Study: Senate Health Bill Brings No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums

The Senate health care bill looks better and better every day, and Republican objections ring more and more hollow.

From the New York Times:

The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.

The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans.

Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point.

Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.

We are on the verge of historic health care reform in the United States.

Keep the fire burning.

More here.

Senate Begins Historic Health Care Reform Debate

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the Associated Press has an opinion on the health care reform debate that began today in Congress.

From the AP, via Yahoo! News:

Riven by partisanship, the Senate plunged into a widely anticipated debate Monday over sweeping health care legislation that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to approve and Republicans have sworn to block.

Debate is expected to last for weeks over the legislation, which includes a first-time requirement for most Americans to carry insurance and a mandate for insurers to cover any paying customer regardless ofmedical history or condition.

"We must avoid the temptation to drown in distractions and distortions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in the first moments of the first speech, a jab at Republicans that was reciprocated minutes later.

"Well, I don’t know what’s more preposterous: saying that this plan ‘saves Medicare’ or thinking that people will actually believe you," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said of Reid’s oft-made statement.

At a cost of nearly $1 trillion, the legislation is designed to extend health care to millions of American who lack it, abolish insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and cut back on the rise of health care spending overall.

Despite its huge price tag, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2,074-page bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade. In all, CBO said 31 million uninsured individuals would receive insurance if the bill were enacted, many of them assisted by federal subsidies. As much as 94 percent of the eligible population would wind up covered. The legislation would be paid for through a combination of cuts in projected Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers, a payroll tax on the wealthy and taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers, owners of high-cost insurance and others.

Mitch McConnell is being completely disingenuine. The Republicans have been working to dismantle Medicare for years. The best news is from the Congressional Budget Office. The plan is fiscally sound.

And I don’t want to hear any more Republicans screaming about having to read a 2,074-page bill. Grow up. You wanted to go to Washington. Now read.

Huckabee Granted Clemency to Suspect in Wash State Quadruple Cop Killer Case

From The Seattle Times:

Maurice Clemmons, the 37-year-old Tacoma man being sought for questioning in the killing this morning of four Lakewood police officers, has a long criminal record punctuated by violence, erratic behavior and concerns about his mental health.

Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors.

"This is the day I’ve been dreading for a long time," Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas’ Pulaski County said tonight when informed that Clemmons was being sought for questioning in connection with the killings.

Clemmons’ criminal history includes at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington. The record also stands out for the number of times he has been released from custody despite questions about the danger he posed.

Clemmons had been in jail in Pierce County for the past several months on a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child. He was released from custody just six days ago, even though was staring at seven additional felony charges in Washington state.

Clemmons posted $15,000 with a Chehalis company called Jail Sucks Bail Bonds. The bondsman, in turn, put up $150,000, securing Clemmons’ release on the pending child-rape charge.

For your consideration. No comment at this time.

Nod to AMERICAblog.

According to the New York Times, the officers who were killed were identified as Tina Griswold, 40; Ronald Owens, 37; Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39; and Greg Richards, 42.

White House Party-Crashers Met Obama; Secret Service is Sorry (Really…)

In a photo released by the White House, President Obama greeted Michaele and Tareq Salahi, right, at his first state dinner on Tuesday.

The Secret Service is sorry.

Really, really sorry.

Michaele and Tareq Salahi, the Virginia couple who crashed President Obama’s first state dinner, met President Obama.

From the New York Times:

President Obama and his wife, Michelle, had a face-to-face encounter with the couple who sneaked into a state dinner at the White House this week, White House officials acknowledged on Friday. The revelation underscored the seriousness of the security breach and prompted an abject apology from the Secret Service.

A White House spokesman said that the couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi of Virginia, met and shook hands with the president and the first lady in the receiving line in the Blue Room, as the Obamas greeted each of their 400 invited guests Tuesday night before moving to a tent on the South Lawn for dinner.

That disclosure coincided with a statement from the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, saying that his agency was “deeply concerned and embarrassed” by the events. Secret Service officials said the agency wanted to interview everyone connected with the episode, including the Salahis, and had not ruled out criminal charges.

“The preliminary findings of our internal investigation have determined established protocols were not followed at an initial checkpoint, verifying that two individuals were on the guest list,” Mr. Sullivan said.

“Although these individuals went through magnetometers and other levels of screening, they should have been prohibited from entering the event entirely,” Mr. Sullivan said. “That failing is ours.”

