Healthcare - Final Push

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5">
9 major changes in
new health care bill</font size>
<font size="4">

House Democrats push scaled-back tax
and other fixes to lure opposition</font size>


<font size="3">In their attempt to pass a sweeping health care overhaul this weekend, House Democrats are pushing a package of legislative fixes to lure undecided or opposed members of their party to the "yes" category. </font size>

  • Heftier subsidies: Compared to the Senate legislation, the reconciliation bill would provide more generous subsidies to low- and moderate-income Americans to help them buy health coverage.

  • The “Maserati” tax: The levy on high-cost insurance plans is scaled back and delayed, rendering it more a "Maserati" than a "Cadillac" tax. It would apply only to the portion of plans costing more than $10,200 a year for individuals, up from $8,500, and $27,500 for families, up from $23,000. The tax wouldn't kick in until 2018, reducing the projected revenue to the government by 80 percent.

    Over time, however, the tax would hit more and more plans, because the tax's threshold is set to increase at the rate of inflation while premiums are expected to continue to grow much more quickly than that.

  • Closing the doughnut hole: Unlike the Senate bill, the reconciliation measure would eventually close the coverage gap, called the "doughnut hole," for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D drug plans. (Currently, seniors who hit the gap must bear the full cost of their medications until they spend a certain amount, when coverage kicks back in.)

    Under the new bill, seniors who hit the gap this year would get $250 to help cover the costs of their medications. Starting next year, they'd get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, with the cost borne by the drug industry. In subsequent years, the discounts would expand and begin covering generic drugs, with the expense picked up by the government. By 2020, the discounts would reach 75 percent.</font size>

  • Shift in Medicare Advantage payouts: Government payments to Medicare Advantage, the private-health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, would be cut back more steeply than under the Senate bill: $132 billion over 10 years, compared to $118 billion.

    The government currently pays the private plans an average of 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. The new bill, besides reducing payments overall, would shift the funding; some high-cost areas would be paid 5 percent below traditional Medicare, while some lower-cost areas would be paid 15 percent more than traditional Medicare. The Senate's plan that would have shielded some areas of the country such as South Florida from major cuts was largely eliminated.

  • A raise for doctors: Primary care doctors would get a Medicaid payment boost in the reconciliation bill. Beginning in 2013 and 2014, the doctors' payment rates would be on par with Medicare rates, which typically are about 20 percent higher than Medicaid. The goal is to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of doctors willing to care for the millions of additional people who would become eligible for Medicaid under the health care overhaul.

  • Pushing up the Medicare tax: The Senate bill adds 0.9 percent to the Medicare payroll tax on earned income above $200,000 for individuals, or $250,000 for couples. Under the reconciliation bill, starting in 2013, people in those income brackets also would face a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, such as interest, capital gains and dividends.

  • Penalty for not having insurance: Under the new bill, most Americans without insurance would face an annual penalty, starting in 2014 at $95 – the same as in the Senate bill. But in following years, the penalties in the reconciliation bill are slightly different.

    Those without insurance in 2016, for example, would pay the greater of two alternatives: a flat fee of $695, down from the Senate’s $750, or 2.5 percent of their income, up from 2 percent in the Senate bill.

  • Expanding Medicaid: The reconciliation package differs from the Senate-passed bill in several ways. It would delete a provision dubbed the "Cornhusker kickback" that would have exempted Nebraska from paying any cost of a Medicaid expansion included in the bill. But it would provide full federal funding to all states for newly eligible Medicaid recipients for three years. And it would give additional funding to states like Vermont and Maine that have already moved to cover adults without children, which isn't required under the Medicaid program.

  • Medicare spending board: The Senate bill would create an independent, 15-member board to recommend ways to control Medicare spending. The board remains in the reconciliation package, but would be expected to produce just about half of its original projected savings of $23 billion in the Senate bill. That's because the new proposal would make greater cuts in Medicare Advantage plans.

KHN staff writers Jordan Rau and Phil Galewitz contributed to this story

© 2010 This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery. © Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35947758/ns/health-health_care/
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.latest/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.latest/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
It looks like healthcare reform is a step in the right direction, not perfect. The mandates are trying to balance out the ban on prexisting condition, you can't force insurance companies to allow people to game the system and pick up insurance once they get sick. Health insurance lawyers would challenge it, and win at the supreme court.

