The news of sticker shock to health care premiums under Obamacare had already begun to circulate today when suddenly a bad news cycle became truly awful for the high priests of Obamacare. First the American Cancer Society and other groups noticed that the Senate bill had snuck in the authority of insurance companies to set annual or lifetime benefit caps which shocked some Obamacare supporters.

And then the roof fell in: The Office of the Actuary in the Department of Health and Human Services issued a devastating assessment of the Senate plan which concluded it would drive overall health care costs higher, that it would lead to Medicare benefit cuts, that its long-term care insurance plan would likely be a costly failure, that 33 million people would remain uninsured after the plan was in effect, and that the cuts to doctors and hospitals envisioned by the plan were unsustainable, and that one in five hospitals would move to unprofitability under the plan.

The Reid bill is really tottering now. "If this thing falls apart, you can look back to today as the tipping point," says a Republican aide in the Senate, echoing what Lamar Alexander notes in the Costa post below. First, there was last night's CNN poll showing 61 percent opposition. Then, there was the devastating CMS report today. "Nobody went to the floor that I could see to defend it on the Democratic side," says the aide. The back-drop for all this is the non-deal that Reid hyped as a break-through earlier this week, only to have it unravel almost immediately. Even Bill Nelson says the Medicare buy-in is basically a "non-starter."

The Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution released a report today detailing how Americans — including Californians — are opting to stay in the state they live in at the highest rate since World War II.

"Migration away from areas stretching from San Francisco to San Diego, where high housing prices fueled 'middle-class flight' to the interior West, has now retrenched as home foreclosures rise and job opportunities diminish in states like Nevada and Arizona," according to the report, called The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional and Metropolitan Dimensions.

"During the middle part of the decade," the report said, "younger couples and singles with moderate education levels dominated the groups leaving California for lower-cost housing and job opportunities in surrounding states. Now, the state seems to be retaining many of these same groups, particularly younger whites and Hispanics who are married couples or singles, as housing cost pressures ease."

When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, many Democrats and their allies in the media complained that Republicans were more interested in pursuing a narrow ideological agenda intended to transform government and society rather than in solving the nation's problems.

Whether you agreed with that assessment, the charge wasn't completely unreasonable. Tax cuts to strangle government, deregulation for the sake of deregulation and social policy to advance the conservative agenda at any cost (e.g., Terri Schiavo) seemed among the rules of the day, no matter what the problem or the public's desire.

"A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer," reports the AP. The Senate Finance Committee barred annual caps altogether. The merged Senate bill only erases "unreasonable" annual caps. What's "unreasonable?" Hard to say.

Hill sources explain that this was inserted because CBO said premiums would "go through the roof" if insurers couldn't cap benefits. The official quote from Jim Manley, Harry Reid's spokesperson, says much the same thing. "We are concerned that banning all annual limits, regardless of whether services are voluntary, could lead to higher premiums," he explained. "We continue to work with experts on how best to accomplish our goals of preventing insurance companies from imposing arbitrary coverage limits while providing the premium relief American families need and deserve.”

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

It's hard to imagine a better illustration of the panic and recklessness stringing ObamaCare along in the Senate than the putative deal that Harry Reid announced this week. The Majority Leader is claiming that a Medicare "buy-in" for people from ages 55 to 64 has overcome the liberal-moderate impasse over the "public option." But if anything, this gambit is an even faster road to government-run health care.

The public option—an insurance program open to everyone, financed by taxpayers and run like Medicare—is intended as a veiled substitute for "single-payer" Canada-style insurance. Under the cover of "choice" and "competition," the entitlement would quickly squeeze out private insurance as people gravitated to "free" coverage and the government held down costs via price controls the way Medicare does now.
++++++
Well, DUH and this is why they did not promote this idea in the begiinning of the health care debate.

This week, diplomats from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen for the global climate change summit—an event that has been marked by controversy in the wake of the “climate-gate” scandal that has recently and rightly gained significant international media attention.
This scandal has provoked many questions that I believe deserve answers. Among other things, it would seem that information relating to climate change research may have been held back from the public— and key decision-makers, too. This could of course impact the appropriateness and effectiveness of policy that the US, and indeed world leaders, might pursue. Before moving forward, given the potentially significant economic consequences associated with some of the steps under consideration, I personally think it is important to get a handle on all the facts, whether they be good, bad or ugly.

