The government urged the health insurance consumers to hold off on filing their tax returns, and said millions of others would get more time to buy insurance. Reported by NYTimes.com 5 hours ago.

Whoever records those screaming voiceovers for local car dealerships should do one for the administration so America can know that THE PRESIDENT’S DAY HEALTH CARE SALE HAS BEEN EXTENDED FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY!!! Jeb Bush hired one of the GOP's best smear guys, because Jeb is the adult in the room. And two bills were just introduced that would end federal prohibition of marijuana… or it least it *FEELS* like they were just introduced...whooooaaa. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, February 20th, 2015:

*LEGALIZE IT* - These congressmen forgot to put "jobs" or "freedom" in their weed bill titles. Come on, guys. Matt Ferner: "Two congressmen filed separate House bills on Friday that together would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana at the federal level, effectively ending the U.S. government's decadeslong prohibition of the plant. *Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act*, which would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act's schedules, transfer oversight of the substance from the Drug Enforcement Administration over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and regulate marijuana in a way similar to how alcohol is currently regulated in the U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced the *Marijuana Tax Revenue Act*, which would set up a federal excise tax for regulated marijuana." [HuffPost]

*WHITE HOUSE SEEKING STAY OF IMMIGRATION RULING* - Elise Foley: "*The Department of Justice will seek a stay on a federal judge's ruling that brought a temporary halt to immigration programs created by executive action*, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday. The federal government would like the programs to be able to move forward until an appeals court examines the lower judge's ruling. The stay will be filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans by next Monday at the latest, and will be in addition to an appeal, he said. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen issued an order last Monday to temporarily halt the Obama administration from starting policies that could eventually allow as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to receive work authorization. The programs are now on hold as the judge considers a case brought by 26 states over the constitutionality of the policies….The states' lawsuit, led by Texas, contends that the programs are unconstitutional and would impose a burden on their governments." [HuffPost]

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - Simon Constable reports on a dubious study: "It’s a strange trend, one that could be significant to policy makers: When monthly food-stamp distributions fall on a weekend, beer sales to that population jump – by up to 7%. According to a new study, the day of the week food-stamp funds are distributed seems to be influencing monthly beer sales among the population eligible for the benefit." Correlation, sure. But fully 25 percent of people eligible for food stamps don't sign up. Are they drunk or what? [WSJ]

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It's free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*OBAMACARE ENROLLMENT EXTENDED* - Jeff Young: "Taxpayers facing fines for not having health insurance in 2014 will get another chance to sign up for benefits on the Obamacare exchanges this year, federal officials announced Friday. *From March 15 through April 30, individuals who learn when they file tax returns that they must pay a penalty under the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate can return to HealthCare.gov to choose a plan for the current year, Andy Slavitt, the principal deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told reporters on a conference call*. The three-month Obamacare sign-up campaign officially ended Sunday. But President Barack Obama's administration and some state authorities are reopening enrollment around tax time as a means of covering more uninsured people and mitigating the backlash from taxpayers who weren't covered last year and discover they owe fines starting at $95 per person when they file their 2014 returns. This tax season is the first time Americans must account for their health insurance status when they file tax returns, and the first time anyone will have to pay a penalty for not being covered. Awareness of that penalty remains low among the uninsured, according to survey results published Thursday by the Urban Institute. As many as 6 million people will have to pay the mandate fine this year, the Treasury Department estimates." [HuffPost]

*JEB STAFFS UP* - Christina Wilkie: "Tim Miller, a rising star in the world of Republican political opposition research, has joined Jeb Bush's political action committee as a senior adviser. *Miller co-founded America Rising, a GOP tracking group that digs up and distributes negative information about Democratic candidates*. Miller is expected to join the former Florida governor's as-yet unofficial presidential campaign as communications director. Miller is part of a new generation of opposition researchers working for groups like American Bridge to the 21st Century on the left and America Rising on the right....For Jeb Bush, an establishment candidate with a reputation for reasoned and well-informed policy positions, Miller promises to bring a communications style to the campaign that is sharper and grittier than the candidate's own. Bush's decision to hire Miller, a prolific Twitter user, also reflects the growing importance of social media as a key element of political communications, a shift from just a few years ago when candidates' Twitter and Facebook pages were often managed by lower-level staffers, while communications directors interacted mainly with the press." [HuffPost]

When his dad was president, Jeb Bush lobbied the administration on behalf of a Medicare fraudster.

*EARNEST 'FEELS SORRY' FOR GIULIANI* - Guess he's no longer America's mayor, or maybe Marty Walsh took that distinction when he told all those boston brahs to stop being idiots by jumping off their roofs into the snow. Jen Bendery: "White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday that he pitied former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who claimed that President Barack Obama doesn't love America and later said his comments weren't racist because Obama has a white mother. *'I feel sorry for Rudy Giuliani,' Earnest said at his daily briefing. The White House spokesman noted that many reporters in the room have attended speeches by Obama where 'he's talked about his love for this country or how the United States is a force for good in the world.'* He suggested Giuliani's comments ultimately reflect badly on himself. 'It's sad to see when somebody who has attained a certain level of public stature, and even admiration, tarnishes a legacy so thoroughly,' Earnest said. 'I don't take any joy or vindication or satisfaction from that.' Asked later if he thinks Giuliani 'has lost it,' Earnest said only, 'I don't know.'" [HuffPost]

*MORE SICK BURNS* - Reuters: "With potential Republican candidates for president in 2016 talking up ways to help the middle class, President Barack Obama made clear on Friday he believes it was his idea first. 'The new plan is to rebrand themselves as the party of the middle class,' Obama said in a speech to the Democratic National Committee, drawing laughter. '*I'm not making this up*.'" [HuffPost]

*FED LOBBYING HILL AGAINST RAND PAUL BILL* - You could say it's trying to shush him. The Hill: "The Federal Reserve is pushing back against mounting criticism of the central bank, as those pushing for reforms ratchet up their attacks. Fed officials have in recent weeks met in private with staffers from both parties, focusing primarily on the Senate, according to sources familiar with the meetings. Meanwhile, Chairwoman Janet Yellen and other Fed officials have publicly sounded off against a proposal championed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-K.Y.) that would give Congress more sway over the bank. The uptick in outreach from the independent agency signals an effort to quell calls for significant changes at the Fed and assuage concerns that it has become too opaque and too cozy with Wall Street." [The Hill]

Rand Paul tweeted something that was not correct, in a rare gaffe.

