So I disappeared for a full week, right in the middle of what should have been a busy writing schedule, and I have to claim some "personal days" to cover the time we missed here at the blog - but it won't be time entirely wasted.
Instead, I'm going to jump into my own personal life for today's story, and I'm going to do it so that we can stimulate some thinking about where we really need to go to if we ever hope to make some sense out of the crazy way we deliver health care in this country.
Since this appears to be the weekend that a lot of decisions are either going to be made about the future of our "social safety net"...or they wont; we're entirely unsure...let's talk about how it actually works for a lot of us - and how it could work a lot better.
So Arizona Senator Jon Kyl went and did a stupid thing the other day by claiming on the floor of the Senate that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to abortions, and that, by God, we need to cut that Federal funding for abortions, and we need to cut all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood-and we need to do it today.
Of course, that 90% claim was total hooey; it turns out that only 3% of Planned Parenthood's work relates to abortions. (The Federal funding for abortions part is, too; the Hyde Amendment made such funding illegal decades ago.)
When confronted, Kyl's office released a statement claiming the Senator's comments were "not intended to be a factual statement".
Sir Rev. Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA, decided to have a bit of fun with Kyl, and he challenged his audience to Tweet their own "Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement" about Kyl.
I decided to compose a Tweet of my own...and then another...and before I knew it I had an entire story's worth; that's why, today, we'll be taking a taking a short break from the daily grind to have a bit of fun with a man who truly deserves it: Jon Kyl.
Sometimes stories happen because of planning; other times serendipity intervenes, which is how we got to the conversation we'll be having today.
In an exchange of comments on the Blue Hampshire site, I proposed an idea that could be of real value to unions, workers...and surprisingly, employers.
If things worked out correctly, not only would lots of people feel a real desire to have unions represent them, but employers would potentially be coming to unions looking to forge relationships, and, just to make it better, this plan bypasses virtually all of the tools and techniques employers use to shut out union organizers.
Since I just thought this up myself, I'm really not sure exactly how practical the whole thing is, and the last part of the discussion today will be provided by you, as I ask you to sound off on whether this plan could work, and if so, how it could be made better.
It's a new week...so let's all put our heads together and rebuild the labor movement, shall we?
Capping an epic struggle, congressional Democrats put the final touches Thursday to historic legislation enshrining health care as the right of every citizen. Republicans vowed to campaign for repeal in the fall election season, drawing a quick retort from President Barack Obama: "I welcome that fight."
The president spoke in Iowa as the Senate voted 56-43 for legislation making changes, including better benefits for seniors and low-income and middle-class families, to the bill he signed into law with a flourish at the White House on Tuesday.
The House added its approval a few hours later, 220-207, clearing the way for Obama's signature on the second of two bills that marked the culmination of what the president called "a year of debate and a century of trying" to ensure coverage for nearly all in a nation where millions lack it. Obama is expected to sign the legislation early next week.
I just heard this outrageous and disturbing piece on the morning news. The Buffalo News has the story violence in the lead-up to this weekends Health Care vote:
Brick thrown through window in Slaughter's Falls office
NIAGARA FALLS - The "Slaughter Solution" on health care isn't the only thing that has come under attack in U.S. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter's world this week. Sometime early this morning, someone threw a brick through the front window of her Pine Avenue office.
::
The brick put a hole in the outer-most window at the office at 1910 Pine Ave., but did not damage a second interior window, police reported. A piece of broken brick believed to have caused the damage was found at the scene.
It was right-wing talk radio hosts who distorted her role by framing reconciliation as the "Slaugher Solution" as the vote approached. The same hosts who many Tea Partiers cite as the inspiration for their movement. It was a Tea Party listener, I guarantee who did this.
I fear this is only the beginning. Vandalism is violence...I expect this will get worse.
Rep Murphy, who this site raised money for and many community members campaigned on the ground for and who had previously voted "no" on health care reform, is now a "yes".
