A glimpse at the Pelosi healthcare bill (Rep. John Campbell)

Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are determined to socialize medicine and to permanently put 1/6th of the American economy in complete control of the government. But the American people don't want that, not a single elected Republican in Congress wants that, and a significant number of elected Democrats don't want that.

Pelosi needs to get 218 Democrats to vote for her bill. That means she can lose 39 Democrats, but no more. She is keeping Democrats in town "working" because she wants to keep trying to convince them to vote for her bill. She also knows that if they go home, most of them will hear the opposite message from their constituents. So, she keeps us all in town with busy work so that she can keep using carrots and sticks to get the votes for her awful bill. Don't underestimate the power of the Presidency and the Speakership to convince Members of Congress to vote their way.


Pelosi's government takeover of healthcare hurts seniors (Rep. Frank Lucas)

No matter how many different ways she scores it, Speaker Pelosi’s health care legislation will cost the American taxpayers approximately one trillion dollars.  Right now, the federal government is running a deficit – fiscal year 2009 ended with the government more than $1.42 trillion in debt – and our national debt continues to climb every day.   

In order to pay for her almost trillion dollar federal government takeover of health care, Speaker Pelosi plans to make dramatic cuts to the Medicare program used by many of our senior citizens.  Cuts to Medicare will cause some health care providers to drop out of the program, limiting seniors’ access to this popular program and causing many to lose their current coverage.  In addition, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that the Pelosi health care plan will increase seniors’ Medicare prescription drug premiums by 20 percent over the next ten years.  That means many of our seniors will no longer be able to afford the prescription drugs they need to survive.


Government still trying to take over health care (Rep. Tom Price)

Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats unveiled H.R. 3962, their latest version of the health care legislation that’s been hotly debated for months in Congress and across the country. (Read it here.)

One thing is clear. Your concerns about a government takeover of health care have been totally ignored by Speaker Pelosi and her allies, who worked behind closed doors to write this bill. After months of debate, the bill they introduced today is essentially the same bill the American people have already flat-out rejected.

Government-run insurance? Still in the bill. Higher taxes? You betcha. An individual mandate that restricts choices and innovation by requiring Washington to define what qualifies as health insurance? Check. A job-killing employer mandate, a budget-busting expansion of the Medicaid entitlement, and countless provisions that set Washington bureaucrats firmly between you and your doctor? Better believe it.

What about comprehensive lawsuit abuse reform and a ban on taxpayer funded abortion? Not surprisingly, those important items are still not in the bill.


Setting the record straight on our health care legislation (Rep. Anna Eshoo)

Like millions of Americans, I was thrilled by today's unveiling by Speaker Pelosi of the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I was proud to stand with the Speaker and my Democratic colleagues in support of this historic legislation. Since coming to Congress more than 16 years ago, nothing has been more important to me than achieving comprehensive health care reform and as a member of one of the primary committees responsible for drafting the bill, few members worked harder than I did in bringing it to the House Floor.

Ms. Jane Hamsher related some heartbreaking stories on HuffPost about breast cancer survivors and their struggles to overcome this devastating disease. I've heard dozens of similar stories and each one has moved me to do everything I possibly could throughout my public service to help breast cancer victims, and I have been a leader in the House of Representatives in promoting women's breast health. The National Breast Cancer Coalition, a group representing hundreds of organizations and millions of women who dedicate their lives to curing breast cancer has honored me with their prestigious 'Perfect Voting Record' honor. I've fought tirelessly to make it a federal crime for insurance companies to kick women out of their hospital beds right after they've had a mastectomy (the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act). I fought for increased access to breast cancer screening so millions of women can catch the cancer before its too late (MRI and Mammogram Availability Act).


Tracking “fiscal responsibility” in Congress

When the Democrats took control of the 110th Congress, bringing an end to the Republican’s majority, they promised to manage the nation’s budgetary affairs in a “fiscally responsible” way. The Tea Party protests of this past summer signaled a significant level of skepticism over Congress’s fealty to this pledge. But can this political notion that the Congress's budgetary work product has not changed a great deal under the new management be quantified? NTU Foundation’s unique BillTally project provides some clues about Congress’s and individual Members’ budgetary activity. BillTally tracks the net cost or savings of nearly all legislation introduced in Congress that affects federal spending by at least $1 million (regular appropriation bills are excluded). The estimates are then matched up with the bills sponsored by each Member of Congress to determine the cost of their legislative wish lists.