*BILL O'REILLY SHOULD APOLOGIZE* - Maybe he should DO IT LIVE!!! Sorry. MIchael Calderone: "*Mother Jones has called on Fox News host Bill O'Reilly to apologize for the 'violent tone' of his response to the magazine challenging his recollection of covering the Falklands War*. In a Friday letter to Fox News executive vice president Bill Shine and a network spokeswoman, Mother Jones co-editors Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein said they 'welcome criticism,' but that O'Reilly's suggestion that Washington editor David Corn deserves ''to be in the kill zone' crosses a line.' 'Like everyone in media today, we are concerned about the safety of our staff,' they wrote. 'We'd have hoped that statements with this kind of violent tone would not come from a fellow media professional.'" [HuffPost]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a pug with intimacy issues.

*ICYMI: BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS, FOR THEY KNOW HOW TO KEEP A GOOD GRAMMYS PARTY GOING* - Who needs bilateral negotiations when we have Nancy Pelosi? Salon: "Kathy Griffin popped by 'Late Night with Seth Meyers' on Wednesday night, and she explained how tricky celebrity functions have become since taking over 'Fashion Police.' According to Griffin, celebrities often confront her over being put on the 'worst dressed' list. One of these confrontations happened at Clive Davis’ Grammy party — and Nancy Pelosi found herself mediating." [Salon]

*COMFORT FOOD*

- John Oliver playing "would you rather" reminds us why we love John Oliver.

- Big Bird and his puppeteer riff on "Birdman."

- All the slo-mo video of bullets hitting metal you could ever want.

*TWITTERAMA*

@igorbobic: She’s on the Price is Right? RT @samsteinhp: Why did Maureen McDonnell get one extra day added on to her one-year sentence?

@ProffJeffJarvis: #FF @ProfJeffJarvis

@mileskahn: If we don't stop arguing about how to label ISIS' brand of terror the terrorists win.

*Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com) or Arthur Delaney (arthur@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e* Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.

Salt Lake City, Utah- (ABC 4 Utah) – Medicaid expansion is one of the most pressing and divisive issues at this years legislative session.

State lawmakers are debating the best way to bridge the coverage gap for more than 50,000 Utahns who have no option for health insurance.

Chief Political Correspondent, Glen Mills sat down with Governor Gary Herbert to break down his proposal.

Glen Mills
The Healthy Utah Plan is Governor Herbert's solution to bridging the gap. It's one option on the table this legislative session. Governor, you believe it is the option. What are your top reasons for that?

Governor Herbert
“I think it protects the tax payers' dollars. It in fact respects the fact that they're paying for the bill. We send 800 hundred million dollars a year to Washington, D.C. I'm not happy about them taking the money, but if they take it, we ought to get it back."

"This is a new tax. This is not other moneys from other funds. This is taxes generated specifically under the Affordable Care Act for this issue."

“Although the expansion of Medicaid is voluntary, the taxes being paid are mandatory."

"I'm just suggesting a new way to bring the money back and spend it the way we think fit, outside of a Medicaid program, addressing the same group of people, but in a much more efficient program that not only helps with their health care, but helps them if they're underemployed and in need of government assistance to get a better job, so they don't need government assistance going forward."

Glen Mills
We're talking 800 million going out every year and 3.2 billion coming back under your proposal with the Healthy Utah plan. How is that money put to use? Does it actually go into state coffers or where does that money go?

Governor Herbert
"That comes back and goes into the market place, it's infused into our economy. Clearly it will have a positive economic impact and a significant way into the private sector. People will use that money for private insurance purchasing, acquisition of better health care with more choice."

"It will help us with the work program, so people will not only be given health care but they're going to be taught how to get a better job if they're underemployed, or a job if they're unemployed, assuming they are able bodied."

Glen Mills
"It also does come with a cost as well though. My understanding is that once we get to the 90-10 split, we're talking anywhere in the neighborhood of 70 million dollars. So where does that money come from?

Governor Herbert
"A number of sources it can come from. We certainly are growing the economy, so our general fund is growing. We have 336 million dollars of new ongoing money from this past estimation." 6:46 Plus a lot of one time money about 350 million of one time money too.”

"There is also hospitals and medical establishments that are beneficiaries of this change that have some windfall in this saying we are willing to step up and pay our fair share. The tax on e-cigarettes is a revenue stream that could be used to help defray these costs."

"We can set money aside, so that we have money already built in."

"The key to remember is this is a pilot program, and so we need to test the theory and see what happens. We can cap enrollment, there's ways to control the cost."

Glen Mills
One of the other options on the table is known as the Medically Frail option. We're talking somewhere around 10,000 people. Healthy Utah is looking at after six years probably more in the neighborhood of 140,000. So talk about the coverage difference in some of the other options?

Governor Herbert
"On balance it's not hard for me to figure out which is the best investment. 200 million here, get back 600 million. 236 million here, bring back 3.2 billion. 10,000 people we serve over on the medically frail vs. 146,000 people we serve under Healthy Utah. And not only do we serve them, but we help them get better jobs. It's gonna help spur the economy, get them back into the work force. On so many levels, it's just a better business investment."

Glen Mills
That being said, there is still opposition on the legislative side. One thing I keep hearing house leaders say over and over is, they're concerned about the sustainability. You make the point that it's a pilot program, we can pull it. But I've heard them say, what good is it to say: people of Utah, here it is today, but we have to take it later. What's your response to that?

Governor Herbert
"Well we don't know. That's why it's a pilot program. We do that on many pilot programs. This is larger because it goes state-wide but that's just how the system goes on a national federal program. It's not a state program where we just do a few counties or a few school districts on a pilot program. We're part of a national law that's been passed. I didn't support the law, I'd still don't support the law, but it is the law."

"I think it's a lack of either understanding or a lack of courage to say, we might not be able to do this in five or six years down the road, so let's not do anything now."

Glen Mills
Healthy Utah is being presented in the Senate, sponsored by Senator Shiozawa, Frail Utah or as Senator Christensen is now calling it, Vulnerable Utah, also is being represented in the Senate. Both have passed committee, expected to hit the senate floor anytime now. Are you confident that we can come up with a solution this session?

