Rep. Lynch (D-MA): "This is a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies"

[t0dd]

Source: Boston Globe

WASHINGTON – Despite pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, Representative Stephen F. Lynch of South Boston said today that he will vote against President Obama’s health care overhaul when it comes to the House floor, contending that it doesn’t put enough pressure on insurance companies to reduce costs.

The move is a switch for Lynch, who voted in favor of the House health care bill in November. But he said the current version, which was approved by the Senate, is not as strong as that measure. Lynch’s decision makes passing health care more difficult for House leaders, who are trying to get commitments to vote yes from 216 representatives.

“We’ve paid the ransom, but at the end of the day the insurance companies are still holding the hostages,” Lynch said in an interview with the Globe early this afternoon. “This is a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. It might be good for Nebraska, I don’t know. Or Florida residents…But it’s not good for the average American, and it’s not good for my district. Or for Massachusetts.”

He said he opposes the so-called Cadillac tax the Senate adopted that would put a surcharge on expensive health insurance plans, and he is also disappointed that the final bill doesn’t include proposals to allow states to adopt a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

“The insurers still rule,” he said. “Were just pumping subsidies into the current system, but that won’t drive down costs.”

Pressure on him is coming from the White House, House leadership, and members of the Massachusetts delegation, but Lynch said he didn’t see a scenario where he could support the bill.

Lynch is going to the White House this afternoon to hear a plea from President Obama. Vicki Kennedy has also spoken to him.

Lynch downplayed any notion that Obama’s presidency could be irreparably damaged if his signature health care reform package is defeated.

“This will not sink his presidency,” he said. “That fear is overstated.”

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/03/lynch_will_vote.html

[Warpy]

1. That's why Grayson's Medicare buy in bill is so important

and needs to be pushed in every Congress until it passes.

This is a stop gap bill that will improve a few things right away but fail in the long term. We all know that. It's all we could do with this present Congress full of dead wood conservatives.

[Ian David]

3. Wanna bet Beaker won't co-sponsor Grayson's bill, let alone vote for it?

The complete list of co-sponsors is on Thomas and below:

50 CURRENT COSPONSORS : Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, and Rush Holt.

Three of these co-sponsors, it must be said, are non-voting members from American territories. But 47 voting members, including several freshmen and member of the Blue Dog caucus Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), isn’t bad for a couple days.

More:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/12/grayson-up-to-50-co-sponsors-for-medicare-buy-in-bill/

Fuck you, Stephen Lynch, you traitorous, lying hypocrite


(phone) 202-225-8273
(fax) 202-225-3984
(phone) 617-428-2000
(fax) 617-428-2011
(phone) 508-586-5555
(fax) 508-580-4692

http://www.house.gov/lynch/contact.shtml

[No Elephants]

38. +1 on his hypocrisy. This is a bill for health insurers, PHRMA and Big Health.

But those are not his reasons for voting against it. He's scared about re-election and wants him some Scott Brown coattails, while trying to sound like a liberal. He's trying to have it every which way.

[cadmium]

42. I agree you sum up Lynch well nt

[sabrina 1]

56. Perhaps, I'm not familiar with him. But if that is what he is doing

don't forget that Mass. voters have already experienced the results of this bill. They have Romneycare and premiums have risen every year since it went into effect, not to mention the other problems they are having as a result.

What it does say about him is that he is smart if what you say is true. He got the right message from the defeat of Democrats in that election. Over 80% of Brown voters opposed this bill. The party leadership decided to ignore the message rather than, what was it Obama said about tossing 'left ideas'? They know who they work for. I'm sure they were all assured that their bosses will help them get reelected. They think we will be 'over it' once the bill passes.

[No Elephants]

86. Lynch is the most RW member of the Massachusetts delegation, after Brown.

Trying to have it every which way doesn't mean he's smart.

That doesn't take a rocket scientist, only someone willing to be self-serving and dishonest.

As my prior post indicates, though, nothing I say about Lynch should be taken as approval of the so-called health care reform bill.

[grahamhgreen]

70. This bill is a travesty.

[Delphinus]

71. You said it.

It's a sad day for those of us who were hoping for something to help not just us who are currently uninsured or under-insured, but the rest of the citizens of the US.