Since the details of a looming public option compromise have begun to leak out, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has reiterated his opposition to a triggered public option–which is reportedly part of a new health care agreement. I asked him today whether he still intends to filibuster, even if the Congressional Budget Office says it's unlikely to be filled. He drew a line in the sand.

"I've told them that I can't support a trigger–no, actually, to be more explicit: If they say that it's unlikely to be [pulled] then it's unnecessary," Lieberman said. "It's an irritant. And I keep saying to my colleagues: the underlying bill, that I would say 60 of us in the caucus support, that is, the parts that we support in the underlying bill, are so full of progress–let's get that done, and stop trying to squeeze in things that some of us, respectfully, just won't accept."

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Thursday that she does not support the Medicare buy-in because it would “aggravate an already-serious problem” with the program – the low reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors.

“I have serious concerns,” Snowe told reporters. “I just think that is the wrong direction to take.”

Snowe said she could not see a way for Senate Democratic leaders to even tweak the proposal to win her vote.

“I can’t see it,” said Snowe, who met Wednesday with President Barack Obama. “I am talking to a lot of my providers this afternoon and I know they are mighty unhappy.”

“Republicans have to stick together on a strategy of highlighting Medicare cuts, tax increases and insurance premium increases,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the leadership. “Ultimately the goal is to stop the bill. Processing amendments puts Democrats on record and helps educate people about the bill.”

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) rebutted Limbaugh’s criticism.

“The strategy is working,” Johanns said of McConnell’s plan to wage the healthcare fight. “The strategy is through the amendment process to put out the issues on this bill. Every poll shows that American people, once they understand this bill, are passionately opposed to it. You only get there with amendments that show what they [Democrats] are doing to Medicare.”

Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) on Wednesday called out the leadership of the Republican Party for straying too far from conservative principles.

DeMint, in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, also said that he is trying to recruit a new crop of GOP lawmakers to challenge the party establishment.
"The problem in the Republican Party is that the leadership has gone to the left," he said. "I need some new Republicans."

DeMint's comments come as party leaders such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas), and RNC chairman Michael Steele have come under fire from several conservative bloggers and conservative grassroots activists.

But in addition to shepherding the health care bill through the Senate, Reid is also locked in a tough reelection campaign.

And in that regard his desire for a weekend off is not so benevolent to other Senators and staffers.

It turns out Reid has a 1,000 plus per plate fundraiser scheduled for Saturday in New Orleans, according to one local paper, which also reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, a key swing moderate in the health care debate, will also be in attendance.

But Reid will not escape the health debate even in the Big Easy; the paper reports that Tea Party activists who oppose helath reform are planning to picket the fundraiser.

A quick refresher for those who got drunk and slept through the day: Chip Hanlon, CEO of the right-wing blog Red County, put up a post Wednesday informing his readers that he has banned from the site the blogger formerly known as Sgt. York (who in real life is Placer County GOP activist Aaron Park). Hanlon, it seems, belatedly discovered that the Sarge was receiving payments from a consultant called Steve Frank who was himself receiving payments from Team Poizner; Sarge, it seems, neglected to mention this sort of significant, um, fiduciary relationship to Hanlon.

Complications ensued.

For more on the facts of the case, see posts by Joe Garofoli and Martin Wisckol.

Someone should tell Steve Poizner that Red County would have covered his Gubernatorial campaign for free.

You see, I’ve recently learned something which, in retrospect, might not come as a complete shock to all our readers given the nature of his content: I have it in writing that the Poizner camp has been secretly paying one of our writers, “Sgt. York,” for favorable coverage all year long.

Now, to be fair, the Poizner camp wasn’t paying him directly. Instead, they were paying a “consultant,” and that person was paying our now-former writer. But it is a fact that the person was paying York explicitly for pro-Poizner, anti-Whitman commentaries, articles specifically to be written on RedCounty.com.
+++++++
Shame on Steve Poizner, Steve Frank and Aaron Park.

The Orange County-based Red County blog is accustomed to writing about other people’s controversies, but today they wrote about one of their own: Their most outspoken supporter of gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner was cut loose after it was learned he was getting paid by the Poizner campaign.