Governor Herbert
"I'm cautiously optimistic. I think everybody on all sides of this issue has said, doing nothing isn't an option. I mean, that's foolish."

"The question is, we ought to do something, and what is the something we should do? If there's a better approach that respects the tax payers' dollars and benefits the people of Utah better than Healthy Utah, bring it on. I'm interested in hearing it."

Glen Mills
You also have to have federal approval. You know how the process of gaining that is. If it does change too much from the proposal you have on the table now, are you concerned about the Feds signing off on it?

Governor Herbert
"No, we have agreement with what we have on the table here. They are prepared to go along with what we have today. We have maximum flexibility, more flexibility than any state in America. We're the only state that has this work-effort-program where you, when you sign up for Healthy Utah, you automatically enroll into a work program to help you get a better job, so you can get off of government systems. That's a good principle. That's teaching the people how to fish rather than just giving them a fish."

Healthy Utah is sponsored by Senator Brain Shiozawa and the Medically Frail Plan is sponsored by Senator Allen Christensen.

Both have passed committee and should hit the Senate Floor next week.

On Thursday, house republicans discussed Medicaid expansion in a closed caucus.

In addition to the two plans they also considered a “Not Now” option that would push a decision off to a later time. Reported by abc4 30 minutes ago.

If one Oklahoma lawmaker has his way, people with sexually transmitted diseases will not just be getting married in his state.

Senate Bill 733, introduced by state Sen. Anthony Sykes (R), would require both partners to take a blood test within 30 days of applying for a marriage license. A license would be granted only if "in the opinion of the physician, the persons named therein are not infected with syphilis or other communicable or infectious diseases or, if infected, that such diseases are not in a stage which may be communicable to the marriage partner," the bill says.

Problem number one: the potential public release of private medical information. The full text of the bill implies that the office that grants marriage licenses would also keep copies of the blood tests, according to Oklahoma's News 9. This might violate the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is designed to protect the confidentiality of Americans' medical records.

Problem number two: Oklahoma used to require a premarital blood test for syphilis but eliminated it in 2004 -- for good reason. At that time, NewsOK.com reported, the Oklahoma State Department of Health said that some 300,000 blood tests in the past five years had turned up just five new cases of syphilis.

As recently as 1980, there were 34 states that demanded a premarital blood test, but virtually every state has repealed that requirement since. Today, only Montana still has it on the books.

Blood test requirements "were enacted in the first half of the twentieth century as part of public health campaigns to reduce the spread of communicable diseases and prevent birth defects. The laws required couples applying for a marriage license to be screened for certain conditions, commonly rubella or syphilis," explains a 2009 study led by Kasey Buckles at the University of Notre Dame. "However, after penicillin proved to be a cheap and effective treatment for syphilis and vaccines were developed for rubella, these screenings were no longer considered cost-effective."

In other words, Sykes is trying to revive an old and largely discredited idea. An attorney, he has served in the state Senate since 2006, two years after the Oklahoma repeal.

So far, his proposed legislation has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, which Sykes chairs. There are currently no co-sponsors.

h/t Salon Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., got a definitive no when he asked the House of Representatives for information on how it arranged for its members and staff to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Vitter had announced... Reported by nola.com 6 hours ago.

Hello and welcome back to our Friday political news roundup. I must apologize for not writing one of these columns last week, but I was under the weather and far too sick to type (or think coherently). So the events covered today really encompass the previous two weeks, just to warn everyone in advance. Also, this intro is going to move along at an accelerated clip, because there is a lot to cover. Our awards this week are backwards, and then we've got a rant on the Republicans in Congress who are getting ready to have another government shutdown (because the last one worked so well, right?). But enough overview, let's get on with things.

Congress woke up and realized that they should start debate on Obama's war on the Islamic State. Hey, only nine or ten months late, but better late than never, right? It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few weeks.

Health and Human Services just announced that there will be a special one-time grace period for people to sign up for health insurance right around the deadline for filing income taxes. I wrote about this earlier in the week, and am glad to see they made the right call. This is for people who were unaware that not only will they be penalized on their 2014 taxes for not having health insurance, but because the open enrollment period just ended they'd have been locked into paying the penalty next year as well. With the new grace period, they'll be able to avoid the penalty next year, which is a good thing because it'll motivate more people to sign up. Obamacare already signed up almost 12 million people this time around (up from 7 million last year), and this will help boost those numbers.

Labor seems to be making something of a comeback, as strikes and lockouts are happening for oil refinery workers and those who unload container ships on West Coast ports. So far, the media hasn't paid this much attention, but we'll see where it all goes in the next few weeks.

Gay people are getting married in Alabama and Texas, which at one time might have been a truly shocking headline, but these days it's almost commonplace to read about. The Alabama case got interesting when the chief justice of the state supreme court tried to have a showdown with the U.S. Supreme Court, but was smacked down in the end. By July, the headline is going to read "U.S. Supreme Court Legalizes All Gay Marriages Everywhere," of course, but we've all still got a few more months of state-level news before that happens.

A federal judge in Texas blocked the implementation of President Obama's new immigration policy, but that'll really become bigger news next week, in the heat of the fight over the Homeland Security budget (which we'll get to in the talking points section).

News from the campaign trail: Jeb Bush gave a not-ready-for-prime-time speech on foreign policy this week. Spoiler alert: he wants his brother's foreign policy team, because they did such a bang-up job last time. Also, the Bush team went a little too transparent in a dump of emails from when Jeb was Florida's governor. Problem was, they forgot to strip out such information as addresses and even Social Security numbers. Whoops! And Jeb's supposed to be the smart one?!?

Rand Paul wants to change his state's election law so that he can run for Senate and president at the same time. Boy, that just oozes confidence about his chances to get the Republican nomination, doesn't it?

Scott Walker had his own not-quite-ready moment overseas, when he was asked about his views on evolution. His answer: "I'm going to punt on that one as well." What wasn't widely reported in the American press (due to the embarrassment factor, no doubt) was the questioner's response to Walker [PDF transcript]. First, it was an incredulous: "No, really?" and then the Brit moderator commented: "any British politician, right- or left-wing, would laugh and say: 'Yes, of course, evolution is true.'" Ah, to have such sane and science-based politics -- where such things aren't even seen as partisan!

