TPMDC

Grassley: Look How Great This Health Care Bill Is


Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but today he started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation.

In a release sent out by his staff to reporters today, Grassley says the bill will "hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive" thanks to his work.

The full text of his release is after the jump.

Grassley has been among the most vocal opponents of Democratic reform over the past year, but he's also known as one of the biggest flip-floppers on the issue.

At the start of the process, Grassley was expected to be among those Senators working to craft a bipartisan bill. But it wasn't long before he abandoned that effort, and helped to start the "death panel" meme heard at town halls across the country throughout last summer.

[TPM PHOTO FEATURE: The Evolution Of The Death Panel Meme]

Later on, Grassley joined with the Republicans in condemning the bill's medicare provisions. He jumped through several rhetorical hoops when he tried to explain his position in support Medicare while also attacking the idea of a public option last September.

"Medicare is part of the social fabric of America," he said. "And I think there's a lot wrong with it."

Now, Grassley seems to be jumping through the same hoops after the bill has been signed, talking up the changes reforms he once said will allow the government to "decide when to pull the plug on Grandma" are making to the health care system.

In the memo send out to reporters by his staff on on the Senate Finance Commitee, Grassley claims that the bill will ensure that "Congress, the IRS, and the public will now
have additional tools and information to ensure that charitable hospitals act charitably."

There's a reason the bill is so good when it comes to hospitals, Grassley's staff writes -- bipartisanship.

"The health care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of charitable hospitals for the first time," his Finance Committee press staff writes.

Grassley has been and on-again, off-again fan of the concept during the health care debate. At first, he was a member of the so-called Gang Of Six, a group of Finance Committee Senators who tried to draft a bill, they said, that would be appealing to both sides of the aisle. At the time, Grassley said any successful health care bill should have 80 votes for final passage.

Then, in statements generally recognized as not being conducive to bipartisanship, Grassley said the government was a "predator" (though he admitted he had prospered in part by living off "the public tit") and said that his Democratic colleagues were supporting a bill that would create death panels and kill grandma.

Shortly after that, Grassley said he wanted to find a bipartisanship solution again, and went looking for a new group to help him do it. That didn't work out.

So, though he admits that the final bill has his language about charitable hospitals in it, does Grassley support this bipartisan bill? Well, not exactly, his staff told me.

"Overall, no," Grassley's press secretary Jill Gerber told me when I asked her if the hospital stuff meant that Grassely thought the reform bill was worth passing.

"There are some things that he supports," she said. "That's true of a lot of large bills like this."

See the full text of the memo, send to reporters this morning, below:

M E M O R A N D U M


To: Reporters and Editors

Re: tax-exempt hospitals provisions in new health care law

Da: Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, with
jurisdiction over taxes, has worked to hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive. The health care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of
charitable hospitals for the first time. The bill requires that a hospital complete a community needs assessment once every three years and adopt and publicize a financial assistance policy; prohibits billing those who qualify for financial assistance the top rates; and prohibits a hospital from taking extraordinary collection actions if the hospital has not made reasonable efforts to notify patients of its financial assistance policy.

The bill also requires the IRS to review the tax-exempt status of each hospital every three years; requires Treasury and Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to Congress on the level of charity care, bad debt expenses and the unreimbursed costs of means-tested and non-means-tested government programs; and requires Treasury and HHS to provide a report in five years on the trends on the items reported on an annual basis.

Grassley made the following comment on the advancement of these provisions.

"Tax-exempt hospitals don't have many measures of accountability for their special status. The law hasn't given them much direction, and so they've defined standards for themselves. Sometimes that's resulted in providing very little charitable patient care or other community benefits, failing to publicize charitable care to patients, charging
indigent, uninsured patients more than insured patients, and using very aggressive collection practices. The Government Accountability Office and others, including the former IRS commissioner, have said for a long time that there is often no discernible difference between the operations of taxable and tax-exempt hospitals. These new provisions are modeled after principles and polices that the Catholic Health Association has had in place for years. I appreciate the association's willingness to have honest, forthright conversations about charitable hospitals' activities. The provisions take steps to differentiate tax-exempt hospitals from for-profit hospitals and provide further transparency about tax-exempt hospitals' fulfilling their charitable mission. Congress, the IRS, and the public will now have additional tools and information to ensure that charitable hospitals act charitably."

