Medicine Hat News, a a daily newspaper published in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, reports on a speech potential 2012 candidate and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave in Calgary, where a folksy monologue took a shocking turn — an admission about how her family received health care.

We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic.

Palin, born in Idaho, lived in Wasilla, Alaska, for most of her life. The nearest city in Canada is Whitehorse, a 15-hour drive away.  I definitely want to hear more about this.

UPDATE: I just checked my copy of “Going Rogue” and recall now that Palin spent the first few years of her life, up to age 6, in Skagway, a remote town in gold rush country only a few rough hours from Whitehorse. But it’s about as far from Skagway to Juneau, so the question remains why the family “hustled” to a country with single-payer coverage.

UPDATE: The Calgary Herald has a fuller, slightly different version of the quote.

My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.

Palin was born in 1964. The Medical Care Act that established the national health care system in Canada was passed in 1966.

UPDATE: The Washington Post points out that Palin told a different version of the same story once before, according to a 2007 report posted by the Skagway News. In that telling, she and her family by ferry to Juneau, Alaska, from Skagway for treatment of her brother’s burned foot. ]]> http://iowaindependent.com/29455/palin-growing-up-i-%e2%80%98hustled-over-the-border%e2%80%99-for-health-care/feed 0 http://iowaindependent.com/29298/dems-push-fda-to-repeal-blanket-ban-on-gay-blood-donors http://iowaindependent.com/29298/dems-push-fda-to-repeal-blanket-ban-on-gay-blood-donors#comments Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:07:00 +0000 Mike Lillis http://iowaindependent.com/?p=29298

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., didn’t mince words Thursday in calling for the repeal of the long-standing ban on gay men donating blood.

“Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban,” Kerry wrote today in Bay Windows, a New England-based gay and lesbian newspaper.

A letter to the FDA — spearheaded by Kerry and signed by 20 other Senate Democrats — is more guarded, calling for the administration to review — and modify, if appropriate — the long-standing prohibition.

“With hospitals and emergency rooms across the country in constant and urgent need of blood products, we believe certain blood donor deferral policies should be reviewed and appropriately modified and modernized while ensuring the blood supply meets the highest possible standards that we all expect in America,” the lawmakers write.

Still, they also seem confident that such a review would lead to the repeal of the blanket ban that they’re clearly advocating.

The safety, availability, and integrity of our nation’s blood supply are vital.  For these reasons, we agree with the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and others that the time has come for the FDA to modify the lifetime deferral for [gay men] to be consistent with sensible health and safety policy and with FDA deferral guidelines for high-risk heterosexual behavior.  We request that you initiate a review of the lifetime deferral requirement for men who have sex with men wishing to donate blood and that you reexamine the deferral criteria for all blood donors to ensure all high-risk behaviors are appropriately addressed.

Aside from Kerry, the letter was also signed by Democratic Sens. Kirstin Gillibrand (N.Y.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.),  Russ Feingold (Wis.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Tom Harkin (Ohio), Mark Begich (Alaska), Roland Burris (Ill.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.).

The health reform blueprint unveiled by President Barack Obama earlier this week is being described everywhere as an amalgamation of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House bills. When it comes to children’s coverage, though, that’s not quite the case.

While the House has proposed to scrap the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program in 2014, and the Senate offered two addition years of CHIP funding (through 2015), the White House goes a step further, proposing a funded CHIP extension through 2016.

The move drew quick praise from a number of children’s welfare advocates, who have warned for months that the House proposal to shift kids from CHIP into private exchange programs would hike costs on low-income families, thereby discouraging parents from buying coverage for their kids at all.

The Congressional Budget Office backed that claim, arguing that, as a result of that shift, “some of those children would be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchanges but would not be enrolled in an exchange plan.”

Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus, a kids advocacy group, said he’s “heartened” by the White House proposal.

After months of policy disputes over kids and health reform, we are pleased that President Obama has sided with children’s advocates, experts, actuaries, and the public on what is best for America’s children — the preservation of the highly successful Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Whether that proposal stands in the final bill has yet to be seen.