Again, in our post-9/11-security-hyped world, this just blows me away. After all, the Secret Service didn’t take office for the first time last January.

Virginia Couple Crashes Obama’s First State Dinner

White House party crashers

Somebody needs to answer for this. A couple from Virginia crashed a White House state dinner. Yes, that’s the couple above with Vice President Joe Biden.  The Secret Service first learned of the security breach when the couple posted pictures from the event on their Facebook page.

Apparently they just walked into the White House.

From the New York Times:

This much is known: About 7:15 Tuesday night, a glittering blonde, decked out in a red and gold sari, holding the hand of her black-tuxedoed escort, swept past the camera crews and reporters camped out to catch the red-carpet arrivals for the first state dinner given by President Obama.

“Hey, that’s a Desperate Housewife!” one reporter yelled out, alluding to the TV series named for a collection of them.

In fact, the couple — Michaele Salahi and her husband, Tareq — are Virginians who have been auditioning for a possible role in a different housewives TV franchise: “The Real Housewives of Washington.”

They swept past the camera crews and followed the trail of other bigwigs attending the dinner.

But neither Mr. nor Mrs. Salahi, best known in the Washington area for promoting wine and polo in Virginia, were on the guest list for the event, a fact first reported Wednesday morning on the Washington Post Web site.

A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the Salahis had not been invited nor seated for dinner.

The couple “went through magnetometers and other levels of security,” according to a Secret Service spokesman. The fact remains, however, that these two enjoyed unprecedented access to the President of the United States, even if they did not meet him directly.

What an incredible and apparently unprecedented security lapse.

The investigation continues.

Read more here.

Irish Report Unambiguous: Catholic Church Covered Up Sexual Abuse of Children

The report concerning the alleged sexual abuse of children by clergy released today by the Department of Justice, Equality and Reform in Ireland is unequivocal in its conclusions: the Roman Catholic Church engaged in widespread cover-up.

From paragraph 1.10 of the report (emphasis added):

The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl.

From paragraph 1.15 of the report:

The Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.

Regarding the alleged ignorance of child sexual abuse, paragraph 1.17:

The authorities in the Archdiocese of Dublin and the religious orders who were dealing with complaints of child sexual abuse were all very well educated people. Many had qualifications in canon law and quite a few also had qualifications in civil law. This makes their claims of ignorance very difficult to accept. Child sexual abuse did not start in the 20th century. Since time immemorial it has been a “delict” under canon law, a sin in ordinary religious terms and a crime in the law of the State. Ignorance of the law is not a defence under the law of the State. It is difficult for the Commission to accept that ignorance of either the canon law or the civil law can be a defence for officials of the Church.

Regarding the alleged failure by the Church to implement its own rules:

The Church authorities failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with clerical child sexual abuse. This was in spite of the fact that a number of them were qualified canon and civil lawyers. As is shown in Chapter 4, canon law appears to have fallen into disuse and disrespect during the mid 20th century. In particular, there was little or no experience of operating the penal (that is, the criminal) provisions of that law. The collapse of respect for the canon law in Archdiocesan circles is covered in some detail in Chapter 4. For many years offenders were neither prosecuted nor made accountable within the Church. Archbishop McQuaid was well aware of the canon law requirements and even set the processes in motion but did not complete them. Archbishops Ryan and McNamara do not seem to have ever applied the canon law.

Catholic Church policy is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’:

The American phrase, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is appropriate to describe the attitude of the Dublin Archdiocese to clerical sex abuse for most of the period covered by the report. The problem as a whole never seems to have been discussed openly by the Archbishop and his auxiliaries, at least until the 1990s. Complainants were told as little as possible. The note “Gain his knowledge, tell him nothing” for dealing with complainants and witnesses, discussed in Chapter 4, typifies the attitudes of the Archdiocese.

The existence of a cover-up is clear, according to the report:

As can be seen clearly from the case histories, there is no doubt that the reaction of Church authorities to reports of clerical child sexual abuse in the early years of the Commission’s remit was to ensure that as few people as possible knew of the individual priest’s problem. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. Complainants were often met with denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases. Suspicions were rarely acted on. Typically complainants were not told that other instances of child sexual abuse by their abuser had been proved or admitted. The attitude to individual complainants was overbearing and in some cases underhand (see Chapter 58).

The report, released to the government in July but publicly released today, covers each case in detal.

How many other countries are doing similar investigations right now? This behavior is beyond damnable.