Rep. Scott Murphy, D-N.Y., on Friday declared he would vote for the administration's $940 billion overhaul of the nation's health care system, saying it would shift the balance of power from insurance companies to patients and does a better job of reining in medical costs. Murphy said the final health care package is "much more fiscally conservative" than the broader House-passed bill he opposed last November and would do a better job of reducing the explosive growth in medical costs that "our families and small businesses are facing," while still expanding insurance coverage to roughly 32 million people."This bill is fundamentally different than the bill we voted on last November," Murphy said, adding that while the measure "is not perfect," he feels "much better" about it.
Murphy's decision ends days of intense speculation about how he would handle the issue - the signature piece of President Obama's domestic agenda. Widely viewed as a potential swing vote, Murphy has been a top target for intense lobbying in the nation's capital - including a half-hour White House meeting with Obama - as well as a fierce PR campaign in his mostly rural, upstate congressional district.
Very good, Congressman Murphy. Congressman Hall?
UPDATE: I just received this emailed statement from Congressman Murphy's office:
"Last November, I voted against the House health care reform legislation because I did not believe it adequately addressed the fundamentally flawed system that has led to skyrocketing health care costs, bankrupt families, and excessive profits for insurance companies. In the months since that vote, I have worked closely with my constituents, my colleagues in Congress, and with President Obama to address many of these concerns and ultimately strengthen this legislation."
"From the beginning, I have said that I support meaningful health care reform that is fiscally responsible and stops the out of control growth of health care costs. This legislation will not only make coverage more affordable for New York families, but it will also reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion over the next ten."
"Furthermore, this bill is serious about slowing the out of control growth of health care costs that are devastating our families and small businesses. I am pleased that the final legislation reflects many of my recommendations to encourage individuals to make healthy choices, reward doctors based on quality outcomes, and combat Medicare fraud and abuse. By simply implementing several common sense policies, we can slow the rising costs of health care for New York families."
"As a small businessman, I am also keenly aware of the impact rising health care costs have on small businesses and New York's economy. The bill before us makes significant improvements over the House-passed legislation by eliminating the employer mandate for small businesses, providing meaningful tax incentives, as well as creating heath care exchanges that allow businesses to band together to negotiate better prices from insurance companies. On a local level, I fought to ensure that several of our largest employers-paper mills and medical device manufacturers-are treated fairly under this legislation. These reforms will ensure that our local businesses can continue to provide quality coverage while creating jobs and driving economic growth."
"Over the last year, I have held more than 100 district events to ensure an open and honest discussion about health care reform. I have listened very carefully to the diverse views of our district. Yet despite all of our differences, we remain united in the basic belief that our current health care system can be improved. This legislation takes health care choices out of the hands of insurance companies and puts them back in the hands of families and doctors. These reforms will ensure that insurance companies are prohibited from the practices of excluding those with pre-existing conditions, capping benefits, and discontinuing coverage when people get sick."
"Lastly, to put this in very personal terms, I'm here today in Washington with my son Duke, who is 4. This year, our nation will spend over $2.6 trillion on health care, up from $2.3 trillion last year, and the rate of spending is only increasing. If we do not act to reign in this out of control system, by the time he graduates high school we will be spending over $7 trillion a year on health care. For these reasons, I intend to vote Yes on the President's health care reform legislation."
I like Eric Massa. I really do. So I feel a sense of dread and sadness when I see how this story is slowing but surely spiraling out of control. Massa's story is becoming more and more ridiculous, layered, angry, and scorned. This is a classic slash-and-burn tactic and it's very sad to see.
In roughly 12 hours, Massa has changed his narrative from "congressman resigning in disgrace" to angry, Howard Beale-esque truth-teller who'd simply had enough and will take his party to the woodshed. Left unsettled: the incredibly important issue of whether he'll resign today, as he said he would, or he'll try to bring down the health care bill by staying in Congress.
source
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve - and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
In a heated, rambling monologue on his weekly show on Hornell radio station WKPQ-FM, Massa described the conversation that he said led to an investigation. The show is listed on Massa's official schedule, and a link to a recording -- http://drop.io/massa3710 -- was provided by WHAM-TV.
After dancing with a bridesmaid, Massa said, he returned to a table full of male staffers who he said had been drinking heavily.