[Ian David]

72. But it's still better than nothing. And we can fix it. n/t

[mbperrin]

76. I don't see that it's better than nothing. I see mandated buying of insurance

with no cost control of any kind.

The lifting of pre-existing conditions means nothing without an affordable policy.

"Why yes, we can cover you now with those awful conditions. Your premium will be $50,000 a month. Oh, you don't want it? Well, that's the market in action. Please be sure to pay your fine for not having coverage on the way out. Next!"

It will give hundreds of billions of extra profits for these corporations to get the politicians they REALLY want in the next cycle.

Buy a little fixer-upper? No thanks. For the nearly TRILLION that it will cost, I deserve something shinier and newer. And so do you.

[Big_Mike]

85. As far as I can tell, IF and when cost controls come on-line

they will not be on today's rates, but based upon the rates established in the (most likely) distant future.

This bill simply increases the costs down the road, and helps maintain a higher baseline for the "promised" fixes.

[grahamhgreen]

83. How will t be fixed? Who has signed on to these 'fixes'? I don't see it. nt

[No Elephants]

87. Really? We can fix it? I think if Democrats were inclined to pass a better bill, they would have

done so.

If Democrats have the Oval Office, 60 in the Senate Democratic Caucus, and an overwhelming majority of the House, but did not pass a good bill, when hell are they going to improve it? After the Party moves even further to the right?

And, I am not so sure it's better than nothing. Among many other things, it's a multi-billion dollar giveaway to health insurers, PHRMA and big health care, all of which are already much too powerful because of their money. And the whole clusterflock has soured people on reform.

I wish they had either done it right or done nothing, but it's too late now. They've hung this albatross around our necks.

[No Elephants]

21. When do you think we'll have 60 liberal Senators that will improve this?

Especially with the disrespect the Party is showing liberals these days?

[harun]

49. Do we even have 10 Liberal Senators now?

[pattmarty]

53. Yes, Sanders, Kerry, Sherrod Brown, Durbin, Burris, Franken, Feingold...............

......Harkin, Boxer and maybe another 10 that I can't think of off the top of my head. Some are more liberal than others, but this is a partial list. We need a lot more.

[ProudDad]

62. Sanders is a SOCIALIST!!!

Liberals will ALWAYS sell you out, Sanders WON'T!

[pattmarty]

64. I believe he refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist.................

................If by "sell out" you mean cave, in the healthcare thing you have a point.

[No Elephants]

89. We don't have a liberal Congress. And Sanders caucuses with the Democrats.

And, he is voting for this bill, just like the rest of his caucus, so that makes him a sell out in the eyes of some.

[No Elephants]

88. We need sixty liberal Senators, but good luck with that. Burris is on his way out.

Not so sure about the rest, either. Whatever game they talk, they vote with their caucus.

Kerry is my senator. Early on, I got a wordy form letter from Kerry about health care reform, but it never mentioned a public option and he sure never fought for one.

[Warpy]

68. Not this Congress, certainly, but it needs to be reintroduced

again and again until the situation is desperate enough to get it passed.

[No Elephants]

90. See Reply 87. I think "it's better than nothing and we'll fix it" sounds full of "hope"

and nothing more. In fact, it's been said so often without any kind of reasoned explanation that it is starting to sound like a unicorn mantra.

It just may be that we're stuck with this albatross, period. Or worse.

[Abq_Sarah]

48. How many people could afford?

There are no subsidies for Grayson's bill and the price discriminates against people by age. How is this an improvement?

[pattmarty]

54. It is not going to even come up for a vote anyway. What he is trying......

.........to do is get Medicare more "entrenched" than is is now so eventually it would be "Medicare for all".

[Ian David]

2. Fuck you, Stephen Lynch. I called. I emailed. I signed petitions. I faxed. fuck you.

I'm going to wait until I've cooled-down a bit before I call his office.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Guess we know whose side you're on.

[geek tragedy]

59. Yes, the opposite side from Michelle Bachman and Tom Coburn;

Lynch is a POS.

[Narraback]

5. Just called his office ...

after (I called Eddie Markey). I told Lynches office that I did not appreciate him helping GOP!