The provisions enacted in the new health care law are the result of
Grassley's leadership on tax-exempt organizations' accountability and
transparency, including hospitals. In 2005, he sent letters of inquiry to some of the nation's largest tax-exempt hospitals. In 2006, he convened a hearing and released a summary of the hospitals' responses. In 2007, he released a staff discussion draft of potential legislative reforms and convened a roundtable of experts to discuss the potential reforms. In 2008, he followed up with letters of inquiry to more hospitals and received a report he'd requested from the Government Accountability Office. In 2009, he drafted legislative reforms and succeeded in persuading the Democratic majority to include several of the reforms in the new health care law.


Comments (124) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

March 24, 2010 1:09 PM   

Just like the Stimulus bill. These cretins run against it nationally, but back home they are all the ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the photo-op.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:12 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

I think (Gr)Assley just set a new speed record in this event, though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:00 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

You know the line -

"The most dangerous placce in Washington is between Senator (pick one)and a news camera"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:38 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

yep, I said almost the exact same thing yesterday--they all took credit for the stimulus that they voted against, and which they still claim didn't work.
Why would anybody be surprised with this? Only the new speed record is notable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:33 PM    in reply to human

The only way they can top this is to start taking credit for the financial regulation bill before they even vote against it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:47 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

As with all things liberal, the headline is highly misleading to say the least. Sure, in a 2000+ page bill there are bound to be a handful of things that have some merit. However, taken as a WHOLE the bill is a complete disaster.

Ponder this, if you have any intellectual honesty or courage to face the truth:

"ObamaCare amounts to a de facto federal takeover of the entire medical and health insurance system through regulation, forced participation, and financial control over individual citizens and the major health care interests. At best, the ObamaCare structure will function as a shadow single-payer system. In the worst case, the massive amount of government control can be unleashed at any time to destroy the entire health care system in this country in a few short years."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_obamacare_acceptance_strat.html

Many here applaud the above analysis as confirming what Democrats intend to accomplish under the guise of "compassion". Others will laugh it off as the ravings of an idiot right winger. Disregard it at your peril. We tried to warn you, but you wouldn't (won't) listen. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:58 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

Do your Trolling somewhere else. This is a blockbuster achievement for the Dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:14 PM    in reply to CityGuy

Yes, and the "block" that is being busted is the U.S. economy and the health and freedom of Americans. As I said, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 6:16 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

Just like Medicare and Social Security wrecked the economy, right?

GDP in 1935 (when Social Security was enacted): $73.3 billion

GDP in 1965 (when Medicare was enacted): $719 billion

2009 GDP: $14.3 trillion.

Yes, these darn entitlement programs have certainly crippled the economy!

(All figures in 2009 dollars. Source: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 10:52 AM    in reply to Ann Arbor

Entitlement programs are like bombs with long fuses that lawmakers (mostly Democrats, but also Republicans who are cowed into going along with and enabling and perpetuating entitlements out of fear of being labeled “mean spirited” or “not compassionate) have planted in the government and economy of the U.S.

You cite GDP figures. That is surely part of the story. But another important part (and it is quickly becoming a more visible part) of the story is the national debt and its effects on the country.

Here is the history of the gross national debt (all government) since 1940

1940 $ 50.6 Billion
1950 $ 256.8 Billion
1960 $ 290.5 Billion
1970 $ 380.9 Billion
1980 $ 909.0 Billion
1990 $ 3.2 Trillion
2000 $ 5.6 Trillion
2008 $ 9.9 Trillion
2010 $ 14.4 Trillion
2014 $ 17.4 Trillion (estimated - likely to be higher)

Source: Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf Pages 127 and 128

By the end of Obama’s first (and hopefully only) term, he will have added more to the national debt than all other Presidents before him combined. It will not be entirely his fault. The ballooning national debt, and interest that will itself exceed $500 billion a year, will largely be the result of well intentioned but unsustainable entitlements, whose seeds were planted in the 1930's, 1960, and every decade since. Now Democrats have added a trailer truck full of hay to the camel’s back–--ObamaCare.

