I feel like a little sunshine myself today. Let’s take a look at Representative Rehberg’s claim that no private insurance policies will be allowed under the bill. He writes:
"Prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government." In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited.
Oops. That was Limbaugh. Here’s Rehberg:
Page 94 prohibits sale of private individual health insurance policies forcing you to go through fed government
The obtuseness of this misreading is astonishing. The purpose of this section of the bill, which anyone with an 8th grade reading level could easily discern, is to ensure that private insurance plans can be grandfathered in and that they meet certain minimum requirements after the bill’s passage.
What insurance companies hate about the bill is that they will be forced to compete in a free and open market under the Health Insurance Exchange.
Demagoguery. Pure and simple.
Dennis is so excited about yesterday. He was pretending to have read the House health care bill, doling out bits of “sunshine” as he feverishly read through through the text, exposing its nefarious schemes to socialize American life. Rehberg was excited, the Montana media was excited, and the Park County Republicans had to clean up after themselves:
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) went to town on Facebook and Twitter in Sarah Palin fashion yesterday, exposing the nearly 2000 page Pelosi-care bill that was “unveiled” in a closed-to-the-public ceremony the other day. What wasn’t unveiled in that event was put under a spotlight on Rep. Rehberg’s page.
You know was most excited, though? Probably Rush Limbaugh and the insurance company executives that Rehberg cribbed his comments from, many of which were flat out lies.
Let’s put Rehberg’s posts on Facebook side by side with the transcript of Limbaugh’s program yesterday, and see how much independent thinking Representative Rehberg was really doing.
| Rehberg |
Limbaugh |
| Page 297 imposes a tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance |
Page 297 — Section 501: “Imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase ‘bureaucrat-approved’ health insurance — the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign.” |
| Page 225 permits *but does not require* Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care |
Page 225 — Section 330: “Permits — but does not require — Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care.” So they’ll be able to opt out of it and maintain their Cadillac plans. |
| Page 94 prohibits sale of private individual health insurance policies forcing you to go through fed government |
Page 94, Pelosi plan: “Prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.” In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited. |
| Page 211 establishes new gov’t-run health plan that may cause as many as 114 million to lose existing coverage |
Page 211 — Section 321: “Establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage.” |
| Page 313 imposes 8% “tax on jobs” on firms that can’t afford “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage |
Page 313 — Section 512: “Imposes an 8 percent ‘tax on jobs’ for firms that cannot afford to purchase ‘bureaucrat-approved’ health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions ‘at substantial risk of unemployment’ — with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts.” |
| Page 520 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, hurting at least 26,000 Montana seniors |
Page 520 — Section 1161: “Cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans.” |
| Page 336 imposes a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses |
Page 336 — Section 551: “Imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar ‘surcharge,’ more than half of which will hit small businesses; |
| The bill requires applicants to verify their citizenship, but not to verify identity |
Page 255 — Section 345: “Includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill — while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, |
It’s certainly interesting to see that Rehberg managed to not only hit on all of the arguments advanced by Limbaugh, but he used the same language. I wonder if it’s possible that Limbaugh and Rehberg were using the same playbook, while Rehberg pretended to be evaluating the bill.
In what is perhaps the most astonishing twist, Limbaugh was more honest than Rehberg. Consider the claim about a loss of 114 million people losing coverage. Rehberg leaves out that claim comes from the Lewin Group—and for good reason. The Lewin Group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest private insurers in the country.
I’ll get back to the rest of the specious talking points that Rehberg is being fed later, but at a basic level, how can we trust Rehberg, who is presenting himself as some consumer champion, when all he is really doing is parroting talking points from insurance companies and the far right?
It’s an embarrassment, and it’s a damn shame that the media couldn’t search to find the source for the claims before promoting Rehberg’s “work.”
Two protracted wars, a deep economic recession, a crumbling health care system. Certainly serious issues for members of Congress to address, but perhaps nothing measures up to the important work Dennis Rehberg did in Washington last month:
Montana’s Congressman Denny Rehberg helped arrange White House tours for 80 Montanans during a particularly busy month of tour requests. White House tours are only available through a congressional office, and Rehberg’s office normally receives approximately 20 requests a month.
That’s the kind of leadership you really only see on self-serving press releases and Facebook.
I’m not a political consultant, but if someone’s efforts in Congress are so minimal that he needs to post a SNL parody-worthy achievement like this, isn’t time to let someone who understands important issues take the job?
It’s well-documented that American health care is a system in crisis. Rapidly escalating costs, personal bankruptcies, and families denied access to preventative care, all while Americans spend more than nation in the world on health care, represent a looming economic threat and an ongoing human tragedy for far too many of us.
Given this crisis, what kind of leadership has Montana’s sole representative in the Congress shown? The kind of leadership you’d expect from someone whose greatest legislative achievement is a resolution honoring the city of Billings: inane posturing and Facebook posts.
Today’s latest stunt is an EMERGENCY town hall meeting to discuss the House bill in Billings:
House Democrats unveil a new health care reform bill Thursday, prompting Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg to call an emergency Town Hall meeting for Saturday in Billings.
Rehberg’s office says Montanans have a right to know what’s in the new House bill and what’s missing.
I know what’s missing: a Republican alternative. Pressed for one today House Minority John Boehner demonstrated the Republican-Rehberg approach to health care reform, doing nothing.
It’s certainly telling that Representative Rehberg doesn’t consider the state of health care in the United States today an emergency, but is concerned that Democrats are moving forward with bills to address the problem.
I don’t often have the time to catch the comics page in the Independent Record, but today I was fortunate enough to get a couple of good laughs on the Opinion page. It seems that former Attorney General candidate Tim Fox is troubled by the idea of negative campaigning and mudslinging:
Too often, negative campaigning is rewarded with publicity while attempts at straight talk are seen as insincere and overlooked by the press…There are consequences that come with making unfounded allegations about another person; a realization I came to not during the practice of law, but during the course of my upbringing in Montana.
Given Fox’s despicable, dishonest campaign last year and the fact that Republican Party’s entire strategy against Dennis McDonald consists of sleazy innuendo based on his work as a defense attorney, one has to wonder if Mr. Fox is either incapable of understanding irony or just continuing the same kind of shameless behavior he displayed as a candidate.
Fresh news that the public option may still be alive and kicking presents two opportunities to marvel at the craven nature of some Democrats in the Senate.
We’ll start with Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu:
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), for one, dismissed recent polls that show public support for the idea, telling NPR, "I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”
For that kind of logical fallacy you usually need to listen to Fox News in the morning. In other news, Americans would also oppose Easter if it mean that every bunny in America had to be tortured to death slowly. Perhaps Senator Landrieu is less worried about the Treasury drying up than she is about less revenue coming in to her campaign war chest.
And then we’ve got Max, who went all War Games at the news. Baucus was:
apoplectic when Reid told him he wanted to include the public option. “Baucus went to DEFCON 1,” said a source familiar with the negotiations, referring to the alert level the military uses for an imminent attack on the homeland.
How dare the majority leader offer a proposal that the public prefers? How dare he upset the delicate balance crafted by Senator Baucus’s mighty bipartisan coalition which contains one Republican who might vote for his bill?
It’s be nice if Senator Baucus was apoplectic about the idea of Montanans who are losing their homes and their economic dreams because of the burden of health care costs, wouldn’t it?
