Shea-Porter Urges Veterans Conference Committee to Keep Language Very Similar to Her Veterans Health Equity Act

Lexington Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WikiCommon)

WASHINGTON, DC – As members of the House and Senate form a Conference Committee to complete debate on legislation that will increase accountability at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and hire more doctors and nurses to provide timely, quality care for veterans, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)sent a letter today to the Conference Committee urging them to retain language included by the Senate, which is very similar to her Veterans Health Equity Act.

“Like my bill, the Senate-passed Veteran Access to Care Act includes a provision to ensure that veterans who live in a state without a full-service VA medical facility, such as New Hampshire, and who live more than 20 miles from a full-service VA medical facility, may access care from a private healthcare provider,” Shea-Porter said. “I respectfully request that you retain the language in Section 301 of H.R. 3230 as passed by the Senate, which is very similar to my bill, the Veterans Health Equity Act. This provision will solve some of the problems that rural veterans, many of whom live in New Hampshire, face when traveling long distances to receive medical care. The long ride to a VA medical facility has been a huge and unfair burden to our oldest and sickest veterans, and we have a chance to lift that burden now as part of the new VA legislation.”

Section 301 of the Veteran Access to Care Act would “expand availability of hospital care and medical services for veterans through the use of contracts.” Shea-Porter’s legislation would ensure that “every state has a full-service veterans hospital or that similar services are made available through contracts with hospitals in the state.”

Shea-Porter originally introduced the Veterans Health Equity Act in 2008. Since then, every member of New Hampshire’s delegation has cosponsored or reintroduced the bill.

Senators Shaheen and Ayotte worked to include the provision in the Senate VA bill. The Republican House Majority brought up the House VA bill under a closed rule, meaning language could not be changed.

Shea-Porter has been a leader in the effort to address issues within the Department of Veterans affairs. She supported the Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014. She cosponsored the  Veterans Timely Access to Health Care Act. And she was one of the first House Democrats to call for new leadership at the VA.

Full text of the letter is below.


June 23, 2014

The Honorable Bernie Sanders
Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Russell Senate Building, Room 412
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Richard Burr
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

The Honorable Jeff Miller
Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Mike Michaud
Ranking Member, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
333 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

I respectfully request that you retain the language in Section 301 of H.R. 3230 as passed by the Senate, which is very similar to my bill, the Veterans Health Equity Act. This provision will solve some of the problems that rural veterans, many of whom live in New Hampshire, face when traveling long distances to receive medical care. The long ride to a VA medical facility has been a huge and unfair burden to our oldest and sickest veterans, and we have a chance to lift that burden now as part of the new VA legislation.

All too often, veterans from my state must travel to Vermont or Massachusetts because New Hampshire no longer has a full-service VA medical facility. New Hampshire is currently one of the few states in the nation that does not have a full-service veterans hospital or equivalent access to comparable care. That is why I introduced the Veterans Health Equity Act in 2008, and have reintroduced it in my ensuing term. My bill would increase veterans’ access to VA or equivalent health care in New Hampshire. This is a matter of fairness. Since I originally introduced this bill, access to in-state medical care for New Hampshire’s veterans has improved, but not enough.

Like my bill, the Senate-passed Veteran Access to Care Act includes a provision to ensure that veterans who live in a state without a full-service VA medical facility, such as New Hampshire, and who live more than 20 miles from a full-service VA medical facility, may access care from a private healthcare provider.

Thanking veterans for their service means honoring our commitments to them, and that includes a commitment to timely, accessible, and convenient medical care. By retaining this provision, Congress can ensure that veterans living in rural areas far from a VA medical facility can access care in a way that does not cause hardship, and ensure that our veterans are treated as they deserve. I respectfully ask that this important provision be retained in Conference.


Carol Shea-Porter

Member of Congress


Utterly Disgusting! The NH GOP In The NH Senate Kill A Minimum Wage Increase

NHLN Logo .jpg

Utterly disgusting, despicable, shameful, disgraceful, and appalling are all words I would use to describe the actions taken by the Republican Senators in the NH Senate today as they voted to kill the minimum wage increase.

Straight down party lines the Senate voted 13-11 to kill the minimum wage bill that would have helped lift 76,000 Granite Staters out of poverty.