Healthcare costs are rising because the medical community is finding ways to sustain you or cure diseases, what would have killed you 30-50 years ago (heart attacks, strokes, bacteria-viruses, prenatal, and cancer) can be treated, but expensively. Health insurance, really wasn't covering anything since they couldn't take care of any of the major problems, you just died. The hospital was your final cheap stop before going to the grave, and tell you what was killing you. Now they can put stents to fix arteries, give you drugs to bust up clots for stroke - provide rehabiliation afterward, cochlear implants to hear, and treat premature babies that would have died.

Healthcare reform is needed to adjust to this new reality, you can't deny people lifesaving treatment, and the burden needs to be spread out.
 
Last edited:
<font size="5"><center>
House Democrats pass historic
health overhaul, 219 to 212</font size></center>



WEBpelosi.major_story_img.prod_affiliate.91.jpg



McClatchy Newspapers
By David Lightman
and William Douglas
Sunday, March 21, 2010


WASHINGTON —The House of Representatives Sunday passed by a 219 to 212 vote the biggest overhaul of the nation's health care system in more than four decades, sweeping changes expected to make coverage easier and cheaper to obtain.

The largely party-line vote —219 Democrats voted "yea" while all 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted no —meant President Barack Obama's biggest domestic initiative neared the end of its year-long political and legislative odyssey.

"We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things," Obama said late Sunday from the White House.

The House first approved the legislation the Senate approved on Dec. 24. The chamber then approved changes to the bill called reconciliation, on a vote of 220 to 211, again with no Republican votes. The Senate will consider the revisions this week.

Obama is expected to sign both measures, and trigger the biggest changes to the health care system since Medicare was created 45 years ago. Under the new plan, most consumers would be required to have coverage by 2014, and most employers would have to offer it.

Within a year, insurers would be barred from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions, imposing lifetime limits on coverage and dropping people from coverage when they get sick.

By 2014, virtually everyone would have to obtain coverage while employers would have to offer it.

"Just think, we will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare, and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said before the vote.

The reconciliation bill makes several key changes to the Senate measure. The Medicare payroll tax would go up 0.9 percentage points, to 2.35 percent, for single filers earning more than $200,000 for joint filers making more than $250,000. In addition, they'd pay 3.8 percent on dividend, interest and other unearned income, starting in 2013.

The bill also provides more help with insurance premiums for lower- and middle- income consumers and expands Medicaid funding to states The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 32 million more people, or 94 percent of eligible Americans, will be insured by 2019.

"I know that this bill is complicated," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It's also very simple. Illness and infirmity are universal, and we are stronger against them together than alone. Our bodies may fail us. Our neighbors don't have to."

Republicans warned the plan's impact would reverberate beyond health care policy.

In an impassioned floor speech, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, chastised House Democrats for ramming through a bill and suggested that the majority party will pay the price in November's midterm elections.

"We have failed to listen to America," Boehner said. "If we pass this bill, there will be no turning back. It will be the last straw for the American people. In a democracy, you can only ignore the will of the people for so long and get away with it."

The outcome was in some doubt early Sunday as about a dozen anti-abortion Democrats threatened to withhold their support unless they got guarantees that the legislation wouldn't expand the government's role in abortion. However, the White House said Sunday afternoon that Obama would issue an executive order to ensure that the administration will enforce long-standing restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who led the anti-abortion group, was pleased, and flatly predicted that when the House votes late Sunday, it will have the 216 needed for passage.

"We wanted to see health care reform, but there was a principle we wanted to see — the sanctity of life." Stupak said. Another group member, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said he now planned to cast "the most pro-life vote" in his 34-year congressional career.

The lengthy executive order, negotiated over several days, resolves several thorny problems — it removes from the legislation any changes to abortion policy, which would have required the difficult prospect of getting Senate approval. It also assures the support of the last big bloc of holdout Democrats.

Democrats picked up other key votes Sunday. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., who'd voted no on the House bill in November, said he'd now vote yes. "This legislation before us in not perfect, but it does make substantial improvements on what exists today," he said.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, one of the anti-abortion Democrats on the fence, told Toledo, Ohio, said she got assurances from administration officials that current federal law on abortion would be preserved.

Democrats, though, were still having trouble convincing a lot of "Blue Dogs," or fiscal conservatives. Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., Sunday decided to vote "no" because "I am unconvinced the long-term trend of rising health care costs is adequately addressed."