[Ian David]

6. If I called right now, I would tell him to go fuck himself. That's why I'm waiting until tomorrow.nt

[t0dd]

8. opposing the Aetna-PhRMA bailout != helping GOP

nt

[butterfly77]

51. You need to ask him...

who is he more afraid of the repubs or the Dems? Ask him who voted him in the repubs or the Dems?

[msongs]

7. evidently this guy is not a worshipper lol nt

[Ian David]

9. Lynch is a chickenhawk corpratist whore. This bill is just paid for by the wrong john. n/t

[pampango]

14. I noticed he isn't in the Progressive Caucus which is 75 votes "yes" and 4 "undecided". n/t

[Ian David]

16. He's anti-choice, but in favor of Marriage Equality.

He's also in favor of overturning The First Amendment to ban mishandling the flag.

[FrenchieCat]

10. He's in Mass. The only thing he cares about is his job......

[Edweird]

12. If people loved this bill as much as we are told, wouldn't going against it hurt him?

[Ian David]

17. I sure hope it will. I supported Phil Dunkelbarger against Lynch last time. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

18. Folks in his district already have Health Care.....

and it's obvious that he's getting a lot of calls from those
who don't give a shit about others....just what will this do
for them? You know, those types of assholes.

[Edweird]

20. Ah, so they love their individual mandate so much they don't want anyone else to have it?

Is that it? "We have it great, and only residents of Mass. should enjoy this"... something like that?

[No Elephants]

24. No, Massachusetts does not love its individual mandate.

[Edweird]

25. Why not? Because their insurance costs are so low they feel guilty for having it?

[No Elephants]

28. Um, no. See Reply # 26.

[Edweird]

30. But mandates keep costs down, right?

[No Elephants]

26. Which they hate, because of mandate, but no public option.

[No Elephants]

23. Two words: Senator Brown

[Edweird]

27. Yes,but 97% of liberals love this bill - or so I am told. This is a Dem. in Mass. of all places.

How could going against such a well received piece of legislation in Mass. help a Dem?

[No Elephants]

29. Liberals in Mass. let Scott Brown win because he campaigned against this bill.

[Edweird]

31. Surely you jest. Liberals LOVE this - or so I am told.

[No Elephants]

34. I live in Massachusetts. Believe me or don't, but your game has become tiresome.

[NotThisTime]

45. Scott Brown won because Coakley cut out a few weeks early and no other reason

She really was not good as a candidate unfortunately :(

[pattmarty]

55. NO. He won because the people of Mass perceived (correctly)...........

............that with big majorities and Mr Change in the WH that not a fucking thing was getting done. C'mon, 14 months "debating" this POS and it still hasn't passed? That's why Brown won, and it wasn't even close.

[No Elephants]

92. Boston could have made the difference, but liberal Boston did not turn out.

[No Elephants]

91. Baloney. She was a bad candidate, but she would have been elected anyway, if Massachusetts

Democrats had been happy with what was going on in D.C.

And she was campaigning hard at the end. Her lag was right after the primary. And there were only a ew weeks total between the primary and the election.


You don't seem to have followed this very closely.

[No Elephants]

22. This guy is one of the most conservative in the Massachusetts delegation, not counting

Scott Brown.

I think Scott Brown's success scared him.

[karynnj]

52. I think you're right.What is strange is that he doesn't see that the poll where she led by 30 points

might have measured generic Democrat vs generic Republican - as most non-political people likely knew little of either. Than, from what you and other MA people have said, she ran (or walked, sleep walked) an awful campaign and he ran a slick campaign and was able to seem to be a pleasant guy.

I would wonder if it is internal polls he has had done in his district. The healthcare plan has had billions of dollars spent against it. I am amazed to see how nice the Boston Globe is to him and how he seems to get enormous coverage.

[No Elephants]

93. Please see Reply 91. Also, Coakley was very well known in Massachusetts. That and her gender

are no doubt why she won the primary over Mike Capuano, who, despite being a U.S. Rep, was much less well known that she.

