings, which means that Republicans will have to post a version by 11:59 p.m. on Monday if they want markup to start sometime on Wednesday. But Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), who sits on the committee, told Bloomberg that the vote might take place before the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation get a chance to produce formal estimates of the bills effects on insurance coverage and the federal budget.

It looks like, unfortunately, based on the delays, we may be marking it up and voting on it before we have a score, Collins said.

Unfortunate thats one way to put it. More than 20 million people now depend on the Affordable Care Act for coverage. Many more people are affected by regulations or taxes that the law introduced. It seems unconscionable to vote to strip away health care insurance for twenty million people without knowing how many would (or wouldnt) be covered under a new GOP plan, Sarah Binder, a George Washington University professor and expert on Congress, told The Huffington Post in an email. Norm Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, suggested that marking up legislation without those formal assessments would be reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible.

Not to mention ironic.Conservative mythology holds that Democrats wrote the Affordable Care Act in secret, ramming it through Congress before anybody understood what was in it even though in reality, Democrats spent over a year litigating their proposal through committee hearings and floor debates, with CBO and JCT analyzing proposals every step of the way. Just this week, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, while appearing on NBCs Today show, that were not writing some bill in the back room... like Obamacare was written.

Republicans may have good reason to keep their plans under wraps for as long as possible. For seven years, theyve been saying they could come up with an alternative to the law that would cover as many or more people, with better insurance, all at lower cost. But an earlier, draft version of the legislation that leaked to Politico a week ago offered a glimpse of what they actually have in mind.

That bill called for rescinding the laws expansion of Medicaid eligibility, and then transforming the whole program so that the federal government would no longer guarantee a level of insurance benefits for every person who qualifies. The proposal would have continued to make financial assistance available to people who buy private coverage on their own but, critically, it would have delivered the assistance in a different way, with aid shifting away from the poor and the old and toward the rich and the young. Amid all of this, the bill would have rolled back regulations designed to make insurance plans more comprehensive and more widely available.

A series of assessments of the proposal and its predecessors all yielded the same conclusion. Some people would be better off, primarily because theyd get new tax breaks or lower insurance premiums assuming they were healthy enough not to worry about medical bills. But many millions who now have coverage would lose it, and even many of the people whose premiums would fall would end up facing substantially higher out-of-pocket expenses.

One finding in particular might help clarify what exactly Republicans are proposing to do. It comes from a study by economist Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. Using an earlier version of Republican legislation, Blumberg decided to figure out what kind of insurance a low-income person using the new Republican tax credits could actually buy on the market, assuming that person had no extra money for premiums. She found that, among the oldest consumers buying plans, the tax credits in the bill could pay for only a very skimpy policy one that, for a single person, came with a deductible of $25,000, covered only generic drugs and excluded such services as mental health and rehabilitative services.

Its an extreme example, and the bill that Blumberg analyzed was less generous than the one that got all the attention last week. But, tellingly, that new bill provoked protests from leaders of the House Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee not because its assistance was inadequate but because, in their view, it was too generous. In particular, these Republicans were upset that the financial aid in the proposal came in the form of refundable credits, which means people too poor to pay income taxes still would get the money.

Several of these House Republicans, along with some allies in the Senate, vowed to vote against any bill with refundable credits. This has been the major legislative drama of the past few days, and its anybodys guess whether the hard-liners are serious about blocking leaderships bill even if that means blowing up the whole repeal effort or whether theyre merely posturing in order to please their supporters, and perhaps gain leverage for future negotiations. The new bill presumably takes into account the conservative objections, one way or another.

Regardless, its worth recognizing just where on the political spectrum this debate is now happening. Its an argument between between conservatives and extreme conservatives, over whether a proposal that would strip health insurance from millions of Americans goes far enough.

But neither sides vision sounds a lot like better health care, which is what President Donald Trump and many GOP leaders have been promising they would deliver.

Clarification: Languagehas been amended to more accurately reflect Bloombergs report on plans for legislators to view the bill.

Want more updates on policy & politics from Jonathan Cohn? Sign up for his newsletter, Citizen Cohn, here.

Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how its all made. Click here to sign up!

View original post here:
Now Republicans Are Keeping Their Obamacare Plans A Secret - Huffington Post