"A staff member made an intonation that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid," Massa said. He responded by saying, "Well, what I really ought to be doing is frakking you." He said the complaint came not from that staffer, but from another at the table. source
There's really not a whole lot I can add here. I think there's probably a lot of valid things that Massa is saying but the fact that he's decided now to go on the attack and is sitting down for an hour long discussion with Glenn Beck doesn't pass the smell test with me. It smells like conspiracy-paranoia-last ditch attempt to save his skin. And for that, I find the whole situation utterly depressing. When someone who comes across as straight forward, active, and bold as Eric Massa can get caught up in this sort of insanity, it makes me wonder how we can trust those that represent us. If not Eric Massa, then who?
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
I was supposed to begin the long-delayed series of PTSD stories I've been planning, but before we begin, I need to tell y'all about something that just happened in my house.
For us it wasn't a matter of life or death, but it is the kind of story that explains, perfectly, why we need to reform the health care system we have today-and for that matter, it's also a great explanation of why a single-payer system would be a giant step forward for everyone in this country, whether you're insured today or not.
It's also hilarious and sad and frustrating, all at the same time-which makes today's story a pretty good allegory for the current American way of doing health care.
So follow along, have a good laugh...and at the same time, take a minute to consider what could be, and how much less irritating things should be.
The AP is reporting, via Jon Walker at FireDogLake, that Senator Reid has gutted one of the most important consumer protections in the HCR bill, the ban on annual limits.
The fact that this language has found its way back in the bill despite promises on the part of the Democratic leadership that protecting consumers of health care (and those who need it most BTW) was priority number one, is an especially large outrage among a series of outrages.
Here's the language the HELP committee's bill had in it regarding limits:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. `(b) Preventing Fraud and Abuse- This section shall not apply until the date on which the Secretary certifies that enacting this section will not result in undue proliferation of fraud and abuse, especially with regard to durable medical equipment.
No equivocation there. Clear and to the point.
Here's the language that is now in the HCR package:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish-
`(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary; or
`(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.
`(b) Per Beneficiary Limits- Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage that is not required to provide essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law.
That one little word, unreasonable, is pointed out by me for obvious reasons. That one word is the loophole that we KNOW insurance companies will use as if it's a a black hole into which billions of our dollars will disappear.
We need to stop this bait and switch NOW.
Please call Senator Schumer and Congressman Rangel now and insist that we go back to the HELP committee's language:
Want to know what we are up against? Jane Hamsher has just pointed out that the Department of Health and Human Services has been pushing for this switch-a-roo all along.
Ensures consumer protections in the insurance market. Insurance companies will no longer be able to place lifetime limits on the coverage they provide, use of annual limits will be restricted, and they will not be able to arbitrarily drop coverage.
In this case, they replaced the word "unreasonable" with "restricted."
Just one little word will mean billions in profits to the Health Insurance Companies, and it seems that there are many in DC who are more than willing to make that happen. That money will come out of the wallets of citizens who need protection the most.
The historic vote on health care reform legislation in the House of Representatives was one I will never forget. As a young elementary school student, I remember the battles over the Clinton health care plan and its defeat in the mid-1990s. I did not want to see the first president-elect I voted for, President Barack Obama, to share in the same fate.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) is a good bill for a number of reasons AND a bad bill for just as many reasons. After taking a few days to look over the reasons why one might support the bill and why one might oppose it, I came to this conclusion:
Those (among progressives) who support the bill are right. Those (again, among progressives) who oppose it are right.
Congressman Eric Massa's vote has been scrutinized more than any. Even when he gives his reasons why, people aren't willing to forgive him. Such is life as a representative in D.C.
But here is the reality: Massa is right on a lot of points, at least as they pertain to the public option and expanding access to health care. We fought for months for what has been called a "strong robust public option." After Firedoglake and CREDO Mobile created their public option resolution, I joined them in passing that petition around to the Democratic committees and groups I was familiar with. To my knowledge, every committee and group I submitted the resolution to passed the resolution. And not only did they pass it, they did so unanimously.