“Later this evening, a sales clerk in Derry or a waitress in Hampton will return home from a hard day’s work and will have to decide whether to pay the bills on her kitchen table or to go to the grocery store – because she doesn’t have enough to do both,” said Jeff McLynch, executive director of the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute. “The Senate had an opportunity today to ease their struggles and the difficulties faced by thousands of New Hampshire residents like them. Yet, rather than pass a modest, gradual, and sustained increase in New Hampshire’s minimum wage, the Senate simply walked away.”

“Senate Republicans have again voted against the best interests of Granite State families,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley.

“I am disappointed that Senate Republicans voted today against a bill to restore and increase New Hampshire’s minimum wage, a measure that an overwhelming majority of Granite Staters support because it would strengthen our economy and help improve the economic security of working families,” stated Governor Hassan.

“Increasing New Hampshire’s minimum wage will lead to more economic growth by rewarding hard work and improving workers’ productivity,” stated Senate Minority Leader Sylvia Larsen. “Senate Democrats believe we must raise the minimum wage, because increasing the minimum wage leads to greater income opportunity, so everyone will have a chance to succeed and get ahead.”

“Senate Republicans had the chance to put partisan politics aside and do the right thing for the 76,000 residents of New Hampshire who would benefit from this bill, but they failed them with this vote today,” concluded Larsen.

The minimum wage increase would have helped 76,000 low-income workers including.  The facts do not lie, 72% of the New Hampshire’s minimum wage workers, who would directly or indirectly benefit from this bill are age 20 and older with nearly 40% being 30 and older. 59% are women and 14% are parents.  Increasing the minimum wage would have benefited over 21,000 children are living NH.

Due to inflation and legislative inaction, New Hampshire’s minimum wage has lost 23 percent of its purchasing power since 1979. Failure to adopt a new increase means that the real value of the minimum wage could fall to just $6.50 per hour within the next several years.

“New England can be an expensive place to live,” McLynch added. “Policymakers in every other state in the region have acknowledged this reality and set their minimum wages above the federal level. Only New Hampshire expects people to continue to stretch $7.25 per hour to meet that high cost of living.”

“A Senate Republican making $185,000 a year called the minimum wage bill ‘feel good legislation’ but refused to spend even one day living in the shoes of his constituents who makes less than ten percent of his salary, even when they are working full-time,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress, in reference to Senator Peter Bragdon’s opening remarks. “Senator Bradley chose to use industry talking points instead of rely on economic data, and Senator Sanborn voted against the bill without disclosing the conflict of interest that he pays some of his workers minimum wage.”

“In contrast, several Senate Democrats took the Minimum Wage Challenge to live on minimum wage before voting on this bill. That experience illustrated for them the lack of affordable housing options, the slim budgets, and the constant anxiety that a minimum wage earner lives with every day. Questions about how to put gas in your tank and food on the table become very real when you don’t have a $185,000 golden salary to live on. Minimum wage earners work hard and play by the rules, but Senate Republicans sent a message loud and clear that they don’t care,” Rice Hawkins said. (Read full statement from GSP here)

“Senate Republicans have again voted against the best interests of Granite State families,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley. “No one who works full time in New Hampshire should have to live in abject poverty, but that’s the world we live in because of GOP obstructionism. Raising the minimum wage would not only help lift thousands of families out of poverty, but it would also stimulate our local economy and alleviate pressure on our public assistance programs. The Republican Senate caucus, not to mention gubernatorial candidate Walt Havenstein and Senate candidate Scott Brown, should be ashamed of themselves. By opposing this commonsense measure, they are effectively damning the families that most need our help.”

“People working full-time in New Hampshire should be paid enough to support their families and I will continue fighting to restore and improve our state minimum wage in order to boost our economy and strengthen the economic security of thousands of Granite Staters,” concluded Hassan.

Senate Republicans Block A Vote On Raising The Federal Minimum Wage

Image by Gage Skidmore (CC-Flikr)
Sen. Mitch Mcconnell (Image Gage Skidmore CC-FLIKR)

Sen. Mitch Mcconnell (Image Gage Skidmore CC-FLIKR)

Once again Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the the Minimum Wage Fairness Act in a 54-42 vote.