Marijuana news: Vermont may become the first state to legalize recreational marijuana not through a voter initiative but through the state's legislature. The nation's new drug czar actually supports Washington DC's legalization law, even though (by law) he must be awfully circumspect in how he speaks of it. The Drug Policy Alliance so far thinks the new drug czar is a lot better than the previous one, as well.

At least one U.S. Attorney doesn't seem to have gotten all the Justice Department memos on not prosecuting state-legal marijuana operations, but this is no surprise because she's been pretty gung-ho all along. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems to be offering up her support for medical marijuana to the highest bidder (pun not intended). Anyone got a bunch of Democratic donation money? Give D.W.S. a call, quick! And finally, Jamaica's senate passed a decriminalization bill on Bob Marley's birthday, which couldn't have been more appropriate.

In massive-disrespect-for-President-Obama news, we sadly have a number of items. Two news organizations ran retractions recently, one for printing a letter with a misleading headline that suggested President Obama was the Antichrist. The retraction: "[the letter's author] does not believe President Obama is the Antichrist, who will come after seven kings, according to Revelation. He thinks Obama could be the seventh king." Elsewhere, the St. Paul Pioneer Press changed a description of Obama from "a self-absorbed assclown" to "a self-absorbed celebrity." Well, glad they cleared all that up!

In politics, no retractions were offered by either convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, who gratuitously called the president a "boy" from the "ghetto," or from Rudy Giuliani, who read Obama's mind and determined "Obama doesn't love America." Democrat Steve Cohen had the most amusing response to Giuliani, when he tweeted "Maybe he thinks he loves it 3/5 as much as Giuliani & his pals." Nicely done, Steve!

In even-sillier news, a Republican in Georgia wants to pass a law so that nobody splices jellyfish DNA to a human embryo, in order to manufacture human embryos that glow in the dark. No, seriously -- you just can't make this stuff up, folks!

And, finally, the Washington Monument is no longer an easy-to-remember 555 feet high. Seems its official height shrunk 10 inches. Insert your own Seinfeld-style "shrinkage," but-it's-cold-in-February joke here, if you must. Heh.

 

We usually present these awards in the other order, but since both awards concern the same event this week, we decided to switch them around, to preserve the chronology.

Also, before we really begin, a quick update on the winner of the *MDDOTW* award from a few weeks back [FTP 333]. Sheldon Silver's problems continue to mount, as the former New York Assembly Speaker was indicted by a federal grand jury on corruption charges which include mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. From the news story:



The indictment accuses Silver of a "secret and corrupt scheme to deprive the citizens of the State of his honest services as a legislator" and of using his power and influence as speaker to obtain "millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks masked as legitimate income."



This week's *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* also falls into the "how the mighty have fallen" category. The longest-serving governor Oregon has ever had stepped down in disgrace this week. John Kitzhaber had just won his unprecedented fourth term in office, but has been under investigation for the activities of his girlfriend for a while.

Kitzhaber finally realized he had to go, after members of his own party privately informed him they could not support him anymore. If he had remained in office with the legal cloud hanging over him, the legislature might have even considered kicking him out. Nevertheless, Kitzhaber hung around, in bizarre fashion, for a day later than expected -- which we'll get to in a moment.

For irreparably tarnishing his legacy, though, John Kitzhaber is the easy choice for this week's *MDDOTW* award. Oregon deserves better.

[Ex-governor John Kitzhaber is now a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for such people.]

 

Fortunately, Oregon is now in good hands. The state doesn't have a lieutenant governor position, so the Oregon secretary of state is next in line when a governor resigns.

We were first made aware of Kate Brown when reading a rather bizarre story which happened just before Kitzhaber stepped down. Kitzhaber apparently decided he'd step down, then decided he wouldn't step down, forgetting his first decision entirely. Or something -- it's kind of hard to tell. Here's the story:



Kitzhaber reportedly was on the verge of announcing that he would step down yesterday, but changed his mind and announced that he would remain in office. That announcement came after Kitzhaber asked Secretary of State Kate Brown (D) -- the next in line to become governor -- to return to Oregon immediately from Washington so that he could meet with her privately.

Upon returning to the state, Brown immediately went to meet with Kitzhaber. Then things got weird.

"I got on a plane yesterday morning and arrived at 3:40 in the afternoon. I was escorted directly into a meeting with the Governor. It was a brief meeting. He asked me why I came back early from Washington, DC, which I found strange," Brown said in a statement. "I asked him what he wanted to talk about. The Governor told me he was not resigning, after which he began a conversation about transition."

Brown called the situation "bizarre and unprecedented," and said that her staff would be ready if he resigned.



So, let's see, he called Brown back early, then asked her why she had returned early, then said he wasn't resigning, then talked about a transition that would only take place if he resigned. That right there would not seem to be very confidence-building behavior, it would seem.

Kate Brown has since stepped up and been sworn in as Oregon's next governor. One other bit of newsworthiness from the story: Governor Brown is the first bisexual governor ever in America.

We sincerely wish Kate Brown well, and for her poise throughout the entire fiasco, we think she deserves this week's *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week*.

[Congratulate Oregon Governor Kate Brown via her brand-new official contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

*Volume 336* (2/20/15)

We're going to consolidate this week's talking points into a longish sort of rant, because it was more fun to write it that way then to separate into discrete soundbites.

If nothing much was scheduled for next week, we might instead have parsed all the ways that Obamacare has proven its detractors wrong, since we read two wonderful articles on this subject that caught our eye. Check them out to review the across-the-board successes of Obamacare so far.

But next week we're going to have another battle royale in Washington, one that not many Americans have even heard about yet. Because the Republicans in Congress are in "let's shut down the government" mode, once again. They planned this last year, so that they'd have a big fight midwinter, perhaps to warm up the halls of Congress with an excess of hot air, while the snow is blowing outside. It's hard to figure what the strategy was, but here we are again.

But next Friday, we may be headed for a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans will mostly be fighting with each other (it's a real Boehner-v-McConnell cage match, folks!), but of course they'll all be trying to deflect criticism of their own incompetence over to the Democrats (it's really the only thing they agree on, tactically).

