Warning: Trade Promotion Authority In Senate | Forget Obama's Promise Of More Choice, Big Health Insurers Are Getting Bigger

Editorial Cartoon by AF Branco

Today in Washington. D.C. - June 22, 2015
The House is not in session today. The House will reconvene at Noon tomorrow. June 23, 2015.

The Senate will reconvene at 3 PM today and begin a period of morning business. At 5:30, the Senate will vote on the nominations of Peter Neffenger to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security and Daniel Elliott III to be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board.

Tomorrow morning a cloture vote is expected on H.R. 2146, the "backdoor" vehicle the Senate will use to advance the Trade Promotion Authority. It takes 60 votes to advance and if it does so only 50 votes to pass the bill.  If this passes without change, it sill goe directly to the President for signature.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging the Senate to reconsider its support of granting trade authority to President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership:"Americans for Limited Government strongly urges the Senate to vote against the cloture motion on legislation that would provide President Obama fast track trade authority. Three things have occurred since the Senate last voted on fast track which should cause any thinking Senator to change from a yes to no vote.

"First there is a great deal information that has come out about the Trans-Pacific Partnership that makes it clear that this agreement needs full and thorough Senate scrutiny. The TPP is a living agreement subject to change after ratification, additional partners can be added to the TPP without Senate approval, and the TPP sets up a governing structure much like the Common Market — the predecessor to the European Union. It would be extremely unwise to allow an agreement with such massive national implications to be fast tracked.

"Second, the upcoming Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) that will be fast tracked has explicit immigration language that has been leaked through Wikileaks. Under fast track, Congress cannot amend any agreement and once fast tracked, no submitted agreement has ever been defeated. A vote for fast track is a vote for the immigration language in TISA.

"Third, formerly supportive conservative leaders like Senator Jim DeMint, of the Heritage Foundation, have become convinced that the agreements are "Free Trade in Name Only" and have come out against fast track in the past few weeks.

"Just last week, the Australian Finance Minister reports is one week of negotiation away from completion. The illusion that the negotiating objectives contained in fast track language somehow bind Obama when he's already pretty much done negotiating can no longer be sustained.

"With the concerns over the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there simply is no reason not to tell President Obama to sign and submit it under constitutional rules for treaty ratification, before the Senate grants fast track, and then only by the requisite two-thirds majority."Heritage action has advised that conservative lawmakers are being punished by Speaker John Boehner and his allies. Over the weekend, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) stripped Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his post as a subcommittee chairman. Meadows was one of 34 Republicans to vote against the House rule to debate fast-track trade authority. Chaffetz explained the punishment by saying “Sometimes the coach needs to make a change on the field.”

The alliance between congressional leadership and the special interests that run Washington isn’t representing you or fighting for your conservative values. In Washington, conservatives like Mark Meadows are being punished for representing their constituents. Three other conservatives – Trent Franks (R-AZ), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) – were also punished last week.

Enough is enough. Conservatives didn’t give the GOP control of Congress so they could marginalize conservatives and work with Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama to pass liberal policies.

Barely a week goes by without new revelations about the negative consequences of Obamacare or new light shed on the dubious way this unpopular law was sold to the American public by the Obama administration.

When President Obama went to Maryland in the fall of 2013 to tout the opening of the Obamacare exchanges, he boasted, “[Y]ou’ve got new choices Now you've got new competition, because insurers want your business. And that means you will have cheaper prices.” He later said in the same speech, “So that’s what the Affordable Care Act is.The result is more choice, more competition, real health care security.

So what about that competition Obamacare is supposed to be fostering? Bloomberg News reported yesterday, “America’s biggest health insurers are about to get even bigger, driven into a wave of consolidation by Obamacare’s new regulations and markets.

“Anthem’s disclosure Saturday that it’s offered about $47 billion for Cigna Corp. is the first public confirmation the deal-making is in full swing. Cigna rejected the offer on Sunday, despite Anthem’s attempt to pressure Cigna’s board by taking the offer public. Anthem, Aetna Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc. all are poised to emerge as buyers or sellers when the dust settles.

“Driving the consolidation is the 2010 health law that put tougher rules on the industry, demanding more covered services, better care and a ceiling on profits. . . . ‘The industry is far more regulated under Obamacare and so companies need to do a better job at negotiating better unit costs and contracts,’ said Ana Gupte, an analyst with Leerink Partners. ‘Market share helps. The larger you are, the stronger standing you have.’ Gupte predicts that the ‘big five’ insurers will merge into a ‘big three,’ likely composed of Aetna, Anthem and UnitedHealth.”

Bloomberg notes, “Anthem isn’t alone in seeking a major deal. While the Indianapolis, Indiana-based insurer has also expressed interest in Humana Inc., so have Aetna and Cigna, Bloomberg has reported. The Wall Street Journal has said UnitedHealth might be interested in Aetna or Cigna, and that Aetna has proposed buying Humana.”

(And what of the president’s other statements in that quote? The Washington Post wrote a couple of weeks ago, “Maryland’s dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal health-care law, according to filings released Friday.” And six months after Obama was promoting Maryland’s Obamacare exchange, a Washington Post headline informed readers, “Maryland set to replace troubled health exchange with Connecticut’s system.”)

Meanwhile, there are new revelations about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber’s role in creating Obamacare, even though the White House keeps attempting to downplay his role. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist whose comments about the health-care law touched off a political furor, worked more closely than previously known with the White House and top federal officials to shape the law, previously unreleased emails show.

“The emails, provided by the House Oversight Committee to The Wall Street Journal, cover messages Mr. Gruber sent from January 2009 through March 2010. Committee staffers said they worked with MIT to obtain the 20,000 pages of emails. . . .

“The emails show frequent consultations between Mr. Gruber and top Obama administration staffers and advisers in the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on the Affordable Care Act. They show he informed HHS about interviews with reporters and discussions with lawmakers, and he consulted with HHS about how to publicly describe his role.

“The administration has sought to distance itself from the economist in the wake of his controversial statements in a 2013 video, where he said the health law passed because of the ‘huge political advantage’ of the legislation’s lacking transparency. He also referred to the ‘stupidity of the American voter.’ . . .

“The White House has described Mr. Gruber as having a limited role in crafting the law. President Barack Obama in 2014 said Mr. Gruber was ‘some adviser who never worked on our staff.’ Mr. Gruber told Congress last year he disagreed with the widespread characterization of his role as the ‘architect’ of Mr. Obama’s health-care plan.”

But The Journal points out, “The emails show Mr. Gruber was in touch with key advisers such as Peter Orszag, who was director of the Office of Management and Budget, an arm of the White House that oversaw federal programs. He was also in contact with Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president, and Ezekiel Emanuel, who was then a special adviser for health policy at OMB. One email indicates Mr. Gruber was invited to meet with Mr. Obama. In a July 2009 email, he wrote that Mr. Orszag had ‘invited me to meet with the head honcho to talk about cost control.’”

Asked about Gruber’s work today at the White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest simply offered, “[H]e didn’t work at the White House.”

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., U.S. Senate, Trade Promotion Authority, Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, more emails To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!