As USA Today (no conservative newspaper) reported in 2009 http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-07-04-national-debt_N.htm : “Interest payments on the debt alone cost “$452 billion last year — the largest federal spending category after Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security and defense. It's quickly crowding out all other government spending. And the Treasury is finding it harder to find new lenders.” The article went on: “Some budget-restraint activists claim even the debt understates the nation's true liabilities. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, established by a former commerce secretary and investment banker, argues that the $11.4 trillion debt figures does not take into account roughly $45 trillion in unlisted liabilities and unfunded retirement and health care commitments. That would put the nation's full obligations at $56 trillion, or roughly $184,000 per American, according to this calculation.”

A 2007 GAO report stated, in a large headline “Federal Fiscal Policy Remains Unsustainable”. This is obvious to all but those who think that federal resources are unlimited (i.e. most Obama voters and most of those who comment here). Page 2 of the report says “Although Social Security is a major part of the fiscal challenge, it is far from our biggest challenge. Spending on the major federal health programs (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid) represents a much larger, faster growing, and more immediate problem.” Page 5 of the report states: “The growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt dwarfs the growth in all other spending.” Charts in the GAO report show that by 2030 (actually earlier) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt will COMPLETELY crowd out any other spending. BOOM!!! The entitlement bomb will explode.

The entire GAO report should be a wake up call to those who see no problem with the growth and expansion of “compassionate” entitlement programs. Continue to believe Democrats’ projections and CBO projections based on phony gimmicks designed to mislead the public if you wish, but at least consider the GAO report as well. But liberalism is based upon fantasies, good intentions, and wishful thinking. I fear that there are not many here who have the courage to face the truth about ObamaCare and other entitlements.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 6:40 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

Good point, "acriticalthinker."

Senator Grassley was also opposed to a provision that exempted the senior members of the Administration, and Members of Congress and their staffs.

From a piece in the Washington Times:

"The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.

Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers - the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch - including the president, vice president and Cabinet members - was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.

Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.

The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama's explanation why if his "historic" health care law is so great for America, it's not good enough for him and his family."

Could we please have a show of hands here for all of those who are in favor of a healthcare bill that provides one level of care for "ordinary Americans" and another for senior executive branch members, and Members of congress and their staffs?

Gee, what was it that George Orwell said about the animals in charge?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 7:03 PM    in reply to Trochilus

I hadn't heard about any Federal employee exemption to the bill. I don't get it. I thought Obama was always saying that if you like your health care you can keep it. What difference would this bill make for federal employees, other than differences in health care in general? Federal employees have a choice of a number of plans (for- and a dwindiling number of not-for profits, fee for service, HMOs etc.)chosen from what is available in their area. They pay about 25% of the cost, plus deductables and percentages depending on the particular plan they pick. A much worse deal than a lot of union employees and state employees get. A lot like what large corporations might offer their employees, except maybe more choices. I believe Congress and staffers are on the same deal. Of course the President has his own deal, a doctor(s) and Walter Reed etc. Can anyone explain what this exemption is supposed to mean?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 7:21 PM    in reply to emjayay

I think it comes down to two words: Separate pool.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 10:47 PM    in reply to Trochilus

Members of Congress and other federal employees ALREADY have government-provided health care, troll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 8:39 AM    in reply to Trochilus

Yes, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others---such as Democrats in Congress, unions, trial lawyers, and other Democrats constituencies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 6:45 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

One only hope that it is the health insurance companies that get destroyed. No more 100 million dollar gifts to Execs!
acriticalthinker is not capable of thought!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 8:50 AM    in reply to Captain Dan

You will be happy to know that destruction of private insurance companies IS the intended result of ObamaCare. How can it be otherwise when insurance companies will be mandated to pay unlimited medical expenses (no denial of benefits for pre-existing conditions---we should have that for home insurance too, it is not fair to deny coverage to someone whose home is on fire---and no lifetime caps on benefits, while at the same time having a penalty for not buying insurance that is so ridiculously low that the only rational thing to do is pay the penalty and buy insurance only when you need it and drop it as soon as it is not).

