House To Vote Again On Repealing ‘Obamacare’ Next Week

The House will vote again next week to repeal the 2010 health-care reform law, a decision by top Republican leaders designed in part to appease GOP freshmen lawmakers who have not had an opportunity to take a vote on the issue.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

House Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.), who sets the House schedule, announced on Twitter on Wednesday that the vote will occur next week: “It just keeps getting worse. I am scheduling a vote for next week on the full repeal of #Obamacare.”

Cantor’s decision to schedule the vote comes as he’s devoted most of the House calendar in recent months to a series of bills that fit within his “making life work” agenda that emphasizes kitchen-table issues over slashing federal spending. Among such bills is the “Working Families Flexibility Act,” which would give private employers the option of offering workers additional time off in lieu of overtime pay and is set for a vote Wednesday.

Cantor had to pull another bill, called the “Helping Sick Americans Now Act,” two weeks ago amid opposition from conservatives who didn’t like that the measure would redistribute millions of dollars in funding established by the health-care law, but not repeal the entire law.

Several Republican aides say that Cantor’s decision to hold a vote on repealing the law will serve two mutually beneficial purposes for House Republicans: It will give about 30 House GOP freshmen who’ve never voted on such a bill the opportunity to do so — and then likely secure Cantor enough support to finally pass the “Helping Sick Americans Now Act.” In turn, those freshmen will be able to go home and tell constituents that they’ve voted to repeal the unpopular law, and Cantor will have succeeded in advancing his agenda.

Depending on which congressional aides are asked, next week’s vote will be anywhere between the 33rd or 37th attempt to repeal all or part of the law since its passage in 2010. The count is disputed because Republican House and Senate lawmakers have tried in vain to use a series of legislative gimmicks — procedural moves, budgeting provisions and outright legislation — to undo the law.

Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

View the original article here

Afghan President Lodges Another Ridiculous Claim Against U.S. Troops

Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, never one to mince words, on Sunday told the press that the United States and Taliban were each colluding to keep foreign troops in Afghanistan, albeit for different reasons.

Several explosions ripped through Afghanistan over the weekend during U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s visit, killing 19 civilians and highlighting security concerns that continue apace ahead of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.

According to Karzai, the attacks by the Taliban were meant to show that international forces will still be required after the 2014 deadline passes. Karzai chose a curious time to air his theory, putting it forward while delivering a speech on Afghan women:

“The explosions in Kabul and Khost yesterday showed that they are at the service of America and at the service of this phrase: 2014. They are trying to frighten us into thinking that if the foreigners are not in Afghanistan, we would be facing these sorts of incidents” he said.

Defense Department officials quickly cancelled a planned joint press conference after Karzai’s statements, denying the cancellation had anything to do with Karzai’s statements. The head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — the coalition headed by the U.S. in Afghanistan — strongly denounced the idea that the U.S. would work with the Taliban to keep U.S. forces in the country. “We have fought too hard over the past 12 years. We have shed too much blood over the past 12 years. We have done too much to help the Afghan Security Forces grow over the last 12 years to ever think that violence or instability would be to our advantage,” said Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford.

Karzai has a lengthy history of inflammatory statements, usually intended to provide himself some form of leverage when dealing with his Western counter-parts or bolster himself domestically. In 2010, Karzai threatened to join Taliban after coming under pressure to launch reforms in the Afghan government. Karzai also warned against the continuation of NATO airstrikes in 2011, saying that NATO risked becoming an occupying force, adding that “history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.”

Tensions between the U.S. and Afghans stretch beyond difficulties in relations with Karzai. Reports on Monday say an Afghan police officer opened fire killing two U.S. troops and three of his fellow officers. These “green on blue” attacks — in which Afghan allies turn on their Western counterparts — have proved to be an ongoing impediment to lasting trust between U.S. and Afghan forces. Gen. John Allen, then the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told 60 Minutes that coalition troops were willing to sacrifice for the Afghan campaign, but unwilling to be murdered.

View the original article here

Lieberman joins American Enterprise Institute

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is joining the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank announced Monday.