Greg Sargent has the scoop:

Senator Harry Reid’s office says that if a final decision is made to pass health reform via reconciliation, the Majority Leader would support holding a reconciliation vote on the public option.

The actual statement from Reid’s office, though, is an odd one:

If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.

It’s a wonderful use of the passive voice  (always popular on Capitol Hill) to imply that the decision whether or not to use reconciliation will come down from Mt. Olympus or somewhere — as if the Senate majority leader doesn’t have any power to control these things. Sargent addresses this a bit, pointing out that Senate aides (1) maintain that the House would have to pass a reconciliation bill first, (2) want assurances that the White House will help to whip votes from fearful Democrats, and (3) fear that parliamentary rules to begin with might not allow the public plan to pass by reconciliation.

That’s a lot of unknowns for this late stage in the debate. You start to wonder if this public option push isn’t intended simply to shield Democrats from the liberal critics who thought all along that the Senate didn’t fight hard enough for the provision.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Several sources, including a a former state lawmaker running against Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, say Harkin was adamant in his support of using reconciliation to pass health care reform when he addressed a recent closed-door gathering of state Democratic leaders.

“Tom Harkin informed the Iowa Democratic State Central Committee in Des Moines this morning that, after consultation with President Obama, he will break the health care reform bill into budget and non-budget components,” Democratic candidate for Senate Bob Krause said last month in a statement. “The budget component will move through the Senate under the reconciliation process and the non-budget items will move as a new and separate bill.”

Reconciliation would allow a bill to pass with a simple majority vote, a move that would circumvent Republican promises to filibuster the legislation. The idea of using reconciliation has gained steam in the aftermath of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race last month which robbed Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority.

A spokeswoman for Harkin would not comment on the idea of using reconciliation, saying only that the senator “has always strongly supported the public option and will continue to fight for comprehensive health care reform.”

The letter, written by Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, says a strong public option is the best way to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices, “and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.”

Support from Harkin, who chairs the powerful Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP), would be a huge boost to the push for reconciliation, advocates say, and they are pressing for him to sign on. Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), Democracy for America, and Credo Action plan to put in thousands of calls from Iowa into Harkin’s office on this issue, according to Adam Green, PCCC’s co-founder.

“When Sen. Joe Lieberman blocked Majority Leader Harry Reid’s public-option bill from getting 60 votes, Harkin went on national TV and said ‘nobody fought harder than me for the public option,’” Green said. “We love Harkin, but now it’s time for him to match words with actions. If he is not willing to sign the Bennet letter, he is not fighting for the public option when his voice is needed most.”

So far, Democratic Sens. Bennet, Roland Burris of Illinois, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Al Franken of Minnesota, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island have signed on to the call for reconciliation.

It’s a situation progressives have to address, the Waterloo Democrat and founder of the House Populist Caucus said in an exclusive interview with The Iowa Independent. And while he isn’t advocating supporters of health care reform take to the streets with torches and pitchforks, he does believe it’s time to make their voices heard.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Waterloo

Iowa Independent: Everywhere I’ve heard you speak lately you’ve referenced an idea that Democrats have to stand up if there are certain things that they want. Can you expand or go a little more in depth about that?

Bruce Braley: I used the phrase, “speak truth to fear.” I also used that when we were over at Thompson [in Illinois]. Everybody was saying that this was a horrible thing, that we couldn’t bring terrorists to the Midwest — even though there are hundreds of them in the state of Illinois housed in federal prisons. I think it grew out of my experience of going to these town hall meetings where people would come and misrepresent things that I knew were in the [health care reform] bill. There was a sense that if you yelled loud enough, or if you made a big enough demonstration, that maybe you could intimidate the member of Congress into changing his or her position.

That’s why my message to Democrats is that you have to stand up, make your voice be heard and speak truth to fear. The people in this country who are struggling to get by need us to be strong. That’s why I have challenged Democrats and progressives who want health care reform. And, yet, there has been no march on Washington this year for health care reform like there was for civil rights.

II: This year? You mean since January?

Braley: Yes. That’s right. Or, even during the run-up to the health care debate. There has been in the past, but that is a long way in the past.