So much for "competition" and "choice", not to mention getting to "keep your insurance" and "keep your doctor" if you like them.

Check back in a couple of years. You will love being on Medicaid for all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 26, 2010 8:44 AM    in reply to Captain Dan

I have posted more real critical thinking and facts here than all other libs combined. All I have "learned" from your comment is that you hate private insurance companies. I would be much more impressed if you "debunked" and refuted my comment to you below about the veiled (to those who just accept Obama's claim that if you like your insurance you can keep it WITHOUT THINKING OR QUESTIONING) design of the bill that was just passed to destroy private insurance before the end of the decade, or if you debunked or refuted the facts and the conclusion of the GAO that I posted in my reply above to Ann Arbor.

I will await YOUR critical thinking and analysis on those things, and not just a knee-jerk anti-insurance company emotional reaction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 7:21 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

I'll agree with the none so blind part. The Tea baggers are living proof of that. But the rest of your post?

""ObamaCare amounts to a de facto federal takeover of the entire medical and health insurance system through regulation, forced participation, and financial control over individual citizens and the major health care interests. "

Where does it force doctors to do anything? And why, even if it were true, is a federal takeover of the health insurance system a complete disaster? Seems to me that the health insurance industry has shown itself to need a federal takeover the same way that banks that do a lousy job of banking get taken over.

You have to remember that the purpose of health insurance companies is to pay their clients' medical bills when they have medical problems. It is only since the Friedman Greed Is Good mantra got established that they were absolved from actually doing their job. Now that Milton has been completely discredited, his mantra is also defunct. So insurance companies still have an obligation to their clients, and since they are so obviously derelict in their job, being taken over is about the only option I can think of that is beneficial to the clientele.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 11:10 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/ = the most ironic URL of all time.

No actual thinking goes on among its writers, just knee-jerking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 9:22 AM    in reply to Red XIV

And there is no "knee jerking" among the "thinking" followers of TPM!?!

If the articles at American Thinker are so wrong, then it should be easy to refute their facts and opinions. I see very little in the way of facts or logical analysis here. Mainly name calling and dismissive replies that amount to little more than W. C Fields "go away, kid, ya bother me".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 1:14 PM    in reply to acriticalthinker

*This message brought to you by Michael Steele of the RNC.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 26, 2010 10:34 AM    in reply to nodonjuan

There is more honesty from Michael Steele than from Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and DNC. Do you honestly believe that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit, reduce insurance premiums, reduce health care costs, and that you will be able to keep your insurance or your doctor if you like them? If you do, you are more gullible than George McFly. You must LOVE being lied to every day. Print out this page and put in your ten year time capsule, and we will see if the Democrats who passed this bill with deceit at every turn, and corrupt deals that would make Don Corleone proud, were anywhere close to reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:00 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

His state and its citizens should receive benefits from the bill since they and the rest of us has to pay for it!!

What about Obama admitting that "illegals go to the E.R. and WE pay for them", add that to 8 Million illegals working while we have massive unemployment, and the reality is Obama and the majority of Democrats are "showing" us they really don't care!! What hypocrites!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:43 PM    in reply to marysteeleyorktownva

Mary, you really ought to study the immigration issue more before trashing "Democrats." It's business Republican supporters who have fought most against steps to prevent undocumented immigrants from working in jobs in their industries.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 6:04 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

He's probably laying the groundwork for proposing a public option amendment to the current reconciliation process — hoping Dems won't be able to resist, will change the bill under consideration, and making it necessary to send back to the House (where things could fall apart and the fix will die).

Or, when they vote it down, then Repugs can claim a new campaign bludgeon to use this fall: "Dems opposed public option, while a Ref*ck proposed it be included!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:10 PM   

It doesn't surprise me. I've gotten used to hearing a Republican talking out of both sides of his ass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:58 PM    in reply to chimpale

I've gotten used to hearing a Republican talking out of both sides of his ass.

Both? Try six or seven sides.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:02 PM    in reply to Peter Principle

Do you think Foley could fill all of those holes??