The public option in the House bill is a weak public option. This is NOT what we fought for, worked overtime on and told our readers and fellow progressives we needed. Now, there are those among this same group of progressives saying that any public option at all is better than no public option at all. While there is truth in that statement, there is also a misguided definition of what "better" means and what "reform" means.
Let's make this about the Progressive Caucus versus the Blue Dogs for a paragraph. The Progressive Caucus was obviously for the public option. The Blue Dogs were in opposition (some of them were in favor of a watered down public option, but others share the opinion of Senator Joe Lieberman that ANY public option should not be permitted) to the public option. Then came the Stupak Amendment, which was allowed a vote by Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently as a way to gain supporters for the overall health care reform bill. The Stupak Amendment is worse than the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment applies only to federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services and prohibits these funds from being used on abortions. What the Stupak Amendment does is expand on those prohibitions and applies them to private health insurance. That is because part of the health care reform package are subsidies for those who can't afford to pay for their insurance. If you are a woman and you receive a subsidy to pay for your private health insurance, you cannot get an abortion because the Stupak Amendment says so and the 221 men (of the 240 votes cast in support of the amendment) said so. This amendment also applies to anyone covered by the public option inside the health insurance exchange.
The fact remains that the conservaDems got their vote on the Stupak Amendment and it passed. Progressives did not get their vote on single-payer - a bill that certainly didn't have enough votes to pass.
Blue Dogs 1 Progressive Caucus 0.
A weak public option (Massa's estimate was that the public option in this bill would only cover two percent of the uninsured) and an amendment that expands anti-choice provisions? That's not very progressive, nor can it be considered true reform.
Like any legislation we see, however, even though there are a tremendous amount of flaws there is a tremendous upside. You cannot build a house without a foundation and this foundation and that's what this bill can be considered. It is a stepping stone or starting point. It's not perfect, but it is something. I believe the individual mandates are a good thing. I do think a stronger public option would help these mandates be less punitive but the mandates will work. Allowing young people to stay on their parents insurance until they turn 27 years old is very important. Ending the exemption from anti-trust laws is no doubt huge. The Prevention and Wellness Trust Fund is important to address in a proactive manner childhood obesity and obesity as a whole in order to make us a healthier society.
The reforms included in the bill are important. And while there is a weak public option and an assault on women's rights we must address, there are many aspects of the bill that are strong and necessary.
I was disappointed by Massa's vote at the time, but his vote was acceptable. I can see how this decision was tough. There are good things about this bill (as Massa has said). But there are also flaws. My problem with the bill is that individual mandates alone aren't a solution to the problems faced by the uninsured. The uninsured need more. Mandates and a weak public option won't do it. The Stupak Amendment needs to go. The Hyde Amendment is bad enough. Having this on the books in a reform bill would be devastating.
In the end, however, we don't vote for perfection. The flaws in this bill are nothing that can't be improved upon in conference. So voting in favor of the bill would have been ideal for anyone, including Massa.
There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.
The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.
The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.
At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.
It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.
During the 23rd congressional district race, Bill Owens was questioned about his views on two issues important to progressives: Health care reform and reproductive rights. His stance on health care was questioned because of his position on the public option. He went from saying he did not support a public option to saying that if a bill met his standards and it included a public option, he would vote for it. But that also meant if the bill met his standards and did not have a public option, he would still vote for it. The public option, for Owens, was not a must-have.
The other big vote for Owens came on the Stupak amendment. The Stupak amendment bans funds in the exchange set up by the health care reform bill being used to pay for abortion. Owens, who admitted that he was anti-choice prior to the campaign but has evolved since and believes that protecting Roe versus Wade is a must because it is the law. Owens voted against the Stupak amendment, joining all 27 Democratic representatives from New York in doing so.
Obama's point is a good one. Obama proved that you can win on a change (or reform) platform. Obama singling out Owens and saying Owens won on a change platform is a great point to make. Voters want a leader. Owens showed that NY-23 made a great choice.
Could the same thing happen with health care? Definitely.
This was passed along to me as an explanation for Massa's vote coming from Massa himself.