The debate Sunday began as the Capitol buzzed with an electric atmosphere. Outside in warm early spring weather, crowds protesting the health care bill and others supporting it rallied.

"Things are colliding today," said Maria Robalino, 35, of Washington, carrying a purple "Catholics for Healthcare Reform" sign.

Inside the Capitol, the mood could be tense. Particularly after a protester jumped up during the debate and shouted "kill the bill." Police quickly pounced and escorted him out of the chamber.

The debate on the House floor was a rerun of sorts, as Republicans and Democrats took turns offering well-rehearsed talking points.

"We know a nation is truly health when all of its citizens can have health care," said Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash.

"These bills are not the answer. They compound current problems and make health care even more expensive for small businesses," argued Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

(Erika Bolstad and Les Blumenthal contributed to this article.)


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/21/90780/stupak-says-hell-vote-yes-assuring.html
 
Obama's health care win ensures his legacy - May help in November

<font size="5"><center>
Obama's health care win ensures his
legacy — and may help in November</font size></center>




McClatchy Newspapers
By Margaret Talev
and Steven Thomma
Sunday, March 21, 2010


WASHINGTON — For President Barack Obama, success came ugly, months late and without bipartisanship, but it's still a big win of historic proportion.

Obama can take credit for greatly expanding health insurance for the American people and restructuring how it works, on a scale that no president before has been able to achieve.

<font size="3">Historians and political experts said that Sunday's passage of the Democrats' health care overhaul by the House of Representatives, together with the Senate's expected passage of its final terms in coming days, rescues Obama from being branded a political loser in only the second year of his presidency, and probably helps limit the Democrats' expected losses in November's congressional elections. </font size>​

Only time will tell whether the legislation lives up to the historic accomplishments that Democrats advertised: whether 95 percent of Americans really do get good coverage, whether people really will be able to keep their preferred doctors, whether private insurers really will be better regulated and whether the federal budget deficit really does shrink.

The tortured legislative path to victory magnified Obama's missteps and his trouble living up to his own maxims about ending closed-door deal-making with special interests. It also lacks the "public option" — a government-run health insurance alternative, which he preferred — hurt his public job-approval rating and may have cost him much of his political capital with Congress.

However, voters respect a president who gets things done more than one who doesn't. Democratic lawmakers may be more willing to back his future legislative agenda than they would be if he'd lost. With so few Republicans willing to work across the aisle, he also didn't have much to lose on that front.

"He will seem effective, or, to put it the other way around, he won't be seen as ineffective," said presidential historian William E. Leuchtenburg, a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an expert on President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"It's not going to loom as large as the Social Security Act, but he will go down in history as the man who for the first time brought health insurance to this country, something FDR did not even dare to try, that Truman tried and failed at, that Johnson stopped short on by being content with Medicare and Medicaid, but not trying to go the whole way, and that Clinton notoriously failed at. So for him to succeed will be seen as an important achievement."

Thomas E. Mann, an expert on Congress and governance at the Brookings Institution, a center-left research center in Washington, said that passage of the health care legislation would show that Democrats could get things done, regardless of Americans' concerns about the details, and that could weaken Republicans' standing. Voters will quickly forget about the controversial procedural mechanisms that Democrats used to pass the overhaul, if they were paying attention in the first place, Mann predicted.

"The narrative immediately changes. It's not dysfunctional government; it's rather that government is working," Mann said.

That <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">could embolden Democrats to press ahead on the remainder of this year's agenda, including legislation to tighten regulation of Wall Street and big banks and a comprehensive immigration overhaul</span>.


<font size="3">Immigration Now a 'No Go' ?</font size>

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., however, said the immigration bill would be "the first casualty" if Obama and Democrats push the health care overhaul through. Graham said it would "in my view, pretty much kill any chance of immigration reform passing the Senate this year."

Democratic and Republican politicians and strategists disagree as to the political consequences of how the health care victory was eked out, from the yearlong-plus length of the debate to its inconsistent theme — was it most about reducing costs, the moral imperative of insuring everyone or the need to regulate private insurers? — to the parliamentary tactics resorted to in the end.

Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia who's one of his party's shrewder strategists, said the victory made it easier for Democrats who voted against it to campaign without facing as much anger from their Democratic base.

However, he said that Obama would have used up his political capital getting it passed, with no more room to go to Republicans or most swing Democrats for help.

