Recordpub.com - Health bill gets liberal support

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's much-challenged health care overhaul gained traction Wednesday as a liberal lawmaker became the first to switch his opposition.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, long a supporter of Medicare-for-all, voted against the House Democratic bill in November because it did not go far enough in creating a robust government plan to compete with private insurance.

But Kucinich said Wednesday that the bill coming before the House represents the best chance to expand coverage to the uninsured, even if it does not include a public plan.

At a Capitol Hill news conference, Kucinich said his decision was a combination of pragmatism and concern about the impact that defeat of the health care bill would have on Obama's presidency.

"You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate," said Kucinich. "Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."

Kucinich said he'd met with Obama four times to discuss the health overhaul, most recently on Monday when he flew back to Ohio with the president aboard Air Force One. Obama called Kucinich's decision "a good sign."

At stake is a bill that would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with a pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide. The comprehensive legislation could affect nearly every American, from those undergoing annual checkups to people facing major surgery.

Democratic leaders hope to vote this weekend.

Meanwhile, in a rare public disagreement that will reverberate among the nation's 70 million Catholics, leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. Expected to come before the House by this weekend, the measure contains abortion funding restrictions that the bishops say don't go far enough.

"Despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions," said the letter signed by 60 leaders of women's religious orders. "It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments ... in support of pregnant women. This is the real pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee have denounced the bill as a backdoor subsidy for abortion. But the nuns and the Catholic Health Association -- representing some 600 hospitals -- say restrictions in the Senate bill would still prevent taxpayer funding for abortion, although the legal mechanism for doing so is different from what the bishops prefer.

"This is politics; this isn't a question of faith and morals," said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a national Catholic social activism lobby. "We are the ones who work every day with people who are suffering because they don't have health care. We cannot turn our backs on them, so for us, health care reform is a faith-based response to human need."

Another sign of a rift among abortion opponents emerged as Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., announced his support for the bill. Kildee was among the anti-abortion Democrats who backed a Michigan Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak, in forcing tough restrictions on the original House-passed bill.

Kildee said in a statement Wednesday that after careful study, he's concluded the Senate bill would also bar federal funding for abortion -- while saving lives by providing coverage to those now uninsured. "Voting for this bill in no way diminishes my pro-life voting record or undermines my beliefs," he said. "I am a staunch pro-life member of Congress, both for the born and the unborn."

Another anti-abortion Democrat who voted against the House legislation in November said the nuns' support for the Senate bill is factoring into his decision-making. Freshman Rep. John Boccieri of Ohio said Wednesday he remains undecided, and wants to see cost estimates and detailed language before making up his mind.

He's been bombarded with phone calls, e-mails, television ads and more from both sides of the issue -- including private planes circling the skies over his district pulling signs. "They've laid our office under siege," said Boccieri. "We can't even get to the business of the day."

Wednesday's developments heartened House Democratic leaders, who are still short of the 216 votes they need.

Leaders have embarked on a two-step approach that requires the House to approve the measure passed by the Senate, despite misgivings on key provisions. Then both chambers would quickly pass a second bill making several changes to the first. In the Senate, that vote would come under rules that keep Republicans from using the filibuster to hold up the bill.

Some House members are wary about the Senate keeping its end of the deal.

"The House wants assurances, and we intend to give them assurances," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

One possibility discussed is a letter signaling that 51 senators support the second bill.