[coti]

11. Good for him. nt

[Edweird]

13. Yep.

[frazzled]

15. He's the most conservative Democrat of the MA delegation

Bullshit on his attempt to paint his opposition as somehow "anti-corporate." He's got a 25% rating from NARAL, worse than some Republicans. He voted for the Stupak amendment. That is why he is opposing this.

[No Elephants]

32. He's right on the substance, but I agree with you that he is bs-ing..

I believe he is voting against the bill because Scott Brown's victory scared him. Brown campaigned on being the 41st vote against this bill. "Just call me 41."

[girl gone mad]

19. “Were just pumping subsidies into the current system, but that won’t drive down costs.”

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

[bvar22]

33. Sounds like someone I'll send a donation to:

“We’ve paid the ransom, but at the end of the day the insurance companies are still holding the hostages,” Lynch said in an interview with the Globe early this afternoon. “This is a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies."

I think he read my post from yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7943482





Thats how I see it too.
For Profit Health Insurance is The PROBLEM.
Not the Solution.

[laughingliberal]

36. +1000 nt

[No Elephants]

37. Only if you want to donate to the most conservative Democrat in the Massachusetts delegation.

[laughingliberal]

35. Oh, no! He's telling the truth! That's not gonna work. nt

[No Elephants]

40. He's telling the truth, yet he's being dishonest. Please see Reply 38.

This is a conservadem, anti-choice, corporate whore.

[laughingliberal]

41. Whatever his motives, his assessment of the bill is accurate. nt

[No Elephants]

94. And so my posts have said. He's lying about his reasons for voting against it, though.

[gulfcoastliberal]

96. Sounds just like this "health reform" legislation.

Corporate giveaways galore, massively de-funding medicare, not covering womens health, etc.

[fascisthunter]

39. wow.... but liberals agree with this bill

bs

[doubtingjake]

43. liberals agree?

I don't know the congressman and he told the true as I see it. Why do you say liberals agree with this give away to corporate profits?

[fascisthunter]

46. I was being sarcastic

I am a liberal... I don't think many in this country want a mandate from the government that forces them to buy a shitty product, that a health care system crippled and controlled by greedy sociopaths.

[backtomn]

63. Maybe they bought the Obama hard sell......

He was telling people that his administration would be crippled if this didn't pass. Why else would so many liberals sign a pledge to vote "no" without a public option....then vote "yes" without it??? Call it pragmatic, a sell-out, or keeping the GOP from a victory......but a lot of positions have reversed.......unless a public option magically appears in the reconciliation.

[ConcernedCanuk]

44. Hmm - Military Complex and Big Pharma running the USA?

.
.
.


OH

I forgot to credit the Banksters . ..

now

how about that democracy thing - ?

Ya know, home of the brave and land of the free?

shoot -

I forgot that the "braves" that lived here b4 the white man "civilized" them only live on less than 1/1000% of the land they had before

and their land is raped and pillaged.

Where DID all them buffalo go anyways?

:freak:

[grahamhgreen]

47. At least he learned the LESSON OF THE MASS. SENATE RACE!

[mzmolly]

50. Again, Lynch should open up a health savings account and give up his

access to health insurance, if he's so against giving the industry money.

[MellowDem]

57. What an idiot...

hey, we all understand it's not perfect, but it's an improvement, and the insurance companies do NOT want this bill! Whoever keeps saying that has lost their mind.

[mbperrin]

77. Oh? Seeing Public Subsidy (Not Public Option) Investors Flock to Health Insurers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/seeing-public-subsidy-not_n_399733.html

Investors are seeing the Senate's version of health care reform as a massive public subsidy for insurance companies -- and as a result, are sending the sector's stock prices shooting up, up, up. Stripped of a government-run insurance plan, the bill would give tens of millions of Americans no option but to start paying hefty premiums to private companies.

The rise in stock prices has been particularly striking in the period since Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said on October 27 that he would filibuster a Senate health care reform bill if it included a public option - a threat that caused Senate leaders to cave without much of a fight.

Here's a quick breakdown of major health insurance company stock performance from Oct. 27 to Friday's market close:

Coventry Health Care, Inc. is up 31.6 percent;
CIGNA Corp. is up 29.1 percent;
Aetna Inc. is up 27.1 percent;
WellPoint, Inc. is up 26.6 percent;
UnitedHealth Group Inc. is up 20.5 percent;


more at link

[MellowDem]

78. That article is months old...

and I suppose if one is going to argue that the insurance companies actually want this bill on the basis of the stock market, it will be hard to "prove" much of anything, what with all the factors that go into it. The CBO itself has estimated that the bill will reduce premiums.