Poizner spokesman Jarrod Agen fired back, saying Red County had become a cheerleader for Poizner opponent Meg Whitman. He said the Poizner campaign knew that the blogger – Placer County Republican Aaron Park, nom de blog of Sgt. York – was working for one of their consultants and blogging for Red County.

“There are lots of consultants who blog on websites and if a blog has rules, it’s up to the blogger to know the rules,” Agen said. “It’s an issue that doesn’t involve our campaign.
+++++++
Shame on you Aaron. You know better than this.

The blogger known as Sgt. York rarely missed an opportunity to Meg Whitman bash on the popular conservative blog Red County. On her "condescending attitude," her voting record, Van Jones, etc. No problem. That's fair game in politics.

Wasn't even a problem that he was paid to do so by Steve Frank, a consultant to Steve Poizner's campaign. (Poiz has tossed Frank's Eagle Group $37,722 from February through June.) Paid bloggers (and they ain't getting much so don't get any wild ideas) have become part of the media landscape in politics, just as they have in corporate America.
+++++++
Shame on Steve Poizner and Steve Frank

That is the actual worrying question about CRU, and GISS, and the other scientists working on paleoclimate reconstruction: that they may all be calibrating their findings to each other. That when you get a number that looks like CRU, you don't look so hard to figure out whether it's incorrect as you do when you get a number that doesn't look like CRU–and maybe you adjust the numbers you have to look more like the other "known" datasets. There is always a way to find what you're expecting to find if you look hard enough.

There are other issues: selection bias in the grant process, papers with large results being much more likely to be published than papers with equivocal results, professors preferring students who agree with them, and so forth. I doubt that could amount to faking the entire thing. But it could amplify the magnitude.

Hours before Barack Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a new national poll indicates that fewer Americans than ever think the president deserves the award. But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, a majority of the public believes the president will eventually accomplish enough to merit the honor.

Full results (pdf)

Nineteen percent of people questioned in the poll released Wednesday afternoon say Obama currently deserves the prize, with another 35 percent saying that it's likely he will eventually accomplish enough in office to deserve the award. Still, greater than four in 10 believe the president will never deserve the prize.

The 19 percent who believe Obama deserves the award is down 13 points from a CNN poll conducted in October, soon after the award was announced.

With a good environment this election cycle, Republicans have recruited competitive candidates who could turn otherwise close contests into runaway victories, likely defeats into wins or at least close contests that, if things break right, tip to the GOP.

Today, there are only 40 Republicans in the Senate. In January 2011, there could be 44, 46 or more if the party runs strong campaigns in contests that haven't jelled yet, or if some Democrats retire instead of risking defeat.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R., Utah), the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, predicts that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Me.) will not vote for the updated health-care bill recently announced by Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). “I don’t think she’ll vote for this (version),” says Bennett. “She’s given no indication that she will.” Bennett adds that what Reid has hinted publicly about his Tuesday-night “compromise” will lead to “not one single Republican voting for it.” Reid will “need every single Democrat,” says Bennett.

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

There are a couple of problems with Feinstein’s argument, not the least of which is that the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak Amendment, and the Nelson-Casey Amendment all made exceptions for rape, incest, and a threat to the mother’s life. Furthermore, the other potential “tragic circumstances” all have to do with choices the mother made, whether married or unmarried. And none of these pieces of legislation have to do with outlawing abortion altogether, but instead put the responsibility for funding said abortions on the person who wants one.
Feinstein does have one thing correct; tax dollars go to a lot of things that taxpayers may find objectionable, whether that’s the war in Afghanistan to studies on the effect of alcohol on young adults. However, this is also a non-sequitur in that people may find some public policy objectionable, but that’s not the same thing as subsidizing the personal choices of individuals.

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

Nearly $6 million in stimulus money was paid to two firms run by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.

Federal records show that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn.
++++++++
Well, this is how Hillary paid off her primary campaign debts against Obama – the American taxpayers. This is outrageous but standard for the Democrat Party in Washington.

Former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina has assets totaling tens of millions of dollars and would be among the wealthiest members of Congress if elected to the U.S. Senate next year, financial disclosure records show.