“Washington Democrats’ true focus these days seems to be making the far left happy, not helping the middle class,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky as he voted to block legislation that would lift millions of Americans out of poverty.

According to the AP, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) was the only republican with the fortitude to do the right thing and vote for the increase.  Over 70% of Americans support raising the minimum wage and yet the legislation was blocked by only six Republican Senators.

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) told the AP in a statement:

“Raising the minimum wage is about giving hard-working people a chance at economic mobility. Millions of Americans who work full time making minimum wage and support a family live under the poverty level. This legislation would help those hard-working Americans lift themselves out of poverty and earn wages they can spend in their communities, stimulating economic activity and job creation.”

Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Co-Chairs Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) released the following statement today after Senate Republicans blocked a bill to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 and increase the tipped minimum wage:

“We are deeply disappointed that Republicans in the House and Senate continue to fight for the world’s biggest corporations and ignore working families who can’t survive on $14,500 a year. The cost of food and childcare has increased, while the minimum wage is lower than it was in 1968 after calculating for inflation.

“A stagnant federal minimum wage is a stain on our nation. It tells working Americans putting in fifty or sixty hours a week that it doesn’t matter how hard they work—they will never get ahead. Approximately 28 million people would see a pay increase if we increased the minimum wage to $10.10 and 900,000 would be lifted out of poverty. Raising the minimum is the right choice for American businesses who are starving for customers. It would create a needed increase in economic activity, which allows businesses to grow and hire more people.”

“A fair minimum wage that is enough to put a roof over your head and food on the table should be a basic promise Congress makes to America’s families. Today’s vote is not the last. The Congressional Progressive Caucus will continue to organize and advocate for an increase in the federal minimum wage until President Obama signs the bill.”

This legislation would have lift more than 10,000 Granite Staters out of poverty and resulted in a raise for more than 110,000 Granite Staters, including approximately 67,000 New Hampshire women

Senator Jeanne Shaheen released the following statement:

“It’s disappointing that once again a minority of Senators were able to block action on a plan that has otherwise overwhelming support from the American people. More than 110,000 hardworking Granite Staters deserve the hard-earned raise the Minimum Wage Fairness Act would have provided, and this plan would have also helped create New Hampshire jobs, boosted our economy, and made sure workers could provide for their families.

“New Hampshire workers deserve a fair wage for an honest day’s work, and I will continue fighting to increase the minimum wage so we can strengthen our economy and give hardworking Americans a fair shot at success.”

The fight is far from over, and there is a glimmer of hope to get an increase accomplished.  “Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she and some other senators would be willing to reach a compromise on a lower figure than $10.10.”


On The Senate Floor Shaheen Calls For Extension Of Unemployment Insurance (VIDEO)

Shaheen-021109-18432- 0009

Vote on extending unemployment insurance scheduled for this afternoon

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) called on her colleagues to support an extension of unemployment insurance in a speech on the Senate floor this morning. In her remarks Shaheen highlighted the consequences that the failure to extend unemployment insurance has already had on the economy and Granite State families; to date New Hampshire has lost an estimated $1.8 million worth of economic output as a result of lost emergency benefits.

Senator Shaheen’s remarks as prepared for delivery are included below:

Mr. President, I came to the floor because later today the Senate will vote on a short-term extension of emergency unemployment benefits for the thousands of New Hampshire citizens, over a million throughout the country, who are being hurt right now by the failure of Congress to act.

I have heard from a number of New Hampshire constituents since unemployment insurance expired back in December. They make the case much for eloquently than I can about why we need to extend these unemployment benefits. I want to read some excerpts from some of those letters.

One of my constituents, a 62-year-old woman from Windham, New Hampshire, explained that despite her best efforts, she will be one of the many long term-unemployed without any unemployment benefits if she doesn’t find a job by March.

She began working at age eight delivering papers with her brother, put herself through college, and earned a master’s degree with the help of her employer.  She wrote “I’m not too proud to do any honest job.  I’m losing my house and can’t afford to pay my mortgage any longer.  There are so many of us out there.”

A woman from Windham, New Hampshire wrote to me.  She is 55 years old, and has held a job since she was 16. Last August, she was laid off in a merger, and has been actively seeking a job in her health care field.  She explained that her unemployment check has helped her pay for her essential living expenses.  She and her sister take care of their 90 year-old parents in their home, and this income is critical to their care.