"I believe this bill, for a laundry list of details that all stem from employer-based, unregulated, private, for-profit health insurance, will make our health care system worse. An impact on Medicare, objections to constitutionality, impacts on rural health care, a lack of true cost control, a tremendous expansion of federal overhead, a lack of a true public option, a lack of expansion of doctors, are all debatable points.
That said, my opposition does not come from Washington, D.C. political talking points, but rather from a decade of study and immersion in this subject. The constituents of this Congressional District did not hire me to pander to them or tell them what I think they want to hear. They hired me to fully understand - in detail - the legislation I am asked to consider and only support that which I think will help. That is what I have done. That is why I voted no on H.R. 3962."
No one's vote seems to be more scrutinized than Massa regarding this health care bill. His vote against this bill is disappointing. I respect his position and do understand his stance, but I would like to see him say that while it is not perfect, it is better than no reform at all. This bill is not a terrible bill. Could it be better? Yes. But considering all we had to go through to get to this point, it's a solid piece of legislation. It's a great starting point on an issue (health care reform) where we have had no starting point for a century.
That's the bad news for Massa. This was a historic vote and being on the wrong side of the vote isn't helping him, at least among the netroots and progressives. Only two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted against the bill: Dennis Kucinich and Massa. Kucinich's vote, according to an e-mail he sent out today, was because of the bill's continued support of a private insurance industry and the lack of a single payer system. Massa gave other reasons, as listed in the statement above.
The good news for Massa is that this may not be the last vote on health care. If a conference bill comes to the House (getting a bill passed in the Senate will be a long-hard fight, but possible), Massa will have a second chance. And then that will be THE historic vote. If he votes for it, redemption is his and he will have voted for true reform. If he votes against it, the outrage many in the netroots have now won't go away.
The health care reform measure passed the House last night by a slim margin, with every representative casting a vote either in favor or in opposition of reform.
The final tally was 220 to 215, with 219 Democrats voting for reforming our broken health care system and 39 Democrats joining 176 Republicans in opposing the measure. There was one Republican vote, Anh "Joseph" Cao, a representative from Louisiana.
There has been plenty of praise for this bill and plenty of criticism. But what we need to remember is that there have been many attempts at reforming health care with zero success. I know that we want a single-payer system, but you don't get there without baby steps. We just didn't build a spaceship and launch ourselves to the moon. We had to plan it out, test things first and then reach the ultimate goal after years of trying. We will get to a single-payer system, but you don't get there by immediately switching from a for-profit health care system to a single-payer one.
Here is how the roll call played out among our representatives in New York (Republicans in italics):
AYE Ackerman
Arcuri
Bishop
Clarke
Crowley
Engel
Hall
Higgins
Hinchey
Israel
Lowey
Maffei
Maloney
McCarthy
Meeks
Nadler
Owens
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Weiner
NAY King Lee Massa
McMahon
Murphy
This is a great day for reform. "Yes we can" was the rallying cry for us last year. This proves we can do it. Now, we have a lot of work to do in the Senate.
The reform effort isn't over, but it's as close as it's ever been.
Today is D-Day for health care reform and we've still got some waverers here in NY. We already know that Eric Massa is "no" no matter what. (And I'll have more on that later. Short version: Massa is full of sh*t and trying to have it both ways.)
But we need to smoke out the rest of them. The ad on the left side of this page makes calling these Reps easy. Just click it, fill in the info and click the "click to call" button and you'll be automatically connected to the Rep's office.
This is it, folks. It's now or never. Too many of these guys got their seats with netroots support. (Rep Massa, I'm looking at you.) It's time for them to put up or shut up.
Put yourself in Ian Pearl's position. You were diagnosed with muscular dystrophy shortly after your birth and have been confined to a wheelchair since you were six years old. Even though you were physically disabled, your brain is fully functional and you are striving to be the best you can be.
But then it happens. At 19 years old, you have a life-threatening complication that leaves you with one option: If you are to live, you must breathe with the help of a ventilator.
And through it all, through the life-threatening complications you had to endure along the way and through everything you have been through since you were born, who would have thought that it was a health insurance company that could be the thing that kills you.