Lieberman will serve as cochairman of the American Internationalism Project, alongside former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

"The American Internationalism Project, under the leadership of Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Jon Kyl, is critical to opening a discussion about the challenges facing America in the coming decades--and strategizing about how to meet them," AEI president Arthur C. Brooks said in a statement.

Lieberman, who opted in 2012 not to run for reelection, said there is currently an "urgent need to rebuild bipartisan —indeed non-political— consensus for American diplomatic, economic, and military leadership in the world."

"That's why I am grateful to AEI for initiating and sponsoring this project and why I look forward to leading it with my friend Jon Kyl," Lieberman said.

Roughly a week ago AEI announced that Kyl had joined the American Enterprise Institute as a visiting fellow. Kyl served also decided to retire from the Senate in 2012.

Lieberman, formerly the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was one of the chief architects of a comprehensive cybersecurity bill that failed to pass the Senate last year. Despite the gridlock, Lieberman has continued his call for Congress to pass cybersecurity legislation to help protect American critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. 

Lieberman was former Vice President Al Gore's Democratic runningmate when Gore ran for president in 2000. Lieberman served as a Democrat until 2006 when he faced a primary challenge from businessman Ned Lamont. Lieberman eventually won reelection as an Independent in that race.

In 2008 Lieberman endorsed Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential candidacy and spoke at the Republican National Convention. More recently Lieberman has caucused with Democrats.

—Jennifer Martinez contributed reporting.

View Comments

View the original article here

Why Obamacare Is Oversold

wpostServer: http://css.washingtonpost.com/wpost???initialComments:true! pubdate:05/09/2013 13:47 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:5/23/13 1:47 EDT! currentDate:5/18/13 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!

It’s the great moral imperative behind the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”): People should not be denied health care because they can’t afford insurance. Health status and insurance are assumed to be connected, and opponents have often been cast as moral midgets, willing to condemn the uninsured to unnecessary illness or death. The trouble is that health status and insurance are only loosely connected. This suggests that Obamacare may result in more spending and health services but few gains in the public’s health.

We now have a study based on Medicaid in Oregon implying just that. Judging the effect of insurance on health has always been difficult, because the uninsured are different from the insured: They’re poorer, younger and often sicker. How much of their worse health reflects a lack of insurance? To answer, researchers need to compare similar people with and without insurance.

Gallery

Oregon’s expansion of Medicaid — the federal-state insurance for the poor — unwittingly solved this problem. In 2008, the state decided to increase enrollment by 10,000. But there were 90,000 people on the waiting list, so the state adopted a lottery to decide who would receive coverage. The result was two similar groups of poor people — one with insurance (Medicaid) and one without — that could be compared. The New England Journal of Medicine recently published the study.

The most overlooked finding is that the uninsured already receive considerable health care. On average, the uninsured annually had 5.5 office visits, used 1.8 prescription drugs and visited an emergency room once. Almost half (46 percent) said that they “had a usual place of care,” and 61 percent said that they had “received all needed care” in the past year. About three-quarters (78 percent) who received care judged it “of high quality.” Health spending for them averaged $3,257.

True, when people were covered by Medicaid, many of these figures rose. The annual number of office visits went to 8.2; the number of drugs, to 2.5; the share of patients with a usual place of care, to 70 percent; the proportion receiving all needed care, to 72 percent. Preventive care also increased. The share of patients receiving screening for cholesterol moved from 27 percent for the uninsured to 42 percent; the share of women older than 50 having mammograms jumped from 29 percent to 59 percent; the share of men older than 50 getting PSA tests for prostate cancer doubled, from 21 percent to 41 percent. Spending rose to $4,429.

Unfortunately, the added care and cost didn’t much improve physical health. The study screened for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes and the risk of heart attack or stroke. No major differences were detected between the uninsured and Medicaid recipients. There was more treatment for diabetes, although no difference was found between the two groups on a key indicator of the disease.

The only major health gain was psychological. Depression dropped from about 30?percent to 21?percent between the groups. One reason may have been that Medicaid recipients don’t fear huge medical bills. Their out-of-pocket health costs were $337. For the uninsured, out-of-pocket costs were 64 percent higher. (Presumably, most non-out-of-pocket costs for the uninsured were covered by free clinics, charity care and uncollected debt.)