A 58 year-old woman from Merrimack wrote that she lost her job in May 2013, and has had nine interviews, but no offers.  Without unemployment assistance, she will not be able to afford her car payment, her mortgage, or food and utilities.

A constituent wrote to me explaining that after 29 years as a teacher, her job was eliminated.  She has been on unemployment since June, and has applied to nearly 100 jobs. Think about getting up every day trying to figure out where to apply just to have a shot at getting back to work.  Her savings are exhausted and she is on the verge of losing her house since her unemployment benefits – her only source of income- have expired.

She wrote: “This seems unfair to me having worked hard and been a taxpayer into the system all of my working life. I fail to see how not extending benefits will be beneficial to me and the 1.3 million other Americans…especially in light of an already fragile economy.  Please do your best to remember those of us who never planned to have to depend on unemployment for this long but who have fallen victims to these times.”

I did a telephone town hall and heard from thousands of people across New Hampshire. One of the people I heard from was a woman named Kathy from Danbury. She told me that she had worked since she was 14, and she’s now out of a job. Her unemployment benefits have expired, and she doesn’t know what she’s going to do.

You know, we need to think about Kathy and all of the people who we’re hearing from in our offices. We’re supposed to represent the people who need help across this country. My constituents are exactly right – we are threatening the fragile economic recovery by failing to extend unemployment insurance.

The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the expiration of unemployment insurance will cost the economy 310,000 jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that each dollar we spend on extending unemployment insurance generates about $1.50 in economic growth.

And we learned this week that failing to act has already drained more than $2.2 billion from the economy, including $1.8 million from New Hampshire.  Not to mention, all of the people whose personal stories are tragic because they want to work. They’re out of a job through no fault of their own, and we need to provide them with some assistance while they try and get back on their feet so they don’t lose their home, so they don’t lose their car, so they can put food on the table.

I urge my colleagues to come together today. It is time for us to act to support an extension of unemployment insurance.  I certainly hope we are going to do that.

I yield the floor.

New Out-Of-Stater Jumps Into The NH U.S. Senate Race

a Mike Morrill for US Senate - Emphasis

New U.S. Senate Candidate Launches Campaign in New Hampshire; Will Challenge Scott Brown, Bob Smith in Republican Primary

a Mike Morrill for US Senate - Emphasis

Courtesy Photo

CONCORD, NH – A new candidate for New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate race launched his campaign during a press conference at the New Hampshire State House on Monday, January 27th. Michael Morrill announced he is running for United States Senate from the state of New Hampshire, seeking the Republican nomination in the primary. Morrill does not believe the fact that he currently lives in Pennsylvania will be a detriment to his campaign.

“There’s an open seat in the Republican Senate primary and someone has to fill it. Why not me?” Morrill said. “Like Scott Brown and Bob Smith, I see this race as pure opportunity.”

During the press conference Morrill outlined his qualifications to be elected the next U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, and his promises to the people of the state.

“Like Scott Brown, my family and I have strong ties to the Granite State that go back many generations. I have two brothers who live here. My father spent his last years here. I went to Boy Scout camp in Antrim. My mother lives in Amesbury.  I know that’s in Massachusetts, but it’s close enough. In addition, I have found Lost River –on many occasions. My car has climbed Mt. Washington. I have skied Attitash.  Well, I have ridden the alpine slide.”

“But it’s not just my deep New Hampshire roots that have compelled me to seek to become your U.S. Senator.  As I said earlier, this is really about one thing: pure opportunism. And that’s really why I want to be your United States Senator.  Like former Senators Smith and Brown, I’m looking for a cushy job, with lots of travel opportunities, great publicly-funded healthcare and a retirement plan that requires little investment on my part, but produces a retirement income that will make me comfortable in my old age. I promise to visit this great state at least twice a year once elected.”

Granite State Progress, a progressive advocacy organization, arranged the tongue-in-cheek press conference. Michael Morrill is the executive director of Keystone Progress, Granite State Progress’ sister organization in Pennsylvania.