The problem is that Senators and House members are shaped by what’s happening in the press, what’s happening back home. People who really want health care reform have to get united and organized and let their voices be heard to help people do the right thing.

What’s been a little frustrating is you look at the incredible organizational strength of the [Barack] Obama campaign and how connected they were and how engaged they were. We heard evidence about strong efforts that were made to help get people out to vote in Massachusetts. But, there doesn’t seem to be the sense of urgency among the people who elected President Obama to make their voices heard on the fundamental issues he campaigned on that are going to define whether we succeed in achieving his agenda.

That’s kind of the message I’m trying to share when I go out and speak to groups. It is time for you to get back in the game. We can’t afford to wait until Labor Day to start running and helping candidates that we want to be elected achieve their goals. We need your voice now. We need you to write letters to the editor. We need you to talk to your neighbors. We need you to help us refute the misinformation that is out there because your voice counts in your community. You are a credible person who has the ability to influence opinion where you live.

II: For those people who can’t go to Washington, and can’t march down Pennsylvania Avenue, can they make a difference by marching down 1st Avenue in Cedar Rapids or Grand Avenue in Des Moines? Does that send a message?

Braley: Yes, absolutely.

II: Does that impact lawmakers in Washington, D.C.?

Braley: Think about it. The tea party movement — although they have some very strong financial support from people who are benefiting from health care reform not moving forward — a lot of it was spontaneous eruptions from people around the country of people who said, “I am upset about what’s happening, and I want my voice to be heard.” So, yes, absolutely it matters.

If you look at organized political movements throughout the history of this country, it has been when people get upset and get organized and unite to make their voices heard.

II: Are you asking for progressives and Democrats to act in the same fashion as what was observed during town hall meetings during the August recess?

Braley: No. No. Absolutely not. In fact, I had a letter to the editor in the New York Times that was counteracting an editorial by David Brooks, who was making light of the so-called populist movement — which has been hijacked by people like the tea party movement. My whole point is that this is not all about pitchforks and torches. This is about standing up for middle class values so that we strengthen and expand the middle class because that’s what made this country great. I think what my message is is that activists have to stand up, speak truth to fear, not be intimidated, yet not resort to the tactics that are going to turn people off.

My district has 40 percent independent voters. They decide who goes to serve the 1st District of Iowa. If you resort to those tactics, you risk losing independent voters who really want somebody who is going to be a hard worker. Someone who will fight for their interests. Even though they may disagree with you, they respect you for the effort you put in on their behalf. If you engage in shouting, they will tune out and say, “Why should I care?”

I had a lot of hospital administrators who hosted my town hall meetings that came up to me afterward wondering how I was able to keep my cool. I told them, “I can’t afford to lose my cool. I have a job to do and I represent everybody in this room.”

If health care reform includes an option for states to opt out of any public insurance component, then Rants’ amendment to Senate File 2088, if passed, would mean the Hawkeye State would do so automatically.

The state House could start debate on government reorganization as early as Thursday night at 5:30 pm.

Only the U.S. House’s version of health care reform legislation includes a public option, which is basically a non-profit insurance plan to compete with private companies. But the House version does not include an opt-out clause.

The senate bill contains no public option at all.

Here is the full text of Amendment 8073:

If on or after the effective date of this division of this Act, the United States Congress enacts or otherwise imposes requirements that obligate the state to engage in any new activity, to provide any new service, or to provide any service beyond that required by any law enacted or requirement otherwise imposed prior to the effective date of this division of this Act related to health care reform, and the United States Congress allows a state to opt out of any of the requirements enacted or otherwise imposed, it is the intent of the general assembly that the state shall exercise its right to opt out of all of the requirements for which that option is available and for which the United States Congress does not appropriate moneys to fully fund the cost of the requirement enacted or imposed.

As The Iowa Independent first reported Wednesday, such medications are typically not placed on preferred drug lists. Under current state law, physicians who prescribe the medications for Medicaid patients are free to select the drugs believed to best serve the individual patient. They are also free to switch patients to a different medication if the initial drug was not tolerated well or failed to reduce symptoms.

