Republicans Attack Size of House Health Care Bill

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Republican House leader John Boehner, appearing on Fox News today, criticized the House health care legislation released Thursday as a bloated bill that his office claims will "raise the cost of health insurance for most American families, kill jobs with new tax increases and new mandates, and cut seniors' Medicare benefits."

"All you need to know is there are 1,990 pages," Boehner said. "That should tell you everything."

It should be noted that spending bills routinely exceed 1,000 pages, as do some other bills. President Bush's 2007 budget bill was 1,482 pages long.

"It's not just the public option that will drive private health companies out of business," Boehner said on Fox, according to a transcript provided by his office. "It's the over 50 new agencies, commissions, mandates that will raise the cost of health insurance for all Americans, it's going to be immensely expensive at a time when we're broke, and thirdly, half a $1 trillion cuts to Medicare."

Republicans have been beating the drum about the size of the bill, which runs about 400,000 words. A Boehner-penned op-ed in the Dallas Morning News Wednesday called for steps to be taken to make it easier for Americans to read the bill and warned of "Massive bills unveiled in the dark of night and rushed to a vote before anyone in America could possibly know the details."

CNN's Jack Cafferty - not, it should be pointed out, a conservative - made a pointed comparison to past bills, noting that the "original draft of the 1935 Economic Security Act, which established the Social Security Administration, was 64 pages."

On the Hill, meanwhile, legislators joked about the prospect of getting through the bill, which is not just long but full of language that could charitably be called challenging, as Politico reports. (A sample: "(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting "(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)" after "1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting "(but not below 0)" after "reduced"; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting "and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)".)

"It's one thing to read it," Republican Rep. Lee Terry said. "It's another thing to understand it when it's written in legalese." (Terry, by the way, is a lawyer.)

Democrats countered that the bill hadn't changed much from earlier versions passed by committees and said nearly every aspect of it had been debated on the floor. But conservatives are having fun going after the size of the legislation; Fox News' Neil Cavuto brought a speed reader on his show to go through it for viewers.

"It's longer than 'War and Peace,'" columnist S.E. Cupp said on Sean Hannity's show. "It's longer than 'Atlas Shrugged.' And it's longer than 'Les Mis.'"

"Nineteen hundred pages," said Hannity. "That — if you can't put this down in 30 pages or less, it proves that this is a complicated, you know, bunch of bureaucratic garbage."

[DMarlin0531]

[e-mail]
October 31, 2009 1:24 PM EDT

Send this letter to your email contacts
Put your elected representatives' phone numbers on your speed dials and cell phone address books. You can get their phone numbers at House.gov and Senate.gov.

Step 2. Tell the receptionist you are a constituent, and you want the congressperson to support your issue.

Then have everybody read revise and send this letter to
your State Representatives
at this address
[e-mail]

Dear Representative:
What are you guys doing for "THE PEOPLE"?
According to News Sources you are passing laws to give Hospital
Corporations and Insurance Companies more profit.
In addition to bailing out banks and manufacturers, we "the taxpayers" now
get FINED???? for being unable to afford health insurance?

What are you thinking when you say "hardship exemption" in this bill? Isn't 1000 dollar fine a hardship for any working family???
What happened to the public option? Did the insurance company and medical corps bribe you out of giving the general public some much needed assistance???


RE: News Reports:
...Individuals under the $829 billion Senate Finance Committee plan would be required to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750.
...The House bill imposes a more stringent fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

...stripping insurance companies of an anti-trust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.

...pushing leaders to add stronger language prohibiting the use of federal money to pay for abortions under new health care reforms.

...aides admit they still need to find compromise wording on abortion, but they are confident the issue will be resolved by the time the bill gets to the floor.

[DMarlin0531]

Send this letter to your email contacts
Put your elected representatives' phone numbers on your speed dials and cell phone address books. You can get their phone numbers at House.gov and Senate.gov.

Step 2. Tell the receptionist you are a constituent, and you want the congressperson to support your issue.

Then have everybody read revise and send this letter to
your State Representatives
at this address
[e-mail]

Dear Representative:
What are you guys doing for "THE PEOPLE"?
According to News Sources you are passing laws to give Hospital
Corporations and Insurance Companies more profit.
In addition to bailing out banks and manufacturers, we "the taxpayers" now
get FINED???? for being unable to afford health insurance?

What are you thinking when you say "hardship exemption" in this bill? Isn't 1000 dollar fine a hardship for any working family???
What happened to the public option? Did the insurance company and medical corps bribe you out of giving the general public some much needed assistance???