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:58 PM    in reply to fsudirectory

no, because Foley likes 'em young and one must be 35 or older to serve as Senator.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 7:19 PM    in reply to rynato

rynato | March 24, 2010 3:58 PM

Not to be picky, but it's 30 years old for Senators, not 35, and they have to have been a citizen for 9 years. It's right there in the beginning of the U.S. Constitution, at Article I, Section III, para. 3.

Makes for fascinating reading. I highly recommend it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 2:54 PM    in reply to rynato

They do have the Young Republicans group in every state...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:15 PM   

Grassley was for it before he was against it before he was for it...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:22 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Second! Although I prefer 'mealy-mouthed idiot'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 2:39 AM    in reply to Demyankee

I was looking for a descriptor, and "mealy-mouthed idiot" indeed captures it rather well. Thanks!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:35 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Rich,

Until I saw your post, I was going to post; OK, how many of you people, after reading Grassley's announcement, thought immediately, "he was for it before he weas against it." :-)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:17 PM   

Only one problem for him in trying to take credit here.

He didn't vote for the bill.

What an idiot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:26 PM    in reply to voreason

But he knew on Christmas Eve that Brown would win in Massachusettes; that the House would, on March 21, pass the Senate bill as is; and that his contribution to the bill he voted against would become law. It's quite simple really. I'm sure that somehow he will also take credit for the fixes that he and the other Repubs are trying to obstruct and will vote against.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:29 PM    in reply to voreason

And he now wants to repeal it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:18 PM   

What a non surprise, stove-top healthcare an he helped...
Vhat a schmuck!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:22 PM   

It's already begun.

Wake up, media - the party of frenzied, furious, crazy no will now try to pretend they "made the bill better" and this fall, the tone will "let's change small provision X, Y, or Z".

DO NOT LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.

They've spent six months playing every sort of vile, demonizing, lunatic game they could in full-throated opposition to this bill.

No way, GOP douchebags... You went all in. Your damn chips stay on the table. Too bad your cards suck. ALL YOUR CHIPS STAY ON THE TABLE.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:26 PM    in reply to zonk

All your chips are belong to us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:41 PM    in reply to Cool Blue Reason

What you say?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:02 PM    in reply to zonk

Why not write a letter to your local paper and call Grassley a flip-flopper who opposed the bill before he supported it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:05 PM    in reply to zonk

6 months? Try 40 years. Race-baiting and commie witchhunting isn't working as well as it used to, so now it's "well, we'll just do whatever the hell we want because our base is too stupid or partisan to notice."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:34 PM   

Kind of hard to believe. Will any media types be able to report this with a straight face?

Of course, Faux News will say that anything that is good in that horrible bill was put there by Republican Patriots. Hey Faux News, go Fox yourself!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:49 PM    in reply to billpaustin

Just wait.

By this fall, Fox News will have people believing this bill passed with only GOP votes + Joe Lieberman.... and the 'bad' parts will only be in there because of Democratic obstructionism.

It's inevitable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:11 PM    in reply to zonk

Yup. They've already started the memes that Civil Rights was a Republican movement, and that Nazis were actually far-left progressives.

With the Texas teaching standards debacle that just went down, it's only a matter of time before they end up in our textbooks.

Orwell had it right: those who control the present control the past.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 8:29 PM    in reply to Helpcomputer

Helpcomputer | March 24, 2010 5:11 PM

If you were talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, proposed by John Kennedy and eventually passed under Lyndon Johnson, it might interest you to know that at every key juncture in the legislative process --House passage of the original House Bill (D - 61-39%; R - 80% 20%); Senate Cloture vote (D - 66-34%; R - 82% 18%); Senate Passage of Senate Bill (D - 69-31%; R - 82% 18%); and House Passage of Senate Bill (D - 63-37%; R - 80% 20%) -- a significantly higher percent of Republicans voted "Aye" than the corresponding percentage of Democrats.