During the 110th Congress, cost estimates were determined for 1,634 House bills and 1,126 Senate bills, a 19 percent increase over the number of scored bills in the 109th Congress. The overwhelming majority of these were focused on ways to increase spending: For every House bill that cut spending in the 110th Congress, there were nearly 23 bills to increase spending. In the Senate, the 36 cut bills were outnumbered by increase bills at a ratio of 30:1. The 110th Congress marked the first time this ratio has not declined from the previous Congress since the 107th. In comparison to the 104th, the last time there was a major power shift in Congress, the ratio of spending hikes to cuts was roughly 2 to 1.


Bi-partisan bill aims to end Hepatitis epidemic in America (Rep. Mike Honda)

Yesterday I introduced the bi-partisan Viral Hepatitis and Liver Cancer Control and Prevention Act of 2009, in order to address a silent, deadly, national Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C epidemic impacting America.

This bi-partisan legislation was drafted in strong partnership with Reps. Charles Dent (R-PA), Edolphus Towns (D-NY), William Cassidy (R-LA), David Wu (D-OR) and Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-LA) along with Reps. Todd Platts (D-PA), Delegate Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Judy Chu (D-CA), and G.K. Butterfield (D-NC).  

Hepatitis B (HBV) and Hepatitis C (HCV) are highly contagious blood borne viruses, more infectious than HIV, that cause liver disease, liver cancer, and premature death.

Although a vaccine exists to prevent HBV infection and chronic HBV is treatable when detected early and properly managed, it cannot be cured.


Bureaucrats have no place in making decisions on breast cancer care (Rep. John Shadegg)

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month.  It is a time for women across America to highlight the importance of prevention and to celebrate the millions of breast cancer survivors across our nation. This year, it is also a time to recognize the looming danger of government-run health care and what it could mean for America’s women.  If Democrats in Congress pass a bill that allows Washington to take over health care, future generations of American women may be at risk.

The United States is the world leader in cancer survival.  Our health care system embraces innovation and allows patients to seek the doctors, tests, and treatments that are right for them.  As a result, the overall cancer survival rate for women in America is the highest in the world.


The Big Question: Could abortion be a deal-breaker on healthcare reform?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Could abortion be a deal-breaker on healthcare reform?

John McManus, executive director of The John Birch Society, said:

If abortion isn't a "deal-breaker" regarding the Obama/Reid/Pelosi healthcare program, it certainly should be.  The philosophical base of our nation is contained in the Declaration of Independence where the purpose of breaking away from Mother England stated that "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" among which was prominently included the right to "life."  No abortion proponent wants to discuss the medically and scientifcally established fact that life begins at conception. The current plan to takeover of the medical industry will have abortion given federal aid and encouragemnet.  Nothing could be more un-Ameruican - if anyone still cares about what this nation roots included.      

Michael J. Wilson, executive director of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), said:

It could be – but it won’t. First of all, health care reform is going to happen. The only question is how robust, and how much better than the current system. And while activists like me want a system that is as robust as possible with as much improvement as we can get, we know that this is not the place to resolve the issue of choice. That issue should remain between the woman, her doctor, and her faith. Pro-choice or not, the reality is that what is legally permissible will not be changed by this health care reform proposal.

The issues that threaten the opponents of choice are things that are happening everyday all around us, but they are not inside this bill; the education of women, the assertiveness of young women to control their own bodies and their own lives, and the increasing willingness of men to acknowledge that reality. When you add the increasing modernization and access of birth control, it’s clear that what threatens the anti-choice movement is not this health care bill, but the slow, inexorable ticking of the clock of progress.