“Morrill’s intent to run for U.S. Senate may not be real, but his New Hampshire credentials are and follow the same logic that Massachusetts’s Scott Brown and former Sen. Bob Smith, most recently of Florida, are using to justify their presence in New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate race,” said Zandra Rice Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress. “New Hampshire voters will choose for themselves who they want to represent them, but let’s not forget that Brown and Smith are jumping into this race out of political opportunity, pure and simple.”

We Can’t Abdicate Trade Policy to Secret Negotiations and Non-Elected Officials

Larry Cohen CWA

Washington, D.C. — In testimony at the Senate Finance Committee’s hearing on “Advancing Congress’s Trade Agenda: the Role of Trade Negotiating Authority,” Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America called for a strong and enforceable role for Congress in setting trade policy and priorities.

Last week, legislation calling for “fast track” authorization of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements was introduced.

“Trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs and quotas. They are about the food we eat, the air we breathe, the jobs we hold. We cannot abdicate this process to non-elected representatives. We cannot let foreign policy objectives trump domestic concerns and in the process unravel our own democracy instead of strengthening others,” Cohen said.

“Nor should we abdicate the decision to determine with whom the U.S. should negotiate. Vietnam is a 90 million person nation that is a party to the TPP negotiations.  The minimum wage in Vietnam is 28 cents an hour, and the average hourly wage is 75 cents. Vietnam’s is a record of non-existent workers’ rights and an extensive roster of human rights violations, including the documented use of child labor,” he said.

Cohen was the only witness testifying in opposition to “fast track” authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals. He addressed the issues that a broad coalition of unions, environmental organizations, consumer groups, fair trade advocates and others have joined to work for trade policies that benefit everyone.

“We recognize the reality that we are living in a global economy. Trade policy, done correctly, is a win for the U.S. economy and U.S. workers.

“It is critical that we work to stop the global race to the bottom that has been the result of old-style trade agreements. As a nation, we strive to improve our standard of living and provide a better life for our children and grandchildren. We should not compromise on these values and reduce the quality of life for Americans through our trade policies.” Cohen said.

Congress should establish these priorities for fast track legislation, Cohen said.

1. Document that any new trade deal is not likely to add to the nearly $1 trillion in annual trade deficit in goods. This deficit has increased by five times since we adopted NAFTA.

2. Document the net effect on employment, don’t look only at increases in exports. Each trade deal comes with the promise of job growth, yet the overall impact has been job loss, due to a wave of imports and offshoring.

3. Document the effect on pay and workers’ standard of living. Since NAFTA was negotiated, U.S. wages have stagnated and workers’ weekly take home pay is $100 less than 40 years ago.

4. Ensure that consumer protection regulations by federal, state and local governments are not diminished.

5. Ensure that all trading partners comply with ILO principles and convention. The U.S. has ratified just two of those eight principles that cover workers’ rights, child labor and freedom of association.

6. Ensure that environmental standards are not degraded and are enforceable.

7. Ensure that these social goals are enforceable at least at the same level as all other sections, like patents, investment protection and intellectual property rights.

8. Ensure that Congress plays a meaningful role in setting priorities and limits the authority the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate on basic governance and human rights.


Read the full testimony here:

Read the executive summary here:

AFL-CIO President Trumka’s Statement On Senate Colture Vote on Unemployment Insurance


Richard_TrumkaLast year, lawmakers appallingly deserted 1.3 million jobless workers and went home for their own holiday without extending unemployment insurance benefits. Today, the Senate took an important step to assist those still searching for work when it cleared the way for a temporary unemployment benefits bill.

Unemployment insurance serves as a lifeline for millions of jobless Americans and their families. For many job seekers, unemployment benefits are the difference between total hopelessness and a place to live and food on the table.

The urgent business before us now is fixing what’s wrong with our economy. Maintaining the unemployment benefits program won’t just keep families out of crisis. It helps to spur the economy and keep it growing.

The Senate should quickly act to pass this bill and the House must act immediately. Further failure will mean more than 3 million more qualified people who will be denied extended benefits. Millions of Americans counting on unemployment insurance to help them through tough times are counting on the House to do the right thing.  We cannot afford to leave any working families behind.

Shaheen Calls For Swift Passage Of The Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Shaheen-021109-18432- 0009

Shaheen: No one should be hired or fired because of sexual orientation or gender identity

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) is urging her colleagues to swiftly pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to important protections from workplace discrimination.  In remarks on the Senate floor, Shaheen drew parallels between the struggle for equality during the civil rights movement of the 1960s and similar struggles LGBT Americans are dealing with today.  