Democrats have been handed this issue on a silver platter. Republicans are jeopardizing America's homeland security to make an unwinnable political point? This just begs Democrats to play hardball. OK, not as hardball as the Republicans played against anti-war Democrats back when George W. Bush was around, but still -- Democrats need to make their own position in this fight clear, to win the battle over public opinion. Luckily for them, it's pretty easy to do so. So here is what I think Democrats should be saying all next week, as Republicans tie themselves in knots once again.

 

*A "shutdown showdown" rant*

The Republican Party wasted no time in creating yet another self-induced government shutdown showdown. Not even two full months into their control of both the House and the Senate, and they are pushing a critical federal department towards shutting down, all in an effort to make a political point. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell both promised America that they wouldn't ever shut the government down again, and yet here we are, after less than two months.

Just so nobody misunderstands what is going on here, the Republicans picked this battle and they picked this battlefield. It was entirely their choice to have this fight, and it was entirely their choice to target the Department of Homeland Security. Back in December, they forced the scheduling of this fight in what was called the "cromnibus" bill. All federal departments were funded through the entire 2015 fiscal year, with the sole exception of D.H.S. -- which was done at the insistence of Republicans.

If they don't act within the next week, D.H.S. will run out of money. The federal department which is responsible for keeping the homeland safe would be shut down. Let's all just think about that concept for a moment, shall we?

Imagine for just one second that the parties were reversed in this political fight. Imagine what Republicans would be saying right now if Democrats were holding Homeland Security funding hostage in an effort to pass something on our political agenda. You think the words "traitor" or at the very least "aiding America's enemies" would pop up in their criticism? I do. I remember just how jingoistic these same Republicans were a decade or so ago, when anyone would speak an ill word about what President Bush was doing. The political attacks would -- if Democrats were now the ones holding up Homeland Security's funding -- be vicious and personal, if the past is any guide. Just imagine what Rudy Giuliani would be saying now, just to give one pertinent example.

We will not resort to such ugly name-calling. I will not -- and no Democrat should -- call into question someone's patriotism or love of country over the D.H.S. funding fight. Motivations are not fair game, in other words, but the consequences of Republicans' actions certainly are.

What will happen if Homeland Security is shut down has been downplayed by Republicans. "Most of them are essential personnel, so they have to show up at work anyway," they blithely respond. What this ignores is that they will not be paid for showing up at work after a shutdown. They will be working for free, hoping that Congress not only funds their employer but also remembers to include their back pay for the days they worked with no budget in place. If the shutdown goes on for more than a week -- as the last Republican shutdown did -- this is going to start to impact mortgage payments, overdue bills, and other family financial concerns.

While all this is happening, Congress will still be cashing its paychecks. Every Republican who refuses to pass a clean funding bill will still be paid about $175,000 per year, on schedule. For not doing their jobs. A Coast Guard sailor will be worrying about unpaid bills, but members of Congress will not. A T.S.A. agent will be distracted from keeping our airlines safe from terrorists because he'll be worried about paying the rent. Members of the Secret Service may lose focus from their critical job. All while Republicans who refuse to vote on a D.H.S. budget continue to dine out and live large because they know their paychecks will still appear on time.

This is who will be affected -- the people who go to work every day willing to put themselves on the line to defend this country. For a long time, every politician of both parties has stated that they "support the troops." Are those just words? Do they not mean anything? Support means more than moral support and salutary speeches. It also needs to mean support -- as in "getting a paycheck for what you do."

The people that would lose their financial security if the Department of Homeland Security were shut down are the people who plan for our safety. People working to aid when disaster strikes, like FEMA. People who guard our borders, like the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol. People who try to prevent disaster from attacking, who work tirelessly to defend America from computer attacks, nuclear disasters, and virulent disease. They are first-responders -- another category that politicians used to cozy up to when begging for votes. And they will all lose their paychecks if the Republicans don't pass a clean bill next week. So much for supporting the troops, eh?

I remind everyone once again -- this is the battlefield that Republicans chose. Democrats didn't decide to play politics with Homeland Security. Republicans did.

And let me be clear -- we're having this completely made-up fight because Republicans can not govern. Not because President Obama did anything. Our immigration policy is broken -- almost everyone agrees with that statement. So where is the Republican policy on immigration? They are tying this issue to the crucial support for Homeland Security because of their own rank inability to perform their own constitutional duty.

The House has been in Republican hands since 2010. Where is their immigration reform plan? They complained about the bipartisan Senate bill, saying it was too big and too comprehensive. They were going to break the problem down and pass individual bills. They have not done so. They've had more than four years, and they have nothing to show for it. Now that they have control of the Senate, where is their immigration plan? It does not exist. This is because they cannot even agree among themselves what to do. Democrats don't even really figure into it -- they have bungled immigration with a House majority, all on their own.

If Republicans don't agree with President Obama's new policy, there is nothing stopping them from passing their own policy. It would supersede Obama's actions. The president himself said he would welcome this happening. But Republicans don't want to do so, because they cannot get the votes within their own caucus for any plan whatsoever. Instead, they prefer to throw a tantrum, playing unwinnable politics with Homeland Security. Want to debate immigration policy? Great! Let's have that debate. Just put forward a bill, and we'll debate it.

Republicans are going to lose this latest example of tilting at political windmills. Eventually, a clean bill is going to pass, with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. What we're going to witness for the next week is a struggle between Mitch McConnell and John Boehner over who is going to admit this reality first. The public already blames Republicans far more than Democrats or Obama for this mess, and that perception is only going to grow if they go ahead and shut the department down. It's a losing battle legislatively and a losing battle politically. But, once again, Republicans chose this fight, and they chose which department to fight over.

A clean bill has already been proposed by Democrats. It would pass both houses of Congress tomorrow, in fact. Democrats in both houses would vote for it, and Republicans worried about their electoral chances in 2016 would also vote for it in both houses. This idea already is gaining bipartisan support, from Republicans like Senators Dean Heller and Mark Kirk -- Kirk even recently stated: "I generally agree with the Democratic position here. I think we should have never fought this battle on D.H.S. funding." When Obama signs such a clean bill, the entire crisis would disappear.

Republicans even had a so-called "escape hatch" handed to them by a federal judge, who ruled that Obama's new policy won't be implemented before the courts rule. Republicans should have grasped this lifeline and expressed their confidence that the courts would get it right. That they didn't is a clear sign they lack the courage of their own constitutional convictions. After all, if the court blocked Obama, why would a big fight over D.H.S. funding even be necessary? I strongly urge Republicans to take the escape hatch, and end their ridiculous hostage-taking exercise.