[mbperrin]

79. The article is 89 days old. Has a public option been added? No.

Mandate been removed? No. The conditions driving stock prices for insurers have not changed at all. And investors have been partying for months now. Close your eyes if you like, but the truth is, people who love insurers love this bill. And they're spending money on stock to prove it.

[MellowDem]

80. The stock market has been going up for some time now...

due to the recovery. What were the stock prices for those companies since that article until today? That would be interesting to see.

[mbperrin]

81. Well, the market overall is down today, but

Coventry Health Care (CVH) up .76 or 2.99% TODAY
Cigna (CI) is up 2.04 or 4.69% TODAY
Aetna (AET) up 1.63 or 3.94% TODAY
Wellpoint (WLP) up 1.85 or 2.71% TODAY
United Health Group (UNH) up .92 or 2.80% TODAY

while the overal Dow Jones (DJIA) is DOWN 54.87 or .51% TODAY


These are the same companies listed in the Huffington article and as passage appears more certain, you can see that these companies are spiking up in spite of an overall down day for the market.

[mbperrin]

82. Today's headline: Insurers keep climbing as health vote nears on Capitol Hill

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/insurers-keep-climbing-as-key-vote-nears-2010-03-19?siteid=yhoof

Insurers keep climbing as health vote nears on Capitol Hill
By Russ Britt, MarketWatch
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Shares of insurers kept climbing Friday as uncertainty over a health-care reform package nearing a key vote in Congress seemed to clear.

Virtually all the major insurers were up 2% or more in early trading, gaining in the face of a broadly lower U.S. stock market. Aetna Inc. (NYSE:AET) led the way, climbing 3.6%, followed closely by Cigna Corp. (NYSE:CI) , rising 2.8%.


Shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE:UNH) and WellPoint Inc. (NYSE:WLP) , the nation's two biggest insurers, climbed by well more than 2% and HealthNet Inc. (NYSE:HNT) neared the 2% level. The only company to make marginal gains was Humana Inc. (NYSE:HUM)

In a note to clients, Goldman Sachs analyst Matthew Borsch said the clouds over how health-care reform would fare in Congress have cleared now that the House has released its plans for a reconciliation bill designed to win passage through the Senate.

On Sunday, the House plans to try and pass the Senate's previously approved bill with a reconciliation measure that needs only a simple majority in the Senate. See related story on President Obama's final push to secure passage of health-care legislation.


"We believe the market reaction reflects, one, investor anticipation that health reform uncertainty will finally subside, and, two, that most of the reconciliation bill provisions were largely as expected," Borsch wrote in his note.

He added that there could be significant risks for the industry as new insurance exchanges to be set up under provisions of the legislation could bring about what he called "adverse selection." The planned elimination of medical underwriting will be coupled with a weak coverage mandate.

"However, the implementation timing leaves 3 1/2 years to work through -- and potentially modify -- provisions that might undermine successful coverage expansion," Borsch said.

[MellowDem]

84. I still don't think it means anything...

beyond the greater certainty of the market over the bill. Insurance industries would still much rather have the status quo, but with no public option, they'll still be around.

[Akoto]

58. I'm a Floridian, and the bill will be good for me.

At this time, I am a 25 year old who is essentially bedridden with chronic pain. Even though my condition will never lead to surgery, I have been denied insurance on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

There are non-surgical procedures which may somewhat lessen the daily torture I must endure. May. Unfortunately, I can't afford to take a chance on them without the assistance of insurance, and getting SSI is proving to be an uphill battle. If I could have insurance, even if I were forced to pay money I really don't have to spare, it would still be far cheaper than the cost of the procedures under self-pay.

I'm hardly the only person in my position. There are many like me who can't afford to wait until the next opportunity comes, likely decades from now. Let this be a foundation for greater things, one which will hopefully benefit the needy in the short and long term.