Dublin Catholic Diocesan Report Shows ‘Number of Errors’

Following up on the breaking story of a panel report which alleges the Catholic Church in Ireland covered up reports of child abuse in Ireland by clergy, a RTÉ report alleges issues over reports on abusers by the Granada Institute.

From RTÉ:

In one case of a priest named as Fr Terentius there were a number of errors in the report forwarded by the Institute.

It states that in the Granada report that the priest had not admitted to any allegations when in fact he had admitted to several incidents involving six young boys.

The Commission states that the report from the Granada Institute was ‘seriously deficient’.

The Granada report also states that two boys were 17 years of age at the time of abuse when according to the Commission they were 13 or 14 years of age.

Another claim in the report from Granada about Fr Terentius states that he is undergoing therapy on an individual basis

The Commission questions this as well as a number of other claims in the report.

Read more.

Roman Catholic Church Covered Up Child Abuse in Ireland, Panel Finds

From the New York Times:

An expert commission says the Roman Catholic Church in Dublin covered up decades of priests’ sexual abuse of children because its bishops were determined to protect the church’s reputation at the expense of victims.

Abuse victims have welcomed Thursday’s publication of a government-ordered investigation into how scores of priests were permitted to molest and rape boys and girls with impunity for decades.

The 720-page report analyzes the cases of 46 priests from 1975 to 2004 against whom 320 complaints were filed. The report names 11 priests who were convicted of child abuse but the others, either dead or yet to face trial, have their names omitted or replaced with aliases.

Investigators spent three years poring over 60,000 previously secret Dublin church files.

The NYTimes indicates that the text above is a breaking news update. A more complete story will follow.

Update: The NYTimes published a longer, updated story filed at 10:52 a.m. ET.  Read the entire article here.

Turning Left will follow this story as it make its way through the Irish legal system. No further comment right now.

Help Senator Durbin Fight for the Public Option

From the Sun-Times:

Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

Here’s how you can help fight for the Public Option…

From Senator Dick Durbin:

Moments ago, the Senate voted to begin its full debate on historic health care reform legislation instead of obstructing it with a filibuster. 

Tonight’s vote marks the biggest victory to date for our grassroots effort to pass health care reform with a public option. We cannot give enough thanks to the over 100,000 signers of our petition at CitizensForAPublicOption.com for helping to fundamentally shift the momentum towards meaningful reform. 

Not long ago, a few loud opponents of reform armed and organized by the insurance industry dominated this debate. Now the American people, the majority of whom support a public option, have spoken out and gained the upper hand. 

Not long ago, the public option seemed like little more than a pipe dream. Now it’s part of health care bills in both the Senate and the House. 

Not long ago, members of our own Democratic caucus weren’t sure they could even support an up-or-down vote on health care reform legislation. Tonight they voted to end the Republican filibuster. 

But despite this good news, the fight for meaningful health care reform is not over. As we debate amendments to this legislation in the coming weeks, we will work with our colleagues to ensure it continues to address the "Three C’s" of meaningful reform: competition, choice, and cost reduction. And we will firmly oppose any effort to eliminate the public option. 

Tonight we celebrate a milestone no one thought we could reach just months ago. Tomorrow the fight continues. We will not let up until the President signs a bill we can all be proud of.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Chuck Schumer

Click Here to Contribute

Texas May Have Banned All Marriages

I know this is a trial lawyer’s wet dream, but this is just too funny. In government, we are cautioned to watch for the “unintended consequences” of new laws and ordinances.

This is quite the “unintended consequence.” Texas, in an attempt to ban same-sex marriages, may have actually made all marriages illegal.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

From McClatcheyDC.Com:

Texans: Are you really married?

Maybe not.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively “eliminates marriage in Texas,” including common-law marriages.

She calls it a “massive mistake” and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution. Radnofsky called on Abbott to acknowledge the wording as an error and consider an apology. She also said that another constitutional amendment may be necessary to reverse the problem.

“You do not have to have a fancy law degree to read this and understand what it plainly says,” said Radnofsky, who will be at Texas Christian University today as part of a five-city tour to kick off her campaign.

Heh. Heh. Heh.

I’m sorry, but this is too funny.  In their zeal to ban gay marriage, it would appear that Texas has banned all marriages with this phrase: “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Talk about your constitutional conundrums. Texas may actually have to amend its constitution again to recognize marriage.

Heh. Heh. Heh.