Democrats will be fighting hard next week, to support those federal employees whose job it is to protect the homeland. We think it would be disgraceful if Congress continues to be paid while T.S.A. agents and the Border Patrol are not. We think it's a good idea for D.H.S. employees to be worried about smugglers, computer attacks, loose nuclear material, preventing epidemics, and all the other things they do to protect Americans' security here at home -- rather than late charges on their family's bills. If Republicans want to debate immigration in Congress, Democrats are fully willing and able to have that debate. But not when it is tied to hostage-taking of people's paychecks. There is nothing stopping Boehner and McConnell from introducing whatever immigration bill they would like, and allowing the House and the Senate to have a full and rigorous debate. They have been able to do this for over four years in the House, and they have not done so. We actually did have a great debate in the Senate, and passed a good bill with a strong bipartisan majority. We can reopen that debate at any time.

But please, leave the Homeland Security workers out of it. They deserve a lot better than having their paychecks be used as a political football because some Republicans don't like the president. They deserve our unwavering support, in fact, seeing as how they are first-responders standing up every day to protect America from terrorists and others who would do us harm. The least we can do is to pay them for their service to this country.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

  Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

WASHINGTON - An estimated 3 million to 6 million individuals and households that face a tax penalty for not having health insurance in 2014 will get an extra 45 days to secure 2015 coverage - and thereby escape the same penalty next year. Reported by philly.com 22 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a new setback for the health care law and the people it's supposed to help, the government said Friday it made a tax-reporting error that's fouling up the filings of nearly a million Americans. After a successful sign-up season, the latest goof could signal new problems with the complex links between President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and the nation's income tax system. Officials said the government sent the wrong tax information to about 800,000 HealthCare.gov customers, and they're asking those affected to delay filing their 2014 returns. The issue involves a new government form called a 1095-A, which is like a W-2 form for health care for people who got subsidized private coverage under Obama's law. On another matter, the administration also announced a special sign-up extension for uninsured people who would face the health care law's tax penalties for the first time this year. At the Health and Human Services Department, Andy Slavitt, who oversees health insurance programs, said consumers affected by the problem will be notified starting immediately via phone calls and emails. The tax error highlights the complicated links between Obama's health care law and taxes, connections that consumers are experiencing for the first time this year. The law subsidizes private health insurance for people who don't have access to job-based coverage. Reported by SeattlePI.com 21 hours ago.

New Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Marriage For People With STDs (Video)
New Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Marriage For People With STDs (Video)
Health
Politics
Oklahoma STD Bill
Has Been Optimized

Oklahoma state lawmakers are considering a new bill that would ban couples from getting married if one (or both) of them has a communicable disease, including a sexually transmitted disease (STD).

However, critics say that Senate Bill 733 would violate federal privacy HIPPA laws, noted My Fox Philly.

“I think this new law would require you to file with the court clerk the results of this test which the whole world could see,” attorney David Slane told News 9 (video below). “And it seems to me that violates people's real privacy rights.”

State Sen. Kyle Loveless (R) supports the bill with minor reservations.

“The way that the bill is written, that is correct,” stated Loveless. “Is that we would have to look at, we need to look at that as a society whether we want people that have communicable diseases, they need to know if they have it, and I think this is a mechanism to provide them to do that.”

Ironically, when it comes to health care, the Republican-controlled state has stood firmly against Obamacare, which would provide coverage to many uninsured residents. According to News OK, Oklahoma has refused to set up a state exchange so that Oklahomans could buy health insurance via Obamacare and successfully sued in 2014 to stop Oklahoma residents from receiving federal subsidies for health insurance from the federal Obamacare website.

“I think, you know, going through the process there's going to be serious questions of the author of just logistically how do we go about it to make sure people's privacies (sic), privacy is still observed,” added Loveless.

According to KFAQ, "The bill would also require marriage license applicants to present proof of identity, as well as proof the couple successfully completed premarital counseling."

Sources: My Fox Philly, News 9, KFAQ, News OK
Image Credit: News 9 Screenshot

1
Comments: 
Likes: 
Shares: 
Combined FB: 
Video Piece: 
Video Piece (This piece contains embedded video content)
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 9 hours ago.

With a Supreme Court decision on health-insurance subsidies on the horizon, U.S. governors are bracing themselves, weighing what states that opted for a federal health-insurance marketplace under President Obama's health-care overhaul might do if a ruling were to affect... Reported by Newsmax 7 hours ago.

Oil companies affected by a growing refinery strike offered union workers modest pay raises for three years, keeping employers' share of health insurance premiums at 80 percent and doing an assessment of workers fatigue, according to a memo sent Saturday... Reported by nola.com 55 minutes ago.

Uninsured New Yorkers who must pay a federal tax penalty for 2014 for not having health insurance can sign up for insurance during a special enrollment period to avoid a penalty for this year, the state announced Saturday. Reported by Newsday 12 hours ago.

By last year's extremely low bar, this year's MNsure enrollment period was a technological success. The health insurance exchange's website crashed less often and had fewer bugs, and would-be enrollees got their calls for help answered in minutes instead of hours. Reported by TwinCities.com 23 hours ago.

At the age of 34, Parker Conrad's life has been so fantastical, so filled with highs and lows, that it sounds like a made-for-TV movie.

As the cofounder and CEO of Zenefits, today he's a Silicon Valley golden boy, a major success story.

Zenefits could be the fastest-growing cloud company ever — and in terms of revenues, too, not just freemium users.

"We launched in May 2013 and by the beginning of 2014, (8 months later) we were at a $1 million of run-rate revenue," Conrad tells us.

A year after that, at the end of 2014, Zenefits was at just over $20 million in run-rate revenue, and the goal for this year is $100 million.

"As far as we can tell, we're the fastest growing SaaS out there. Salesforce is one of them, Workday is another, and it took those guys four years to get to $20 million. We did it in less than two. It took them five to six years to get to $100 million. We’ll do that in less than three," he says.

And his team would know. Zenefits has raised $83.6 million in three rounds from such backers as Lars Dalgaard, currently a VC for Andreessen Horowitz. Dalgaard famously sold his own fast-growing cloud startup, SuccessFactors, to SAP for $3.4 billion in 2011.