That is a fact.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 10:49 PM    in reply to Trochilus

Sure the R's helped to pass it, but for them to claim it was a Republic driven victory (based on your percentages) doesn't take into account the R's were hardly representing SOUTHERN (i.e. former Confederate) states in 1964. First, the composition of the House and Senate were overwhelmingly in Democratic control - 60% and 67% respectively. Next how many Southern R's voted in favor: H 0-10, S 0-1? So 0% of Southern R's (vs. 7% of D's) supported Civil Rights. Next how many Northern, or more correctly, all other non-Southern R's voted in favor: H 138-24 S 27-5? This works out to 85%. That doesn't quite measure up to the 95% of non-Southern D's that voted in Favor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 6:31 PM    in reply to Trochilus

That statistic is cherrypicked. It ignores context and the entire history of the Civil Rights movement. Allow me to provide some:

The Civil Rights Act was a Democratic bill. It was written, sponsored, championed, and fought for by Democrats (you admit yourself that it was written by the JFK and LBJ administrations). LBJ spent most of his political capital getting it passed.

The reason for the lower yay vote for Democrats is because of the Dixiecrats. These were racist southern Democratic congressmen who were against the bill. When the bill passed anyway, they all left and joined the Republican Party (Jesse Helms was one of them). Nixon recruited them in his '68 Southern Strategy, and the Republican Party has been the party of racism ever since.

That's context. That's history. That's not some statistic that's been cherrypicked while ignoring the mountain of conflicting evidence. Stop listening to Limbaugh or Beck and try reading a high school history textbook for yourself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RKT

user-pic

March 24, 2010 5:54 PM    in reply to zonk

But only because the morons who watch Fox News have neither the intelligence nor the motivation to think for themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:36 PM   

The reform is modeled after the programs put in place in Massachusetts, by Mitt Romney, its Republican governor, based on ideas Republicans have championed for years. The insane opposition from Republicans was all a show for the Tea Party crowd. One of these days I hope they will wake up and see how they have let Republicans pick their pockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:37 PM   

Unbe-freaking-lievable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:39 PM   

dear TPM, please ignore what these pasty, pudgy lipless wonders have to say. they are irrelevant and bandwidth is precious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:40 PM   

But wait! Boehner and Kantor, who I want to believe, said that the Dems shut out all Repub participation and contributions. "Shame on you all" rings a bell. Now the Grass man, who I want to believe, says not only that he participated, but that his contribution was accepted.

Someone's lying. Who is it? Let's call it "both" and get on with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 1:55 PM   

I was wondering how long this would take. Fortunately all the repubs are on video criminalizing hcr, and should make for some nice ads this november. That and all the wonderful quotes from teabaggers to hang around the necks of every gop, and we should be in good shape. I guess armageddon is coming after all, for the gop that is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

March 24, 2010 1:55 PM   

Let's repeal it immediately

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:11 PM   

Where is the MSM on this? Oh right, that conservative meme of the "liberal mainstream media" is another outright lie to get the morons to follow and believe in their twisted sense of reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:13 PM   

Ad: "I voted against it, before I took credit *for* it!".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:04 PM    in reply to sherifffruitfly

The headline to the story is a gross distortion of what Grassley said. That headline bears as much connection to reality as this headline: "Mrs. Lincoln Thoroughly Enjoyed Her Night At Ford's Theater".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:21 PM   

Well, in this guy's defense, the Senate bill was pretty much crafted with the sole stated purpose of winning his (and Snowe's) vote. "Gang of Six" ring any bells? There is more in this legislation for him than there is for liberals.

In a world where progressive democrats are pretending this is a win, Grassley honestly makes a better argument. Something he wrote is actually in the bill. What was the part of it authored by progressives again? How many select committees were THEY a part of during this process? The real level of allowed participation from progressives was a series of presidential threats against their political careers once their ideals had been sold to the highest bidder. They didn't exactly get a seat at the table like was given to Grassley.

It is totally valid for him to crow! Obama empowered him to kick some serious liberal Democrat ass, you don't think he's going to brag?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:36 PM    in reply to kgb999

Do "Progressives" even care about poor people one itty little bit?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:46 PM    in reply to kgb999

Yes, let's conflate the Senate Finance Committee bill with a Senate bill that has undergone significant changes through a manager's amendment and, soon, a reconciliation bill.

And progressives got nothing, absolutely nothing, except 16,000,000 of the neediest people absorbed into a public health insurance program in addition to a host of new regulations, insurance plans with rates negotiated ala the FEHBP, and cost-capping subsidies that will go to millions of middle class workers, including over ten million people who currently have insurance. It ain't nothing but a law that well exceeds Saint Howard Dean's 2004 proposal at a significantly lower cost to the middle class.