New language in the reorganization bill, which has been approved by the state government and appropriations committees in the Iowa Senate, removes the exception for psychiatric medications and calls for only the drugs by pharmaceutical companies that have entered into an agreement with the state to be placed on the preferred list.

State officials estimate that the change would save the state $400,000 the first year and $1.3 million over five years.

State Sen. Randy Feenstra, a Hull Republican who serves as the ranking member on the State Government Committee, said he questioned how the language, which has previously been rejected by the Iowa legislature, found its way into the bill. According to mental health advocacy groups, the issue was explored two years ago and, after presenting their case to the legislature, the policy change was dismissed.

“When I asked the question to the majority [party], they stated that the governor’s consultant came up with it and that the governor demands it stays in,” said Feenstra, who has requested the language be removed from the bill.

He described medical treatment of those who have mental illness as “complex.”

“Mental health patients can have the best quality of life by taking specific medications prescribed through their physician,” Feenstra said. “Finding the right set of prescriptions takes time as different mixes might not yield the best results. It has been noted that although one drug should do the same as another, each person reacts differently to each drug. After noting this, I fully believe we should not change peoples’ medications.”

His assessment of the situation is very similar to that of numerous mental health advocates, who also point out that individuals with a mental illness who are unable to obtain prescriptions both tolerated by the body and effective for their symptoms are much more likely to become a larger taxpayer burden due to homelessness, emergency room visits, incarceration or committed medical care.

The language that appeared in the report issued through the governor’s office was brought to the table by the Iowa Department of Human Services. The agency’s spokesman, Roger Munns, readily admits that the change is something that has been viewed favorably by the department for some time.

“We have been advocating the addition of more psychotropic drugs to the preferred drug list for several years, and for good reason,” he said. “The purpose is to save public money without undermining the availability of mental health medications for people receiving Medicaid.”

The agency’s proposal, according to Munns, contains a “grandfathering” clause to exempt current prescription holders, and will only apply to new prescriptions. He also noted that drugs not on the preferred list could still be purchased through Medicaid, provided prior authorization is obtained.

“The process is not cumbersome,” Munns said. “The turnaround time for prior authorization is about two hours.”

Margaret Stout, executive director of the Iowa chapter of National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), isn’t convinced that existing time frames for prior authorization are sustainable.

“That might be the case right now — and I have no reason to believe that it is not,” Stout said. “But what happens when instead of a select few psychiatric drugs, many more are added to the list? And, even if the initial request for prior authorization is answered in two hours, what happens if the request is denied? At that point the prescribing physician — whether a psychiatrist or a family doctor — will need to spend additional time on the appeal process.”

Stout also notes that although the Department of Human Services has indicated that its proposal included language that would “grandfather” existing prescription holders, such language does not appear to be in the bill before legislature, and would not directly or clearly address medication adjustments that are often necessary during the treatment of those with mental illness.

States that use preferred drug lists evaluate pharmaceuticals deemed “equivalent,” and most often select the least costly medications for “preferred” status. For example, a state would likely prefer a generic of a name brand solely on the basis of cost. Medications that can be taken less often are also typically more expensive than the same medication in the original more frequent dosage. So, in that type of situation, which was recently faced by Florida authorities, the state often selects the least expensive option for inclusion on its preferred list.

Mental health advocates, however, are quick to point out that “equivalent” does not mean “same,” and that even inactive ingredients in medications, which often differ from name brand to generic, can digest at different speeds and result in the body absorbing active ingredients more quickly or slowly.

The language that appeared in the report released by the governor’s office:

CHANGE THE WAY MEDICAID PAYS FOR UNIQUE MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS
The Iowa Department of Human Services currently places all chemically unique mental health prescription drugs on its preferred drug list (PDL)
for Medicaid recipients. Some of these medications are very costly and states have used contracting mechanisms to obtain rebates on high‐cost medications from manufacturers. Iowa DHS proposes to require the makers of these medications, who wish to sell drugs to the Iowa Medicaid program, to enter into a contract for supplemental drug rebates to the State. If a drug manufacturer does not enter into a contract, DHS could place the mental health medication on the nonpreferred list of drugs, thus requiring physicians to obtain prior authorization before the Medicaid recipient can obtain the drug.