*An insanely lucrative business model*

San Francisco-based Zenefits is on fire because it offers an easy-to-use free cloud service for human resources functions — onboarding, payroll, benefits, vacation tracking, and so on.

The service is free, and Zenefits makes its money from providing benefits  — for example, companies can use it to purchase health insurance. Zenefits is the insurance broker, taking a broker fee. But even if they don't buy such things through Zenefits, the service is still free.

It is to the insurance industry what Uber is to the cab industry and Airbnb is the hotel industry. And it's got the insurance industry in an uproar. It even got banned in the state of Utah after insurance brokers lobbied the Department of Insurance. The Utah state legislature is working on a bill to make Zenefits legal in Utah again.

Zenefits is so hot that in December, PayPal mafia member David Sacks became an investor, and an employee, signing on to become COO.

Sacks sold the last startup he co-founded, Yammer, to Microsoft for $1.2 billion in 2012. He's also one of the most successful angel investors around. Sacks doesn't have to work at all, much less work for someone else. Nabbing him as COO shows just how impressive this startup is.

*Conrad's life wasn't always so wonderful*

This fast success feels "incredibly exciting, really thrilling, often overwhelming, of course and stressful," Conrad tells us.

But just two years ago, in January 2013, the day he incorporated Zenefits, Conrad was at a very low point.

He had just been fired from the previous startup he co-founded, SigFig (originally called Wikinvest). His college friend and co-founder kicked him out. 

And this was just another humiliatingly low moment in a roller coaster career peppered with them that including flunking out of Harvard and getting cancer.

His roller-coaster story is inspiring to anyone struggling through a rough time.

*From wunderkind to Harvard flunk-out to cancer*

Although he's got plenty of smarts, his high school grades were mediocre.

"But then I did this thing called the Westinghouse Talent Search, now called the Intel Talent Search, where I spent about 2 years doing research on neuroscience lab and I ended up coming in third place in that nationally."

That helped him get into Harvard where he joined the college newspaper, The Crimson, which he loved. He was eventually named managing editor.

"I was spending all my time at the Crimson, like 70 hours a week and I didn’t go to class for like a year," he said.

"But then I failed out of school. I had to leave Harvard, really halfway through my tenure as the Crimson managing editor. It was this incredibly humiliating and shocking experience."

He returned a year later, graduated, and got a great job at biotech firm — Amgen — based in Southern California. 

"I had a very great stable life, where I was living two blocks from the beach in Santa Monica. I felt like I was a big star in the company. I was very, very junior, but felt like I was moving up and getting lots of attention," he says.

Shortly after college he got, and got rid of, testicular cancer.

*Living in an old-folks home*

He was starting to get frustrated with the slow pace of advancement at Amgen when his old college roommate called — a guy he used to do day trading with in the dorms. He wanted to do a startup.

"We had this idea of starting a Wiki for stock research. So I left my company, left LA, and moved to San Francisco."

With no job and no money, they moved into "an old folks home" in Walnut Creek, a retirement community called Rossmoor.

His co-founder's grandparents had an apartment they weren't using, so they lived there for free.

One catch: No one under 65 was allowed to live there, so "we were sneaking in and out each time," he explains.

"We lived there for about six months. It was by far the worst six months of my life. There was a store outside of Rossmoor that was literally called 'A Better Denture' right outside the gate."

He admits, "It’s a funny story now — but I sort of felt then like my life fell off a cliff. I had this great life, living situation in Santa Monica, a great job. Suddenly, I’m living in the old folks home, trying to do something like god knows what, to get something off the ground, not having any idea what we were doing."

*Fired from his own startup by his co-founder*

Being broke and stressed out at his startup "sort of stayed like that for like five or six years, to be totally honest.At Wikinvest, which got renamed Sigfig, we were constantly just two or three months away from not being able to make payroll. We constantly pivoted, two or three times."

He and his co-founder were co-CEOs, "which everyone will tell you is a very bad idea. Eventually, there was a critical juncture where Mike's family put in a whole bunch of money and part of that agreement was that he would become sole CEO. He and I really started not getting along after that. And not long after that he fired me."

He continues, "And to really make the situation really bad, I stayed around for another year, working at the company, closing out some deals and finishing up some stuff, which was incredibly unpleasant."

There was only one way to go.

"So when I started Zenefits, I was kind of at the bottom. I had been fired. I left in disgrace. And I was thinking, 'How am I going to do this to come back from this?'"

The day he left SigFig, he incorporated Zenefits and launched the company on a shoestring. He had about $20,000 saved up from his exit, but his wife had a job so they could live on her salary while he tried to get the company going.

*Resentment leads to a great idea*

The idea of Zenefits came from SigFig, which at its height had about 30 employees, too small to hire an HR person.

As a former cancer survivor, he was vigilant about health insurance, and employees always asked him for advice since he knew so much about it.

"There’s a lot of just administrative work that comes along with having employees," he says. "It was like a couple of hours every month, and it was a couple of hours I deeply resented. I felt like, ‘Man, if this stuff was all connected up and all integrated and all worked together than a lot of this stuff would go away. It could run on its own.'"

For instance, the only way to enroll a new employee in the insurance program was to fax the form in. He had to go to Kinko's to do that because the company didn't own a fax machine.

After he launched Zenefits, Conrad taught himself to code (Python), just enough to build an early version of his idea for Zenefits. "I was non-technical at the last company, and I’m still obviously a sh--y engineer."

He was accepted into the Y Combinator program in 2012 and once in, he took on a co-founder, Laks Srini, a top engineer from SigFig. He hired a bunch of others away from SigFig, too.

To build the Zenefits site, he talked to a lot of insurance brokers and others, trying to find out why the paperwork was done the way it was. That's when he discovered how much money they all made.

And inspiration struck: the "hub and spoke" business model. Give Zenefits away for free and charge for services it could sell them.

"The insight in our business model is that if you could be the hub, it's such a powerful place to occupy that you could make so much money off all of the spokes that you can give the hub away from free," he says.

*Failure's biggest lesson*

In less than a year he had proven the model. 

By year two, it grew its user base 1,600%, and signed up more than 2,000 companies across 47 states, serving over 50,000 employees. 

The two-year old company currently employs 570 employees, mostly in San Francisco, and has launched a new office,  in Phoenix, housing 200. Right now, there's no end in sight to the growth.