“Health insurance is a financial product that is aimed at providing financial security,” the study says. On that ground, the expansion succeeded; by most clinical measures, it didn’t. Perhaps it is too early. The expanded Medicaid coverage was only two years old at the time of the study. Maybe greater health improvements will emerge. But maybe they won’t, and not only because the uninsured already receive care. Many uninsured are relatively healthy; insurance won’t make them healthier. For others, modern medicine can’t cure every health problem. For still others, bad luck or bad habits are hard to change. About two-fifths of Oregon’s uninsured were obese or smoked; Medicaid didn’t alter that.

Much of this was known — or could have been surmised — during the debate over Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the uninsured typically received 50 to 70 percent of the care of the insured. A study in 2007 of the 1965 creation of Medicare — insurance for the elderly — concluded that it had “no discernible impact on elderly mortality” in the first 10 years but improved recipients’ financial security by limiting out-of-pocket expenses.

Obamacare’s advocates ignored these ambiguities. They were too busy flaunting their moral superiority. Universal health insurance is a legitimate goal, but 2009 — in the midst of a major economic crisis — was the wrong time to pursue it. Predictably, it polarized public opinion and subverted confidence for what seem to have been, based on the available evidence, modest likely public health improvements. The crusade for universal coverage has been as much about advocates’ sense of self-worth as about benefits for the uninsured.

Read more from Robert Samuelson’s archive.

Jeffrey Nugent 

Michael Hirsh 

Joseph J. Thorndike 

Editorial Board 

MAUREEN CORRIGAN 

David Ignatius 

George F. Will 

Matthew Dallek 

Charles Krauthammer 

Dana Milbank 

Colbert I. King 

Craig Bowron 

David J. Kramer 

Carlos Lozada 

Editorial Board 

Editorial Board 

Chris Cillizza 

Dana Milbank 

The Post Most: OpinionsMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

View the original article here

New York Times Puff Piece About Focus On The Family Ignores Its Regular Anti-LGBT Rhetoric

Focus on the Family President Jim Daly

On Friday, the New York Times ran a puff piece about Focus on the Family, claiming that under the leadership of its president Jim Daly, the organization is softening by becoming one that “invites civil dialogue” and “turns down the rhetorical temperature on the debate.” It goes on to claim that Daly is “attesting to the divine love and grace that he firmly believes saved his life.”

Jeremy Hooper and David Badash have already penned extensive retorts, outlining the many odious anti-LGBT positions that Focus on the Family still holds. As a simple test of whether Focus on the Family and its political arm CitizenLink are engaging in more “civil dialogue,” here’s a look at some of the rhetoric they’ve put out over just the past six months:

Marriage equality will “shut down businesses” and is actually about “silencing Christian voices in the public square.”Marriage equality is a “pernicious lie of Satan.”Gender and sexuality are determined by procreation, not anybody’s own sense of their identities.Homosexuality isn’t a “super sin,” but it’s still a sin, just like adultery, lying, cheating, and gossiping.There’s no such thing as being gay; it’s just a “political statement.”Marriage equality passed in November because voters are “unchurched” and care more about themselves than about children.Transgender identities are unhealthy disorders that result from childhood trauma.Trans people should pursue ex-trans therapy to rectify their “confusion” with their “God given gender identity and destiny.”Gay people are in “pain” and at battle with God.Heterosexuality is society’s ideal because affirming homosexuality would be “normalizing brokenness.”“Satan roams the earth like a lion, using sexual and relational brokenness to destroy individuals, families, churches, groups, businesses.”Parents should be able to prevent their children from learning that gay people exist.There are “a variety of roads into homosexuality” including molestation, parents’ divorce, and trouble conforming to gender roles.

And that was just the rhetoric that ThinkProgress happened to cover since last September. Of course, Focus on the Family also sponsors the annual “Day of Dialogue,” which encourages Christian students to condemn their gay peers — a counterprotest to the “Day of Silence,” which is designed to bring visibility to that very kind of bullying.