Below are Senator Shaheen’s remarks as prepared for delivery: 

Mr. President, almost fifty years ago Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.

This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender in employment, housing and public accommodations.

Most of us in the Senate recall the passage of this legislation.

And many of us saw firsthand painful examples of the legally-sanctioned discrimination that existed before the Civil Rights Act.

My elementary school years were spent in a state where black and white Americans were treated differently under the law.

I can still picture the separate water fountains for blacks and whites. I recall vividly going to the movie theater where black Americans could only sit in the balcony.

These practices were wrong, and they ended only because of the Civil Rights Act.

This week the Senate has the opportunity to extend our national quest for equal opportunity for all by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

This legislation simply prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, just as I was proud as Governor of New Hampshire 16 years ago to sign legislation making New Hampshire only the 10th state to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws.

That state legislation went further than the bill before the Senate this week. It not only covered employment, but housing and public accommodations as well.

Both the New Hampshire senate and house were controlled by Republicans. The bill passed both bodies with large bipartisan majorities. It was not seen as a partisan issue.

Including sexual orientation in New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination laws was just another step forward in our state’s long history of promoting civil rights.

No one should be hired or fired in the United States because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I realize that no law can erase prejudice from someone’s heart. Prejudice will continue to exist after the Employment Non-Discrimination Act becomes law, I know.

That’s not the issue.

The issue is whether it is acceptable as a matter of law in the United States to hire or fire someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In declaring our independence from Great Britain, our founders stated “[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….”

Equality under the law is part of our national creed.

Let’s take another step forward this week in advancing equal opportunity for all.

Let’s pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act with a strong bipartisan majority.

Senator Cruz Is Not The Only One Who Wants To Shut Down The Government Over The ACA

government closed

There are a lot of people talking about the upcoming showdown over the Affordable Care Act and the Continuing Resolution to keep the government running.  Without a budget or a Continuing Resolution the government will be forced to close up shop due to lack of funds.

This has been the subject of many previous debates in the last few years.  It seems that every three to six months Congress is threatening to shut down the government if they do not make significant changes.   Obviously this debate goes both ways.

Right now the debate over the Continuing Resolution (CR) has turned to healthcare, specifically the Affordable Care Act.  The debate over the ACA rages on every day.  Even after the house voted for the 41st time to repeal the ACA it should be obvious that the House is not going to get their way.  That is not stopping them; it is just making them more inventive in their repeal efforts.

The House passed a CR that would keep the government running, except they took out all the funding for the ACA.  They essentially are attempting to defund the ACA and are holding the government hostage to do it.

After they passed the bill it was quickly moved to the Senate.  Then a few Senators took that and ran with it.  Senator Ted Cruz has been all over the news talking about his position to shut the government down if they do not defund the ACA.  Cruz even got up and wasted 21 hours in a pretend filibuster. It was a pretend filibuster because the 21 hours of talking could not have any effect on whether or not a vote is going to be held.  His marathon talking session ended with a unanimous vote (100-0) to end debate and move toward voting on the actual bill.  We should be calling a 21 hour debate speech, because it is by definition not a filibuster.

The irony is that GOP leaders in the House were quick to distance themselves from this scenario.

Rep Peter King (potential GOP candidate for President) said, “He’s not standing on principle, I don’t know what he’s standing on,” King said. “But he’s standing for a strategy that can’t work. It’s going to personally help him as far as his political status, but it’s going to be bad for the county, bad for the Republican Party.”

Wait a second; are they really trying to blame Senator Cruz for holding the country hostage and threatening a government shutdown over the ACA?  Didn’t the bill that Senator Cruz is promoting came from the US House?  That’s right, it did.  Every one of those Reps who voted to repeal the ACA by defunding it, are doing the same thing.  Defund the ACA or we will not pass a CR, which is what you all voted on.

The House was even happy after the passage of the defunding-CR.

The Huffington Post reports, “Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) also took to twitter to vent. “House Republicans are turning words into action to defund #Obamacare. Ball will be in the Senate’s court,” he wrote.”