The language that currently appears in SF 2088:

DIVISION XXVII
MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Sec. 389. Section 249A.20A, subsection 4, Code 2009, is amended to read as follows:

4. With the exception of drugs prescribed for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus or acquire immune deficiency syndrome, transplantation, or cancer with the exception of drugs and drug compounds that do not have a significant variation in a therapeutic provide or side effect profile within a therapeutic class, prescribing and dispensing of prescription drugs not included on the preferred drug list shall be subject to prior authorization.

Sec. 390. MEDICAID NONPREFERRED DRUG LIST PRESCRIBING. The department shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A to restrict physicians and other prescribers to prescribing not more than a 72-hour or three-day supply of a prescription drug not included on the medical assistance preferred drug list while seeking approval to continue prescribing the medication.

Sec. 391. MEDICAID MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS. The department shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A to require that unless the manufacturer of a chemically unique mental health prescription drug enters into a contract to provide the state with a supplemental rebate, the drug shall be placed on the nonpreferred drug list and subject to prior authorization before a medical assistance program recipient is able to obtain the drug.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (Lauren Victoria Burke/wdcpix.com)

“There’s not a seat in America held by a Democrat that can’t be won,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio told “Fox and Friends” Monday. “Massachusetts proves that. When Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, any seat’s in play.”

But while Republicans are hoping Brown’s victory foreshadows a GOP landslide, a number of political experts are warning that the country’s restless anxiety — as evidenced not only in Massachusetts, but in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Florida as well — is less a backlash against Democrats in particular than a rebuke of the business-as-usual politics of Capitol Hill in general.

Even as unemployment soared and housing markets tanked, voters have watched lawmakers bicker endlessly over a stimulus bill that proved too small and a health reform proposal that remains unfinished. Meanwhile, the banks have bounced back on the wings of a taxpayer bailout, paying out billions of dollars in employee bonuses this month while the jobs crisis outside Wall Street only worsens. In such an environment, some experts caution, incumbents on both sides of the aisle could find themselves surprisingly vulnerable in November.

“The public is mad, and they’re prepared to take it out on the establishment,” said Tony Coelho, the former California congressman who served as campaign chairman for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential run. “That doesn’t just mean the party in power. That means everyone.”

In Iowa, Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is looking at the first tough re-election campaign of his career, as three Democrats line up for the right to challenge the veteran lawmaker. While his approval numbers remain above 50 percent, something many incumbents can’t say, they are down significantly from 2008.

Iowa’s Democratic delegation is no safer, as five Republicans are vying to take on 3rd District Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell and three are running to unseat 2nd District Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack.

There are even two Democrats starting the uphill struggle of unseating 5th District Republican Rep. Steve King.

David P. Redlawsk, a political scientist at Rutgers University and director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling, agreed. “The stock market has gone up, but that’s Wall Street, and many voters do not see how that benefits them,” Redlawsk wrote in an e-mail. “There is real risk to incumbents on both sides of the aisle.”

Redlawsk said that the Democrats, because they control both Congress and the White House, have absorbed the brunt of the nation’s discontent. But for Republicans to interpret that as partisan anger, he added, would be a mistake.

“This is not a partisan backlash by voters as much as it is a backlash against the powers that be — who happen to be Democrats,” he wrote.

The evidence of voter discontent has been everywhere in recent months. An early signal came in Virginia and New Jersey last November, when the incumbent Democrats were swept out of the governor’s office by Republican challengers who wouldn’t have stood a chance a year earlier. More recently, the virtually unknown Brown overcame a 30-point deficit to steal the Senate seat vacated by the late Edward Kennedy in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts.

“The message coming out of the Massachusetts special election is clear: No Democrat is safe,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “In the aftermath of Scott Brown’s victory this past week, it has become evident to Democrats that to run for reelection in this toxic political environment is to ensure defeat at the ballot box in November.”