But that's hardly anything a progressive could get behind.

What was that you were saying about "Obamabots" being full of shit?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:57 PM    in reply to kgb999

progressives didn't get a public option, so grassley gets to claim credit for a bill he voted against? is that what you're saying?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:24 PM   

Meh. They will take credit for it and no one will call them on it. Republicans learned long ago that if you lie continuously the american public is unwilling/unable to call you on it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:25 PM   

Grassley was also in favor of mandates early in the process and later declared them unconstitutional.

Grassley personally authored the donut hole provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act. He's a bastard coated bastard with bastard filling.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:31 PM   

Welcome aboard, GRASSHOLE. As polling improves and benefits appear, expect more of this revisionism.

When Medicare passed, at least many in the GOP had the decency to flipflop before the vote once they knew they couldn't stop it.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:49 PM   


Grassley must be smoking too much grass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:54 PM   

Can't ask him anything about it because it's after 2:00 PM and they've gone home for the day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 2:57 PM   

This is interesting -- is it possible he is just a tiny bit worried about November? There is a serious Democrat running who might have an outside chance of beating this goofy old cornholer. Roxanne Conlin has pledged to take NO PAC money so if you want to throw a few dollars her way:

http://www.roxanneforiowa.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:01 PM   

Let's see Hannity spin this like a whirling dervish . .

'I was for this before I was against it and now I'm for it . .'

flippity flop . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:44 PM    in reply to boycottfaux

Where does the story say that Grassley was for the bill as a whole? How about a little honesty here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:11 PM   

I don't think anyone disappointed me as much as Grassley. I had a somewhat positive view of him (for a repub) but after the games he played with this bill, no freakin way. He was scared of the Teaparty and he turned coat on his friends in a heartbeat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:16 PM   

Makes perfect sense.

If a bad bill is improved, it may still be so defective as not to warrant your support/vote. But there would be no logical objection to someone claiming credit for improving it over what it might otherwise have been.

Anyone who has a problem with that proposition is either falling victim to or propagating a non sequitur. Solution: retake Logic 101, if a victim. Lose those partisan blinders, if a propagator.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:42 PM    in reply to Cincinnatus

The GOP spent the last year screeching at the top of its lungs that Democrats are serving America with cyanide-laced shit sandwiches. Senator Crankypants is now proudly taking credit for having put mayo on them.

Yeah, that's totally logical.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:30 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

In your case, it appears that the blinders need to go. The analogy works perfectly with your cyanide-laced shit sandwich. I believe that although your shit sandwich will go down better with mayo, Grassley's claim would logically amount to removing some of the cyanide since he could not persuade the cook to simply throw it out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:17 PM   

Oh, so the bill was in fact BIPARTISAN?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:21 PM   

No means no. He voted no. So he gets no credit. No matter what he says.

A fact I'm sure his Democratic opponent will gladly point out (over and over again) this fall in Grassley's trending blue state of Iowa.

Will it be enough to unseat him? If the economy is improving from the standpoint of jobs creation by Nov, and Obama (who is still popular in Iowa; > 50%) campaigns there a few times, who knows? Maybe.

Grassely is well ahead in the polls today. But 8 months is a very long time indeed.

With the generally high anti-incumbent sentiment raging across the nation (and in Iowa; 66% say it would be better for the nation if all incumbents were defeated), anything is possible.

I can see why he would be grasping at this. At the end of the day, speaking for me only, he's probably going to wind up needed everything he can get.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:24 PM   

BTW, are "Death Panels" in the bill?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:29 PM   

I think it is pretty obvious that without the constant sniping by the Republicans this bill would not be the massive triumph for the people of America that it is. We know that all the toxic rhetoric and destructive slandering of the bill and the president was only for the purpose of making the bill better. In fact the only people who deserve any credit for passage of this bill are the Republicans in the senate and the congress, but most especially the senate. What would you have to shoot Grassley with to penetrate his skin?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:31 PM   

What's so hard to understand. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Makes perfect sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:32 PM   