Although he wouldn't share the company's valuation, we would not be shocked to hear investors call it a $1 billion, if not now, then very soon.

What has he learned from it all?

"The only thing I learned is that failure sucks and you never want to do it. There’s not a lot to be said for that particular lesson," he laughs.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do Reported by Business Insider 17 hours ago.

Washington D.C., Feb 22, 2015 / 06:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Just because you may oppose abortion doesn’t mean you should be denied comprehensive health care coverage, according to Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore and Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston.

The two spoke last Friday, urging Congress to support the Health Care Conscience Rights Act in defense of conscientious objection.

“Government should not force anyone to stop offering or covering much-needed legitimate health care because they cannot in conscience participate in destroying a developing human life or violate their conscience in other ways,” Archbishop Lori and Cardinal O’Malley together wrote in a letter to Congress.

The bishops, who chair the Committee on Pro-Life Activities and the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged Congress to support conscience rights in health care legislation, dwelling on the importance of maintaining protected civil rights when it comes to the issue of moral objections in health care.

Archbishop Lori and Cardinal O’Malley referred specifically to a recently introduced mandate in California that incorporates all elective abortions – including late term – into the state’s health care policy, insisting that all health care plans within the state include this mandate.

Although this policy violates civil rights protected by federal law, California is leaving no room for moral objections and will enforce the legislation in religious universities, schools and churches. Other states, such as Washington, have also adapted this mandate.

On the other side of the fence, Reps. Diane Black, John Fleming and Jeff Fortenberry have introduced the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940) which would protect individuals from purchasing health insurance when they have a moral or religious objection to what it covers.

This bill, which boasts bi-partisan support, would also incorporate a conscience clause into the Affordable Care Act, providing an option to deny the items in the health care plan which violate moral or religious values. The bishops believe Congress acting to support this bill is an obvious step in protecting basic civil rights of conscience.

Similar to the H.R. 940 bill is the Weldon amendment, which prevents the government from using received federal funds to discriminate against individuals who do not want to participate in health care that violates a religious belief.
This bill has been successfully approved in Congress for the past ten years, although it does not provide the right of private action.
 
This is especially significant, because if the Weldon amendment merged with the H.R. 940 bill, it would also provide the right to go to court to individuals who reject health care coverage on moral grounds.

“We hope Congress will agree that people whose civil rights on this point are violated have a right to go to court,” the bishops noted.

In fact, President Obama has expressed support for the Weldon amendment, maintaining that on a federal level at least, individuals have a protected civil right to choose not to be involved in an abortion when it comes to health insurance.

The issue is likely to get more heated before it cools down, given that California believes the penalty of funding withdrawal in the Weldon amendment is subject to challenge. Even if the mandate violates federal law, it will have to receive the red light from Congress before dying down, which is why the bishops are pleading with Congress to take heed.

“We strongly urge you to support and co-sponsor the Health Care Conscience Rights Act,” the bishops continued, urging legislators to stand against the mandates that would deny health coverage to those with conscientious objections. Reported by CNA 17 hours ago.

We talk about a lot of issues in the U.S. Senate - taxes, education, ways to smartly balance the use of our natural resources and how to help everybody achieve the American Dream, to name just a few.

Each one is important and each is worthy of our attention.

But if you're not healthy - and especially if your children aren't healthy and they don't have access to comprehensive, affordable health care - those matters fade in importance. The quality of health care and our ability to use it touches all of us. And that's why we want to spend a few minutes highlighting the importance of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and why we and other Democrats in the Senate are locking arms tightly to make sure CHIP is here to stay.

Simply put, CHIP is a success and millions of kids are healthier because of it. CHIP is a federal-state partnership created in 1997 that provides comprehensive and affordable care to 10 million kids who in most cases are in families that earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid but too little to be able to afford private health insurance.

Every state has taken advantage of CHIP and that's one reason the uninsured rate for children has dropped dramatically since CHIP's enactment - from 14 percent in 1997 to a record low of 7 percent in 2012.

The program has always enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and last year, nearly 40 governors responded to a joint request by the Senate Finance Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee for ground-level feedback about CHIP. Support for the program was universal with Democratic and Republican governors alike praising the services CHIP provides and how it is run and managed.

But here's the catch: Funding for CHIP runs out on Sept. 30 unless Congress acts. We can't let that happen. That's the reason we introduced legislation on Feb. 12 that would guarantee funding for CHIP through 2019. We've named the bill the "Protecting & Retaining Our Children's Health Insurance Program (PRO-CHIP) Act of 2015."

It's a good bill for a great program and there isn't time to waste. Governors have told us in no uncertain terms that they need Congress to act now because now is when most states are finalizing their budgets for the year. Congress needs to act within the next few months so both states and millions of people who depend on CHIP have certainty.

The bill we've introduced is a path of least resistance and one that senators from both parties can support. It essentially extends the current program - as is - through 2019. This is the same program that nine Republican senators and 40 Republican House members supported in 2009, the last time CHIP was considered by Congress. More recently, governors as diverse as Gary Herbert, a Republican from Utah and Deval Patrick, a Democrat from Massachusetts wrote to Congress last year expressing support for CHIP and urging Congress to extend it as soon as possible. And last month, former Sen. Bill Frist - a Republican, former Senate Majority Leader and a physician - tweeted this: "I fought for Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in 1997, and Congress must extend CHIP this year."

He's right.

The stakes are high. With CHIP's strong performance over the years and its bipartisan history there is no reason for delay and for doing what's necessary to ensure that 10 million kids continue receiving the comprehensive, affordable care they need.

Wyden is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. Senators Brown, Stabenow and Casey are members of the Senate Finance Committee. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.

Millions of people could lose health insurance subsidies in the coming months if the Supreme Court sides with opponents of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Reported by FOXNews.com 8 hours ago.

You know you can deduct some medical expenses from your federal income taxes, but don't know the specifics. Here's a look at what is and isn't allowed. Reported by Motley Fool 7 hours ago.

Millions of people could lose health insurance subsidies in the coming months if the Supreme Court sides with opponents of... Reported by Deseret News 8 hours ago.

In the past five years, more and more businesses have been investing in their own in-house medical centers, hoping to save on employer-provided health insurance by keeping their workers out of emergency rooms. Reported by Washington Post 7 hours ago.