The New York Times should better clarify that not a single position has changed at Focus on the Family. As the article inadvertently demonstrates, the organization has simply achieved better PR when individuals aren’t paying attention to what they actually believe.

View the original article here

Bipartisan Group Calls For Broader Religious Exemptions In ObamaCare

House Republicans and Democrats have joined together to re-introduce a bill that would expand the religious conscience exemptions under ObamaCare.

Under the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act, individuals would have the option of being exempted from the Affordable Healthcare Act's mandate to buy health insurance. People could avoid the mandate by filing an affidavit as part of their tax return saying their religious beliefs keep them from buying insurance that meets federal standards.

However, anyone filing this affidavit who then uses healthcare would lose their right to the exemption from the insurance mandate.

"We believe the EACH Act balances a respect for religious diversity against the need to prevent fraud and abuse," Reps. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and William Keating (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter seeking support for their bill.

"It is imperative we expand the religious conscience exemption now as the Administration is already developing a process to verify the various exemptions to the individual mandate," they wrote.

Religious exemption from ObamaCare has come up before, including the ruling from the Obama administration that religious-affiliated organizations must provide health insurance that covers contraception. The EACH Act, however, is unrelated to that issue, and deals only with exemptions from the insurance mandate.

The bill, H.R. 1814, enjoyed bipartisan support last year, and this year was introduced with 43 co-sponsors.

View Comments

View the original article here

Patrick Stewart’s Domestic Violence Campaign And Geek Feminism

I’m glad to see Sir Patrick Stewart calling on men to prevent violence against women, particularly given the vicious harassment campaign against feminist commenter Zerlina Maxwell that commenced after she dared to suggest that maybe we should teach rape prevention to men rather than asking women to take all sorts of precautions that might or might not work to guard themselves against assault. In an appearance on Friday:

The 72-year-old British-born actor, best known for his roles in “X-Men” and “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” served as host for the launch of “Ring the Bell,” a global campaign calling on 1 million men to make 1 million “concrete, actionable promises” to end violence against women.

“Violence against women is the single greatest human rights violation of our generation,” Stewart said.

“This is a call to action—not an action that will make things better in six months’ time or a year’s time,” he continued, “but action that might save someone’s life and someone’s future this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow morning.”

First, I think it’s great to see a genre-fiction icon like Stewart speaking out on violence against women, and speaking from a place of personal experience. That’s something women are often asked to do to personalize women’s issues, but that also gets them dismissed as subjective or overstating problems. Hearing that domestic violence affects men as well is powerful testimony, and takes some of the weight off women to repeat their stories, and to make the argument that such violence may be directed at women, but that doesn’t mean that its effects are confined to people who are physically damaged. To have Stewart define masculinity as solidarity with women strikes me as a useful thing in the geek community, though I think it’s definitely worth talking about concrete action that respects women’s agency, rather than setting up domestic violence survivors as simply another version of the Damsel In Distress.

And I think it’s important to talk about what concrete steps can look like for men who don’t conceive of themselves as violent (or in the conversation Maxwell started, as potential rapists), or who don’t have direct personal contact with domestic violence right now. How do men start and frame effective conversations with other men, whether it’s about the presentation of women’s issues and violence in the real world, or about content they’re consuming together that may be casually violent against women, or may employ violence against women and sexual assault as a lazy way of generating stakes? What are good ways to teach consent-seeking as that push back against pick-up artist techniques and attitudes, some of the only guides to being more socially engaged that some men in the geek community ever encounter (a point made valuably, and pushed back against, by the wonderful Dr. NerdLove, who I had the privilege to meet up with here in Austin)? Being committed to not being personally violent against women in a theoretical way is a wonderful thing, and one I’m glad to see men embrace, but it’s the kind of mentality that can also make men think that they’re the kind of people who could never possibly be violent towards women, which contributes to the inability to see one’s own bad acts. Trying to reduce a culture of violence, and to promote the idea that violence against women ought to be something that makes men feel uncomfortable for their own sakes, is something rather different.

View the original article here