"Republicans aren't going to feel intimidated by this. And marginal Democrats are not going to want to take another tough vote. His members will say, "We gave you this vote, but no more.' They'll have given him their last ounce of breath."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said "immediate deliverables" should convince Americans that the overhaul was the right thing. Children with pre-existing conditions now can't have their coverage dumped. Seniors will get a break on prescription drug costs. Parents will be able to keep their children on their policies up to age 26. Other expansions and protections would be phased in.

"They'll wonder, 'Well gosh, is there a 'death panel'? Have we seen that?'" Kaine said. "No, it didn't exist. It never existed." The months between now and the November elections will "expose that an awful lot of what the other side said was a phantom that never existed, and I think again that's going to work to our benefit."

One centrist Democratic campaign strategist who advised the Bill Clinton White House said that "the real issue is less about the process this week than the fact that it took so many months to do this." The strategist spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he didn't want his opinion to be associated with his clients who are running for re-election.

"The length of time it took, it really blocked efforts of the administration and the Congress to show the American public they were focused on job one: trying get people back to work in this country."


<font size="3">What does this mean for November</font size>

The president acknowledged possible political costs during his closing arguments for the health care overhaul in a speech Friday at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

"What does this mean in November? What does it mean to the poll numbers? Is this more of an advantage for Democrats or Republicans? What's it going to mean for Obama? Will his presidency be crippled or will he be the comeback kid?" the president mockingly channeled news coverage.

"I don't know how this plays politically," he said. "Nobody really does. I mean, there's been so much misinformation and so much confusion, and the climate at times during the course of this year has been so toxic and people are so anxious because the economy has been going through such a tough time.

"I don't know what's going to happen with the politics on this thing. I do know that this bill, this legislation, is going to be enormously important for America's future."


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/21/90800/battered-and-bruised-obama-wins.html
 
Re: Obama's health care win ensures his legacy - May help in November

<font size="5"><Center>
Can Republicans Succeed
by Running Against Health Reform?</font size></center>



pelosi_0321.jpg

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California walks to the
floor as the House prepares to vote on health
care reform in Washington on March 21, 2010.
Alex Brandon / AP


logoTimeSpecials.png

By Mark Halperin
Monday, Mar. 22, 2010

<font size="3">In the seven and a half months between now and November's midterm elections, millions of Americans will be whipped up into a frenzy over the purported evils in the Democrats' health care bill, egged on by Fox News chatter, Rush Limbaugh's daily sermons, threats of state legislative and judicial action, and the solemn pledge of Republicans in Washington to make the fall election a referendum on Obamacare. But in doing so, they may be playing right into the Democrats' hands. </font size>​


President Obama gave a strong closing argument in the fortnight leading up to Sunday's dramatic floor votes, delivering speeches in the key states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and achieving levels of "fired up and ready to go" not seen since his presidential campaign. Such passionate pleas stiffened the spines of his party brethren, who have been anticipating and dreading months of over-the-top rhetoric about the ruinous consequences of a Democrats-only effort to bring the United States into the community of nations that makes health care available to all of its citizens. Indeed, not every Democratic member of Congress has embraced the White House theme that doing the right thing for the nation is more important than preserving individual seats in the Capitol. But enough hearts and minds were changed to allow the Obama-Pelosi tag team to get its majority at long last.

The falling action in the Senate over the next week or two will only exacerbate the partisan divide in Washington, inevitably mirrored throughout the country for the rest of the year. Republicans in the upper chamber not only will vociferously oppose the Democratic plan to pass the changes to their bill with the simple majority procedure known as reconciliation, but will make it clear that any prospect for meaningful bipartisan cooperation on any and all issues is dead and buried, at least for now.

The President, however, may be indifferent to the acrid fussing of his Republican foes. He will be able to bask once again in the glow of positive press coverage (accented by a momentous signing ceremony), which will focus on four areas helpful to the Democrats' prospects in November: the masterful display of White House patience and competence that got the job done; the elements of the legislation that are in fact consistently popular with large numbers of Americans, such as its insurance-company crackdowns; the return of the meme that Republicans are the party of No; and the accompanying rising poll numbers for the Administration and the new law.