Suzanne T. Poppema, M.D., board chairwoman for the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, said:

Abortion shouldn’t be a deal-breaker on health care reform. As physicians, we know that women will always need abortion, and we believe it should be treated like any other medical service--not singled out for special attention. If the goal of health reform is to keep all Americans healthy, we should not restrict medical procedures some women will inevitably need. In the committee hearings this summer, some anti-choice legislators tried to do just that, preventing any insurance plan from covering abortion. Thankfully, these measures were defeated, and a compromise emerged that would maintain the status quo on abortion. None of the bills Congress is considering would fund abortions with taxpayer money, or expand access to abortion beyond the coverage women currently have. The majority of Americans support this compromise, just as a majority of Americans believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said:

It's an issue that divides people. But I think there's a lot of pro-life members who will vote with us on the bill because they feel we've done what's appropriate to ensure American people that we are using their taxpayer dollars well.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said:

Abortion and immigration are issues that are seen as potentially very decisive.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) said:

I didn't vote for it. I would be seriously concerned if any bill passed the government that didn't protect the life of the unborn.

Tom McClusky, senior vice president of FRC Action, said:

With the Leadership trying to please so many Democratic factions of the debate (government run health care proponents vs. Government run opponents, tax everyone vs. tax the rich, etc. etc.) that abortion could easily be the component that could be the final straw on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid back.

Now that both Chambers have released their bills one things is clear - they both include federal funding of abortion. Such a move would turn American taxpayers into the permanent funding stream of the abortion industry and guarantee that abortions will increase. The ball is now in the hands of Rep. Bart Stupak and his colleagues to stand up against Nancy Pelosi and for the unborn.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said:

Yes, abortion can be a dealbreaker. Page 110 of the new bill explicitly authorizes the public plan to pay for all elective abortions. As CRS as confirmed, all funds spent by the public plan, a federal agency program, will be federal funds. So this will be direct federal funding of elective abortion, pure and simple. It is a hoax to claim that a federal agency can pay for elective abortions while using "private" funds -- an impossibility. That is why the Bart Stupak Amendment is needed.


Tearing down the barriers to competition (Rep. Diana DeGette)

Congress is on the brink of passing legislation that will truly reform the health insurance market. Reform will improve competition and rein in rising costs, while providing millions of uninsured Americans with access to high quality health care. Competition is the crux of the debate - the lack of competition in the market has hurt consumers, and has contributed to rapidly escalating health care costs. Every year, health care premiums consume a larger portion of Americans household budgets. By tearing down the barriers to competition, for example, by repealing an antitrust exemption and creating a strong public insurance option, Congress can achieve the goals of lower costs and improved health care outcomes.

As premiums continue to skyrocket, we must ensure that health insurers are not engaging in anticompetitive behavior and unfairly driving up health care costs. Since 1945, the health insurance industry has enjoyed an exemption from federal antitrust law. This exemption prevents the application of federal antitrust laws to the business of insurance, provided that the activity is regulated by state law and is not designed to boycott, coerce, or intimidate. Despite the fact that the health insurance industry is highly concentrated, the federal government is handcuffed in its ability to identify or respond to any potential violations. The American Medical Association estimates that 94 percent of the top insurance markets are anticompetitive. In Pueblo, Colorado, for instance, one insurance company controls over 75 percent of the market. Yet the Department of Justice currently does not have the authority to investigate the industry to determine if anticompetitive violations are occurring.


What Catholics want in healthcare reform: Should we cover some people, some parts of people, or all parts of everybody?

The United States is embroiled in a debate over healthcare. Ideological divides over morality and money are front and center, and threatening to derail any real progress on what has become a major crisis.

There is a curious divide in the national conversation we are having about what exactly healthcare is or what it should be. More often than not, it’s about who or what should be left out of the final plan. Some say that it should only be about providing care to some people; others say it should be only about covering some parts of people. Proponents of these positions claim the moral high ground while seeking to leave out undocumented residents or restrict access to reproductive healthcare. What they are really doing is projecting their own vision of what is moral onto those who will be most affected by this distortion: the taxpayers who will fund and use whatever system emerges.

Coming on the heels of the economic crisis, it is no wonder that many focus on the questions, “what can we afford?” or more precisely, “what are we willing to pay for?” They are not unreasonable questions. But the answers that some people, who claim to speak for American Catholics, provide are not reflective of what Catholics in the United States believe. We know, because rather than simply relying on those who seem to have the best public relations, we asked nearly a thousand American Catholics what they believe about healthcare and healthcare insurance. If you’ve relied on the newspapers, bloggers and television news, the answers might surprise you.