Yet now they want to distance themselves from shutting the government down because the public is adamantly against a shutdown.   The House GOP cannot get away from the fact that they voted to do what Senator Cruz is advocating for.  The House GOP cannot wiggle their way out of this.

Here is the full list of the Representative who would rather shut the government down if the President does not defund his signature bill.   Don’t let them forget it!

house votes CR 2014 Crop


Senate GOP Medicaid Alternative Plan Makes No Sense


Their alternative plan would mean higher costs, lower quality care, and unaffordable coverage

CONCORD – Today, Senate Democratic Leader Sylvia Larsen, House Majority Leader Steve Shurtleff, and Bi-State Primary Care Association President and CEO Tess Stack Kuenning held a conference call with members of the press to discuss the Senate Republican-endorsed alternative to expanding Medicaid.

The plan that Senate President Chuck Morse praised on Tuesday on behalf of Senate Republicans would turn down federal funds to expand Medicaid, and instead offer those who are below 100% of the federal poverty line (FPL, $11,490 for an individual in 2013) a plan with concierge primary care service and catastrophic coverage.

“This isn’t really a plan at all,” said Senator Larsen. “It would cost our state almost $3 billion more, only covers one quarter of the uninsured people that Medicaid includes, would give very poor coverage to those people, and that poor coverage would cost these folks more than half of their annual income so they could never afford it anyway.”

“So why would we pay much more to cover far fewer people with much worse coverage that they could never even afford?” added Larsen. “It makes no sense.”

Larsen pointed out that whereas expanded Medicaid would save the state about $45 million total between now and the end of 2021, the Senate Republican plan would cost the state $46 million each year, for a total cost of $368 million over the same 10 year period. And at the same time, the state would be foregoing $2.4 billion in federal funds, for a total loss to the state of almost $3 billion under the Senate Republican plan. The state would also lose out on almost $400 million in economic growth and 700 new jobs created under Medicaid expansion.

House Majority Leader Shurtleff noted that expanded Medicaid would cover an estimated 46,200 currently uninsured people, while the Senate Republican plan would cover 11,150 people, about one quarter as many. He also pointed out that the Senate Republican plan would cost people $6,362 out of pocket before they could even access coverage. So with people in this program making a maximum of $11,490 a year, they would be paying 55% of their income for coverage. By contrast, an individual covered under expanded Medicaid would pay no more than $793 a year.

“Does anyone think that someone making under $12,000 a year can afford more than $6,000 a year on health care coverage?” asked Shurtleff. “These are working people. They are people with low incomes. These are wait staff, janitors, school bus drivers, hairstylists, teachers’ aides, grocery store clerks, construction workers, and landscapers. These are taxpayers. They are playing by the rules. And they deserve access to high quality, comprehensive coverage that they can actually afford.”

Bi-State Primary Care Association President and CEO Tess Stack Kuenning explained that the Senate Republican alternative plan combines concierge primary care service with catastrophic coverage, but no other coverage. That covers minor medical needs and acute or emergency needs, but nothing in between. That means there is no coverage for a huge proportion of medical needs and conditions including medications, treatment for many chronic conditions, most mental health conditions, outpatient surgeries, substance abuse treatment, and any other procedures not requiring prolonged hospitalization. This plan is far worse than regular private coverage, Medicaid, or Medicare.

“I can tell you as an advocate for low-income people who need access to health care, this would be very poor, very limited coverage, especially compared to Medicaid,” said Kuenning. “In my experience in this state, Medicaid provides good coverage, good quality of care, and better outcomes for people. That is why my organization and every other provider organization in the state has supported expanded Medicaid as the best way to provide coverage and access for low-income working people. But I see no way that low income working people could afford this coverage, they probably wouldn’t want it, and it wouldn’t help drive down costs or make people significantly healthier in our state.”

“I believe that Senate President Morse is serious about working on this issue and recognizes the challenges we face as a state,” Senator Larsen concluded. “I think when he and his colleagues take a close look at this plan, they will agree that it doesn’t make sense. But we agree with them about finding an approach that works best for New Hampshire. We have supported some of the ideas to bring the private sector into Medicaid including by making it a managed care program, and we look forward to continuing to work with them to find the right approach to bringing in these federal funds, helping our state economy, growing jobs, and giving people access to affordable, high-quality coverage.”