What's so hard to understand. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it. Makes perfect sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 3:44 PM   

As a conservative I don't want any credit for this bill. As for Grassley, I think he is a two-faced pig and I guarantee most conservatives feel the same way.
We don't want him.
Libs don't want him.
So lets agree to vote the douche out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:06 PM   

Obama admitted a few months ago that "illegals go to the E.R. and WE pay for them", add that to 8 Million illegals working while we have massive unemployment, it "shows" that Obama and the Democratic are two-faced hypocrites!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:07 PM    in reply to marysteeleyorktownva

In addition, it costs the federal government NO additional dollars to take care of the majority of BOTH problems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 28, 2010 1:44 AM    in reply to marysteeleyorktownva

ok, I doubt you'll see it since I'm four days behind on this, but...

What Obama was saying is that all of us already are paying higher healthcare costs thanks to people who don't have insurance, go to the ER, and can't pay their bills. It's not just illegals doing it, either.

Secondly, as I believe someone already tried to educate you on, it's greedy Repugs who love hiring illegals because it saves them $ in wages, benefits and taxes.

so your double posting of this bullshit is a double fail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:27 PM   

Wow. A lot of stirred up Republican'ts here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:40 PM   

We'll see if his constituents will let him have it both ways in November. By the way check this out www.economyinperspective.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:41 PM   

Where is the MSM on this? Oh right, that conservative meme of the "liberal mainstream media" is another outright lie to get the morons to follow and believe in their twisted sense of reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 4:42 PM   

Sorry I made an error.

We'll see if his constituents will let him have it both ways in November. By the way check this out http://www.economyinperspective.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:01 PM   

Wow, if Grandpa Death Panel starts to praise the bill, will the Madame DeFarge of the GOP, Sarah Palin herself start to sing its praises really soon?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:19 PM   

This isn't as hypocritical as it sounds.

Context: Grassley has been trouncing all over nonprofit entities of all kinds--museums, the Red Cross, and even conservative megachurches for their apparent abuse of the Charitable Non-Profit rules of 26 USC 501(c)(3).

I'm a liberal democrat. Grassley is disingenuous for the death panel comment and other things, too.

But he has been remarkably consistent about cracking down on nonprofits that function exactly like profitable corporations. And nonprofit hospitals' books look identical to for-profit ones, except they pay no property taxes and can give exemptions for donations.

I just want everybody here to be aware of that so you can carefully measure your response.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:20 PM   

This is rich! From a chief promulgator of the death panels lie!

Grassley is a joke.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:51 PM   

Is Grassley, his son, and grandson still sucking at the Government tit by applying for and getting farm subsidies? Back in 2007 it was over half a million bucks.

Hypocrits on Parade.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 5:55 PM   

The Republicans who are campaigning on repeal of the health care bill seem to forget that even if they manage to gain control of the house and senate, they face a presidential veto. As for Grassley, he is not the first - and he won't be the last - Republican to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 7:48 PM   

man, the first people to LINE UP AND SIGN UP FOR "OBAMACARE will be gopers ....they will look to see if somebody got better coverage than they do.....they are gonna have one of 3 cards in their wallets or purses.....social security card,medicare card and now the new obamacare card.........

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 24, 2010 8:44 PM   

I heard that Grassley just bought one of Obama's health bill signature pens on Ebay. It was auctioned off by Charlie Rangel, who's raising money for his legal bills (now that lobbyists aren't covering all his expenses).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 25, 2010 12:12 PM   

Since Grannies around America aren't dying, more than totally normal, that is. I guess Chuck could take credit for that. But mostly he should take credit for being the most serious looking, yet clueless to reality, flip-fopping waffler, ALIVE!
Oh yeah, PLEASE Contribute generously!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 12, 2010 2:09 PM   

He's probably laying the groundwork for proposing a public option amendment to the current reconciliation process — hoping Dems won't be able to resist, will change the bill under consideration, and making it necessary to send back to the House (where things could fall apart and the fix will die).

Or, when they vote it down, then Repugs can claim a new campaign bludgeon to use this fall: "Dems opposed public option, while a Ref*ck proposed it be included!"

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on