<font size="3">Can a party Rebuild from anger?</font size>

In their comments in the House debate on Sunday, Republicans often sounded shrill and angry, sometimes hysterical. This is a real danger for a party that, since the 2008 Obama-McCain contest, has aimed to appeal to die-hard conservatives at the expense of a broader based constituency. The illusory belief that a majority can be built from a finite core of animated and agitated souls is what kept Democrats out of the White House for most of the 1970s and '80s, and Republicans are in danger of duplicating that error.

There is no question that the Democrats have handed the opposition party a compelling rationale to fire up its base for the upcoming election. But the bloodiest battle will be fought to define the new health care law for both swing and independent voters (even as disenchanted liberals are still being coaxed back to their stations).


Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press. For Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream media has been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans, for déjà vu all over again. The coverage through November likely will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his law, and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been improved by access to health care (pushed, no doubt, by Democrats from every competitive congressional district and state). The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major delivery of candidate Obama's promise of "change." The focus on this weekend's alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by opponents of the Democrats' plan should be a caution to Republican strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this year.


<font size="3">How will business & labor see Healthcare</font size>

But fighting back against a supposedly hostile press is old hat for the GOP. A far greater challenge will come from a new quarter. Large segments of the American business community are going to present a formidable ally for Obamacare, either with outspoken support or notable silence. From businesses that have been crushed by rising health care costs, to pharmaceutical companies cleverly co-opted by the White House early on in the process, to the doctors' organizations (including the American Medical Association) that endorsed the final product, to, yes, even the vilified insurance companies — none of these entities are going to join the charge to reverse the new reality of U.S. health care, and many will make it clear that they are resigned to, or actually in favor of, the apparently inevitable conclusion.

Add in labor unions, nurses, the AARP, plus the liberal coalition that has quietly worked to support the Democrats' effort, and the political challenge for those who suffered a substantive loss on Sunday becomes clear. The President and his allies will argue mightily in the coming days that the great war over health care has ended. Republicans certainly will make the case that the crusade has just begun. In this semantic skirmish, the White House, bolstered by the momentum of victory and allies old and new, is girded for combat.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1974005,00.html
 
The outcome was in some doubt early Sunday as about a dozen anti-abortion Democrats threatened to withhold their support unless they got guarantees that the legislation wouldn't expand the government's role in abortion. However, the White House said Sunday afternoon that Obama would issue an executive order to ensure that the administration will enforce long-standing restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who led the anti-abortion group, was pleased, and flatly predicted that when the House votes late Sunday, it will have the 216 needed for passage.

"We wanted to see health care reform, but there was a principle we wanted to see — the sanctity of life." Stupak said. Another group member, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said he now planned to cast "the most pro-life vote" in his 34-year congressional career.

The lengthy executive order, negotiated over several days, resolves several thorny problems — it removes from the legislation any changes to abortion policy, which would have required the difficult prospect of getting Senate approval. It also assures the support of the last big bloc of holdout Democrats.

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
 
Abortion:

The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.


Take this with the established Hyde Amendment and I think this is one of the many distractions Republicans use (and suck in conservative Dems) to talk about everything else but concrete issues. They can't win on policy so they try to provoke a new "culture war".
 
Abortion:

The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.


Take this with the established Hyde Amendment and I think this is one of the many distractions Republicans use (and suck in conservative Dems) to talk about everything else but concrete issues. They can't win on policy so they try to provoke a new "culture war".


You're correct Dave I did read that in another article.
 
<font size="4">
House takeover would give GOP
ways to attack health law</font size>



Kaiser Health News
By Marilyn Werber Serafini
Monday, November 1, 2010


WASHINGTON — If Rep. Joe Barton becomes the chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee next year, the Texas Republican vows to make life miserable
for Democratic defenders of the health care overhaul law.


While repealing the new law remains the first order of business for angry Republicans,
most acknowledge that it's a long shot, considering President Barack Obama's veto
power. Still, they'll possess some powerful tools to challenge the law if they win a
majority in the House of Representatives — as is widely forecast — and take over
leadership of the committees.


Key Republicans are threatening to withhold funding for the overhaul's initiatives
and to pursue hearings and oversight investigations in order to challenge adminis-
tration officials' regulations and communications with the public. Committee
chairmen have subpoena power, although holding the gavel is usually enough to
get officials into the witness chair.

"Oversight of the existing law will build a case for full repeal," Barton said. "We
have to aggressively work to repeal the entire bill. As part of the process, we'll
have very aggressive oversight."

FULL ARTICLE
 
Back
Top