Yet recent polls indicate that the voters aren’t exactly thrilled with Republicans either. In a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted earlier this month, for example, just 24 percent of respondents said they have either a “great deal” or “good amount” of confidence in Republicans to lead the country – down from 29 percent a year earlier. For Democrats, the number was 32 percent, down from 43 percent in January 2009.

Another survey, conducted this month by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, tells a similar story, revealing that just 30 percent of respondents have a positive feeling about the GOP, while 42 percent view the party negatively.

The message hasn’t been lost on some Republicans. Indeed, Brown packaged himself more as an independent outsider than a man of the Republican Party — a bow to the anti-establishment tea-party movement that mobilized so ardently behind him. Republican consultant Brad Todd told CQ recently that the mid-term elections will be governed by a “taint of incumbency.” Even Boehner conceded this week that voters “don’t trust either party.”

Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., might have summed it up best. “The American people have fallen out of love with the current direction, but they haven’t fallen in love with Republicans,” he said last week.

“It’s a pox on both your houses,” Coelho said of the country’s mood toward Democrats and Republicans alike. “That’s why the teabaggers have a voice. They’re saying, ‘The hell with both of you.’”

Supporting that theory, new polls Tuesday revealed that Marco Rubio, the upstart Republican contender fighting for Florida’s Senate seat, is leading GOP Gov. Charlie Crist by three points. The party scheme is different, but Rubio’s anti-establishment theme mirrors that of Brown’s message to Massachusetts voters.

“There is a deep and increasingly restive anger stirring in the country,” L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote last week. “Its focal points at the moment may seem to be healthcare and ‘big government,’ but if there were a Republican in the White House, they might just as well be tax cuts and ‘limited government.’ The fact is that the president and both parties’ congressional delegations have approval ratings under 50 percent.”

The Massachusetts shakeup means that Democrats are without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and that has left party leaders scrambling to prevent a catastrophe in November. “Every state is now in play, absolutely,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said last week. “You have to make the case that you’re the one that’s on the people’s side. And people have to get it.”

With that in mind, President Obama will address Congress tonight in hopes of relaying the thought that he feels the country’s pain. The real audience, though, will be an American people grown frustrated with lawmakers’ partisan hostility, and skeptical of their capacity to lead in times of duress. For Obama, Coelho said, it’s also an opportunity to reframe his approach to governing, recognizing that the 2008 elections were a cry from voters for real change in Washington.

“It was a revolt against the system,” Coelho said of those elections. “Obama interpreted that to be a victory for his policies. But what it was was a frustration with the system not working.

“His political operatives needed to read the tea leaves,” he added. “And they failed.”

At a mid-day press conference in the nation’s capital, U.S. Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., launched their “Declaration of Health Care Independence” — a statement of principles that they hoped Democrats and voters would sign onto, but not one that would be backed by legislation or one that could be posted at their Web sites.

Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron

“On the 18th of April, 1775, there was a shot fired in Massachusetts that was heard around the world,” said Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo. “Last week, Massachusetts fired another shot heard around the world.”

After speaking, Akin, like the other members, knelt down and signed a blown-up version of the declaration.

Bachmann said that the plan had been set in motion before Scott Brown’s upset election in Massachusetts, but all of the members at the conference agreed that Brown’s election had restarted–not killed–the health care debate.

I asked whether any had spoken to Brown about his health care ideas, as Brown had backed a health care bill in Massachusetts that’s anathema to conservatives, and that includes a mandate that defies this declaration.

“The principles I heard him talk about during the campaign,” said King, “as distinct from the specific bill that you mentioned, I think are consistent with the language here.”

“One of the things you have to love about Scott Brown is–while I’m not familiar with that vote, since then, certainly, he has been in his pick-up truck, and he’s been talking to people,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tex. “It gave him access to what the people really think. What you heard him espouse are the same principles we’re talking about here.”

“It seemed from his campaign that he wasn’t too favorable about what had been concocted [here],” said Akin.

King said that every Republican in the House basically agreed with the declaration and that non-Republicans might sign on. “I think some Democrats will,” he said, “some conservative ones will.”