RE: News Reports:
...Individuals under the $829 billion Senate Finance Committee plan would be required to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750.
...The House bill imposes a more stringent fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual's income. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

...stripping insurance companies of an anti-trust exemption that has been in place since the end of World War II.

...pushing leaders to add stronger language prohibiting the use of federal money to pay for abortions under new health care reforms.

...aides admit they still need to find compromise wording on abortion, but they are confident the issue will be resolved by the time the bill gets to the floor.

[Don322]

Let's see if I have this straight: Republicans haven't had nearly enough time to read the bill, nor to find someone to read the big words to them, and therefore -- that and the fact that they get their news exclusively from FOX -- they can't possibly have any idea what's in the bill. But they're sure they're against it and that it will ruin the country. Such revealing candor is refreshing in these cynical times.

[velma179]

The bill is NOT longer than "War and Peace"... a novel written in that format. A novel is single spaced with slim margins, each page has approximately four paragraphs.

Legislation is written with headings, notations, subsets and with wide margins and double (or sometimes triple) spacing.

If this legislation was a novel, it would be approximately 400 pages.

Sure, legislation is difficult to read... it's LAW making, not entertainment.

If this was the FIRST legislation that was ever long and/or written in difficult legalese -- making this an issue would be appropriate, but it isn't. Anyone read the Constitution? It's not extremely long, but it is definitely written in the language of the law.


Republican Complaint Department. Next...

[RandomUser1886]

Here's a wonderful gift in Obamacare from Peloozi to the Trial Lawyers:

Section 2531, entitled ?Medical Liability Alternatives,? establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]?? a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys? fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, basically what it's saying is that states can seek alternatives to keep medical litigation down, but if they actually do something to limit medical litigation, they can't participate.

More brilliance from the Obamatons.

[TiredDem]

Please help me with this. I have, so far, found what looks to me to be two very big problems with this new Health care Reform bill (found at: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf ). The first is that it appears to cover children born to illegal immigrants. Look at:

pg 188
20 (d) COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NEWBORNS UNDER
21 MEDICAID.?
22 (1) IN GENERAL.?In the case of a child born
23 in the United States who at the time of birth is not
24 otherwise covered under acceptable coverage, for the
25 period of time beginning on the date of birth and
pg 189
1 ending on the date the child otherwise is covered
2 under acceptable coverage (or, if earlier, the end of
3 the month in which the 60-day period, beginning on
4 the date of birth, ends), the child shall be deemed?
5 (A) to be a Medicaid eligible individual for
6 purposes of this division and Medicaid; and
7 (B) to be automatically enrolled in Med
8 icaid as a traditional Medicaid eligible indi
9 vidual (as defined in section 1943(c) of the So
10 cial Security Act).

I see no provision that excludes children born to people who are not citizens or legal immigrants of the United States.

Second, it appears to me that the penalties for people without adequate health insurance will include a person who does not carry Family Rate coverage to insure a "child" that is under the age of 27 and otherwise uninsured. This means that you will be penalized (I believe it says up to 2.5% of your income) if you have a deadbeat 25 year old son or daughter and do not provide health insurance coverage for them.

pg 298

4 ??(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
5 FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.?In the
6 case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the
7 requirements of subsection (d) with respect
8 to more than one individual during the tax
9 able year, clause (i) shall be applied by
10 substituting ?family coverage? for ?self-only
11 coverage?.

Please read these sections and help me figure out if I am misunderstanding the proposed law or if someone is trying to pull a "fast one" on all of taxpayers.

[velma179]

by TiredDem October 30, 2009 3:24 PM EDT

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution gives [almost] all persons born on US soil immediate US citizenship according to the principle of jus solis. This is established without regard to the status of the parents.

It is "almost all" because children born to foreign dignitaries or diplomats are not included in the jus solis principle.

***

On your second question -- I guess you are indeed misunderstanding the proposed law. Sorry, I don't have time to read the entire section (taking things out of context in this type of document often results in misunderstanding the intent) -- but we do know that a person reaches adulthood by the age of eighteen in all states. It doesn't seem logical to demand parents to cover adult children.

[TiredDem]

I do not favor automatic enrollment in Medicaid for the children of illegal immigrants in the United States. I agree that medical care should not be denied when needed by anyone, however, I feel that they should be assisted with returning to their country of origin upon recovery if in the country illegally. The provision that the children are to remain enrolled in Medicaid until another source of health coverage is provided nearly ensures that they will be a welfare recipient into adulthood; their parents will not be providing coverage under an employee health policy, that's for certain.

Assuredly this is a difficult situation. But in the end the United States can not afford to to make it any easier for people willing to enter and remain in the country illegally.