------

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

1.	Posted by AMT March 18, 2010
	The Health-Care Wars Are Only Beginning The president's health plan won't solve a problem. It will be the start of bitter fights over funding and policy that will consume the nation for decades to come. By FRED BARNES MARCH 18, 2010 On Dec. 7, 1941, an announcement was made during the football game between the hometown Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. All the generals and admirals at Griffith Stadium were instructed to report to their duty stations. Little did they know their lives would be changed forever and America would be at war, or on war footing, for the next half-century. Pearl Harbor had been attacked. America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn't end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead. We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service"socialized medicine"was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It's been a contentious issue ever since. Its cost and coverage are perennial subjects of debate. The press, especially England's most popular newspaper, The Daily Mail, feasts on reports of long waiting periods, dirty hospitals, botched care and denied access to treatments. A Conservative member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, last year in an interview on Fox News denounced the NHS as a "60-year mistake," declaring he "wouldn't wish it on anybody." As prime minister, Margaret Thatcher bravely cut NHS spending in the 1980s, but current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky. "The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS," its leader, David Cameron, said in response to Mr. Hannan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes ObamaCare would have a more congenial fate"that it will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare with voters. She's kidding herself. Social Security and Medicare were popular from the start and passed with bipartisan support. ObamaCare is unpopular and partisan. It's extremely controversial. Its passage is far more likely to spark a political explosion than a wave of acceptance. Democratic leaders believe the public doesn't focus on the process of how legislation is enacted. But in this case they're wrong. I've been amazed at how many people understand "reconciliation""a process that allows budget and spending bills to pass in the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of 60. Many voters are also now studying the details of the "Slaughter solution," which would allow the House to "deem" the Senate health-care bill to have passed without actually voting on it and then to vote through changes to the Senate bill. These legislative shortcuts are already infuriating ObamaCare's opponents. If ObamaCare passes, sooner or later the backlash against it would morph into a movement to repeal it. Republicans would likely make repeal a top issue in congressional elections this November. The GOP is expected to win a substantial number of seats in Congress this fall. If Republicans take control of the House or Senate or both, clashes over health care would be unavoidable. Assuming it passes, ObamaCare wouldn't go into effect fully until 2013. This fact alone would make the health-care plan a paramount issue in the 2012 presidential race, regardless of whether Mr. Obama is on the ballot. As long as he's president, Mr. Obama would surely veto legislation to repeal or gut ObamaCare. With a Republican in the White House things would be different. Republicans might be successful in dismantling the program. But Democrats wouldn't give up. Having gone to great lengths to enact ObamaCare, they'd go all out to protect it or revive it. Mrs. Pelosi is already talking about expanding ObamaCare. She favors adding a "public option" to compete with private insurers. "Once we kick through this door [and pass it], there'll be more legislation to follow," she told liberal bloggers on Monday. So the struggle would go on and on. If you think the fights over funding of Medicare and Medicaid in recent years have been unpleasant, wait until the funding battles over ObamaCare start. It's all but inevitable that they would occur every year given the way Mr. Obama has proposed to finance his health-care program. ObamaCare low-balls its cost and exaggerates the means for paying for it. "Our proposal is paid for," the president insisted in a speech in Ohio on Monday. It's not. The financing includes billions that are obligated elsewhere. It claims to cut the budget deficit by $118 billion but achieves this by borrowing hundreds of billions more. At the same time, Mr. Obama's plan offers a cornucopia of new benefits: free preventive care, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, guaranteed issue, no lifetime or annual benefit caps, and subsidies for insuring 30 million people now uninsured. All of this would increase the use of health-care services. The tendency is to underestimate just how large this increase might be. This was true with Medicare and Medicaid, whose costs have ballooned far beyond initial projections. The annual struggles in Congress over funding for ObamaCare would be intense. The courts would also get involved. In anticipation of passage of the president's health-care plan, three states"Virginia, Idaho and Utah"have passed laws to nullify ObamaCare's mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Other states are expected to follow suit. Arizona voters will decide the matter in a referendum in November. Ultimately, federal judges would decide if these state laws are constitutional. Other issues would also end up in court. That includes the constitutionality of the process that Democrats used to pass ObamaCare. We could expect years of litigation. Enacting ObamaCare would be only the beginning. The controversy surrounding its passage and how it might work would preoccupy the president, Congress and millions of average Americans for the foreseeable future"and then some. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704743404575127540906168462.html