Fiorina, who last month launched a bid to unseat three-term incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is worth at least $30 million and as much as $119.3 million, according to forms Fiorina filed this week in accordance with congressional rules. Those rules require only that assets be reported in wide ranges — one category, which Fiorina checked twice, spans from $5 million to $25 million — making it impossible to say more precisely how much the Republican is worth.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday night reached a tentative deal aimed at assuaging moderate Democrats' concerns about creating a new government health insurance option, but the so-called "compromise" would actually move the nation much closer to a government-run health care system than the public option itself.

Under the terms of deal, as reported by the Washington Post, Democrats would drop the current incarnation of the public option and instead allow the Office of Personnel Management, the entity that runs the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, to oversee the creation of privately administered plans that would be offered on the new government-run exchanges.

If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
So what is all this going to cost?

The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.

An aide briefed on the negotiations among the gang of 10 offers up the rundown of the most important aspects of the public option compromise being sent to CBO.

If this trade-off carries the day, the opt out public option is gone.

In its place will be many of the alternatives we've been hearing about, including a Medicare expansion and a triggered, federally-based public option, the aide said.

As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says a Medicare buy-in approach will be a hard sell with her. She told reporters this afternoon that she's not inclined to support the idea, currently being discussed by liberal and conservative Democrats seeking a compromise on the public option.

"We looked at it…we evaluated that, because it's an attractive approach. This has appeal…but we examined that issue this summer and a number of issues cropped up."

She's expressed her doubts to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "I told him I have concerns," she said. "The Medicare buy in is problematic."

A reporter asked if that meant she's not inclined to support the idea. "Correct," she said.

An astute Fixista flagged a fascinating interview that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave to conservative talk radio host Lars Larson last Friday in which she appears to leave the door open to a third party bid for president in 2012. Asked by Larson whether she would consider running as a third party candidate, Palin said: "That depends on how things go in the next couple of years." Larson told the 2008 vice presidential nominee that answer "sounds like a yes" to which she responded: "If the Republican party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there's not going to be a need for a third party, but I'll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years." Which, to the Fix's delicate ears, sounds like Palin leaving the door wide open. As we have written before, Palin is not — and never will be — a candidate of the Republican establishment.

In a remarkable statement on the floor of the Senate yesterday, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) accused opponents of taxpayer funded abortions – including a number of her own Democrat Senate colleagues – of showing "a lack of respect for women." To watch Boxer's statement, click here.

Boxer's accusation was in reaction to an amendment to the Senate health care bill that places restrictions on federal funds going toward abortion services – an amendment that was offered by Boxer's fellow Democrat colleague, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE).

Last year, nine Democrat Senators – including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and current Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (D-CO) – voted for an amendment similar to Nelson's provision aimed at prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions in the Indian Health Service bill.

The group of 10 progressive and moderate Democratic senators negotiating a deal on the public option may be close to a deal. The group is meeting this morning and will be throughout the day, according to senators in the group.
The likely deal will involve a package of fixes. The most talked about — but not solidified — include the establishment of a national healthcare plan administered by the government, but run by private insurance companies. It will be similar to the plans offered to members of Congress and their staff.

The other two often discussed programs would be expanding Medicaid to those whose incomes are within 150% of poverty and allowing more people to buy into Medicare, starting a 55 years of age.

In return for concessions on their proposal for a new government-run health insurance plan, liberal Democratic senators pushed Monday for expansion of Medicare and Medicaid and more stringent federal regulation of the insurance industry.
Liberal and centrist Democrats are trying to work out a deal on the proposal for a public option, which has become the most divisive issue in the debate over President Obama’s effort to offer affordable health insurance to all Americans.

Under a possible compromise, the federal Office of Personnel Management would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national health plans to individuals, families and small businesses. The personnel office has decades of experience arranging health benefits for federal employees, including members of Congress.

A potential deal took shape Monday that could eliminate the public option from the Senate health reform bill, as Democrats weighed big expansions of both Medicare and Medicaid in a bid to break an impasse over the government insurance plan.

But negotiators were still struggling to craft a compromise that could satisfy moderates worried about the too-heavy hand of government — and liberals who would be giving up on their cherished goal of a federal health insurance safety net.

After five days of intensive talks among five moderates and five liberals, the outlines of a compromise aimed at appeasing both ends of the Democratic political spectrum were emerging: a plan designed to expand insurance coverage without creating a new government-run program.