Ian's story is better told by him, but here's the summary: Guardian decided that they were sick of covering Ian. At first, they pulled the health care plan that covered everyone in his dad's company in New York. That could be seen as a general move not targeted at Ian, but with some digging, Ian found that it was because of him and others with serious medical issues that Guardian made this decision. According to Ian's account on Huffington Post, Guardian created a "hit list" of their insured customers who were costing them the most to cover. These members were referred to by Guardian's top officials as "dogs" and "trainwrecks" because of their health conditions and their cost to insure. Ian was one of many targeted by Guardian, a process that included certain members like Ian having private investigators look for anything to cancel the plan so Guardian could save money.
It's not like Guardian couldn't afford to cover Ian and others in similar situations (from Ian's post):
While all this was going on, Guardian reported $7.5 billion revenue, net income of $437 million, and available capital of $4.3 billion in 2008. Unlike small businesses, Guardian's financial strength remained unscathed by the economic downturn.
What Guardian did was remove a plan they offered from an entire state all because of a select few of their insured who were seen as too costly.
Enter Senator Eric Schneiderman, who introduced S6263 or "Ian's Law" in the New York State Senate. The bill "provides enhanced consumer protections in the event of an insurer's discontinuance of coverage, including requiring approval of the superintendent and notice to policyholders." Specifically, it would prohibit insurance companies from doing what Guardian did: Canceling a whole class of a policy they were offering. With Ian's Law, the insurance company could not cancel this plan unless they received approval from the state Insurance Department.
How is this law different from current law? Currently, it is illegal to cancel someone's insurance because they have chronic health problems like muscular dystrophy. Thus, it would have been (or perhaps IS) illegal for Guardian to cancel Ian's policy. But nothing prevents them from pulling a whole class of insurance. Of course, if they did so because of those who they insure that have chronic health conditions, that IS illegal and should be dealt with and the individuals responsible should not just be held liable via civil action, they should also face criminal charges. Because in the case of Ian Pearl, this is life and death. And when insurance companies are playing games with people's lives, they should face serious punishment.
For more on this story, watch the video below from yesterday's press conference introducing Ian's Law. The full text of the bill is below the fold.
This bill would prevent health insurance companies from doing what Guardian did: Pulling coverage in the name of profit. That was the motive in the case of Ian and others. They were seen as "dogs" and "trainwrecks" because they were actually in need of their insurance and thus costing Guardian. Not that Guardian was hurting for the money. They still have their billions. But they wanted more. So they put Ian in a situation where he is now fighting for his life.
Ian's Law is important and while it would only apply to New York, it should be a law that every state introduces and passes and should become a federal law so that we can prevent insurance companies from deciding who they want to cover and who will be the cheapest to cover.
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
We all know that a strong robust public option is necessary. It is needed because there are those without insurance who need help. While it is nice to talk about lowering costs, eliminating the ability of insurance companies to use preexisting conditions against you and other priorities, a public option is important. If we are going to achieve real reform, a strong public option needs to be in the final bill.
That's why 30 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging that any health care reform bill in the Senate includes a strong robust public option.
Here's the letter:
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that - absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option - health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.
As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.
We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform - the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee - have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats - every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.
The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.
Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance - rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee's approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people - patients and taxpayers alike - not the profit margins of insurance companies.
Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.
Among the 30 senators who called for the public option to be included is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She was joined by the following senators:
Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH); John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).
Gillibrand also made her own statement that reiterated her support for health care reform and the public option.
"Ensuring that every American has access to quality, affordable health care is a national priority," Senator Gillibrand said. "I continue to support a robust public option that can compete with private health insurance and drive down health care costs for everyone. With more than 47 million uninsured Americans and millions of families and businesses struggling with rising health care costs, the time to act is now. We cannot have a system in which the only choice is private plans. Everyone should have the option of buying into a not-for profit public plan at a rate that they can afford. I am proud to join with my colleagues to fight for the inclusion of a public plan option in health care reform."
While Senator Chuck Schumer wasn't in on the letter, we do know where he stands. We also know that there are close to 50 senators that would support the public option. That's a majority of the Democratic caucus. So if there are Democrats that want to vote against a majority of their caucus, so be it.
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