Part of me expects a reply along the lines of "so long as you've got yours, right?" Truth is, yes, that's correct. I'd love to get mine after going so long without, of having my best years taken away. I want an opportunity for treatment, even if it isn't a perfect one. Some of us are in such dire straits that we aren't capable of taking the virtuous path of waiting it out.

[ProudDad]

61. This is a very sad story.

Unfortunately, unlike the civilized world that has determined that health care is an individual right not a privilege for the affluent...we live in USAmerica -- she doesn't give a shit...

Medicare for All or any other approach that would take the profit out of health care financing would have worked for you (still could)...

I'm afraid that the way this POS "Health Insurance Corporation and Big PhRMA Stimulus Act of 2010" is written, you will be able to GET insurance in 2014 (4 more years from now) but only if you can afford the premiums, deductibles and co-pays...and if you're in the lower 60% of income, like I am, you won't be able them...

As for now and the next 4 years...just don't pay! Anyone who cannot afford to pay their medical expenses SHOULD NOT EVEN TRY!!! Get the hospitals and doctors on YOUR side --- don't pay a lousy dime!

[No Elephants]

95. I'm very sorry about your situation. I'd never say anything like "as long as you got yours."

I don't diss anyone in a situation like that in whose shoes I have not walked. And this bill is going to pass, no matter what we here post. I just wish it were a better bill; and I am so very disappointed in my Party. But, the issue in this thread is Lynch. No matter how good or bad this bill is, a liberal needs to primary Lynch, period.

[O is 44]

60. A vote for the status quo...what a disappointment

"That fear is overstated" the amount of people this bill will help is not overstated too bad he does not see that. pathetic.

[wisteria]

65. He should vote for the bill-changes can be made later. It looks like he is after some attention.

I don't by anything he says.

[backtomn]

66. I am not sure of his motivation, but......

I believe that his position is correct. Take pre-existing conditions, for example.......imagine driving with no insurance and, after causing a huge accident, calling the insurance company to buy a policy to pay for the mess. I think that we agree that we need to handle this issue, but it will never be compatible with insurance....which is based on risk. I am not certain of the exact solution here, but I believe that the approach of this bill was wrong from the start......using insurance, but bailing them out of the difficult parts.

[Lorien]

67. The bill will sink his Presidency-and the party-if it's signed into law

the people have already stated their feelings on a bill with mandates but no public option.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. yes we make the Ins cos richer and we have the same old problem

many of the same problems. This bill doesn't solve the problem of health care but
does sell alot of insurance

[privacypolicy]

73. Force them to buy insurance against their will

Problem: 30 million people without health insurance.
Reframe: What? 30 million people refuse to buy from the corporate store?
Solution: Force them against their will.
Headline: Triumph for freedom and democracy.

[karynnj]

74. He needs to read the Boston Globe analysis of the bill - many of his problems

have been fixed.

The bill released yesterday would give Massachusetts a big boost in Medicaid assistance to help pay for insurance coverage for lower-income people, sending an additional $2 billion to the state over the next ten years.

The provision, which would compensate all states for covering more Medicaid patients, would send even more additional money to the Bay State than a Senate-approved “special deal’’ that Obama insisted be removed. The Senate deal would have granted Massachusetts $500 million over three years, with no guarantee of extra assistance after that.

“This is a huge deal,’’ Senator John F. Kerry said in an interview. “This is not a special deal for Massachusetts. What it is, is a fix that is going to take place across the country,’’ said Kerry, who has been negotiating with the White House and colleagues on the Medicaid issue throughout the process.
<snip - and they really did fix the excise plan >
The House bill would include a tax on high-end, so-called Cadillac health insurance plans, but it raises the threshold to plans costing more than $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 for families. Pelosi said the new formula made it a “Platinum Rolls Royce tax.’’ It also would not begin until 2018. The AFL-CIO, which had fought the concept of taxing Cadillac plans for months, said yesterday that it supported the new plan.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/19/democrats_offer_940b_health_bill_for_final_test/?page=2

[chelsea0011]

75. My rep. Wrong again. He is as close to a blue dog as they come.

I sent his office an email. If it is like any other copntact I have had with his office, a reply (other than a robo) won't be coming.