Please, all Californians, call Senator Dianne Feinstein and ask her to support public option. I got this from her website when I was directed by one of her staff on her beliefs about President Obama's Healthcare Reform. Please call her. Thanks, Melanie
What I Support : Senator Dianne Feinstein I basically believe that reform should be incremental and should cover the following:
In order to see that premiums are affordable, I believe that all non-direct healthcare costs (advertising, overhead, profits, and other administrative costs) should be limited and not exceed 10 percent. All premium rate adjustments should be subject to review and approval by a Health Insurance Rate Authority. Bottom line: your health insurance must remain affordable. Your premiums cannot be allowed to double again in the next nine years, as they have in the past nine.
Another way of stabilizing premium affordability is the public option. Depending how the competition is structured, this “option” could compel insurance companies to lower premiums to remain competitive. It remains a viable proposal. The public option should be one of a variety of choices for people who want improved coverage, giving them an option between a private insurance plan and a public one. The public option is simply that—an option. No one will be required to enroll in the public plan. Instead, it would offer consumers an additional choice as they select a health insurance policy. Instead of choosing between policies offered only by private insurance companies, people could choose to buy a public insurance plan. Those that prefer to buy private insurance could still do so.
The purpose of creating a public plan is to increase competition so that premium costs can be controlled. It is very clear that in the current market, private insurance companies do not control the price of premiums. The public option will not replace anyone’s private insurance coverage, but it could prevent future premium increases as private insurance companies lower their prices to compete with a public option. I am also open to considering a non-profit co-operative model, as long as it can accomplish the critical goal of controlling premium costs and spurring competition. Because insurance company profit taking has been so high, it will be very difficult to control premium costs without some non-profit option.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 56 percent of all dollars that the federal government is projected to spend in 2009 will be spent on entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans’ benefits). If you add interest on the debt, which will account for 5 percent of this year’s federal spending, 61 percent of everything the government spends cannot be controlled. That is because if you qualify for an entitlement, you receive it, regardless of cost. And the interest on the debt must be paid, which further jeopardizes the financial future of the county as the debt grows. Any health reform bill must revise and reform Medicare to eliminate duplication and waste, and to prevent this continuing cost explosion. I cannot vote for a bill that will add a new entitlement, like a subsidy, that will grow over time.
One way of accomplishing Medicare reform is to create an Entitlement Commission to reform and control Medicare and Social Security. This Commission would retain independent actuaries to periodically and regularly review the system and periodically make recommendations to the Congress, which would vote them up or down.
Healthcare Reform “Musts”
These payments are vital to the survival of publicly owned hospitals like San Francisco General Hospital, UCLA/Harbor Medical Center and UC San Diego Medical Center to cover the costs of providing care for the uninsured and undocumented. Many counties, including Los Angeles County, Riverside and San Francisco, are concerned that these payments will be reduced as a cost saving mechanism in the bill, and result in additional County costs. In California, these cuts could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
If extending health care to the millions of currently uninsured is achieved by expanding Medicaid, the new cost to California would be approximately $2.05 billion per year, if the new eligibility level is set at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($14,404 per individual). Many California counties contribute to the cost of Medicaid, and they do not have extra funding to pay the cost for a program expansion. California still faces an ongoing financial emergency, so this becomes an important consideration. I could not support a bill that pushes additional costs on California state government or its counties.
These concerns and others that develop must be addressed in the Finance Committee bill. I will amend and change this paper as I learn more about the actual bill likely to come before the Senate. I thank you for reading this. Be assured that I want practical health reform to pass, but believe that the package must control the escalating cost of health insurance, increase coverage for those who do not have it, and contain costs.
Thank you,
Dianne Feinstein
By Dan Eggen and Kimberly Kindy Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, July 6, 2009
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.
The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.
The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.
Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies.
"For people like me who are on the outside and used to be on the inside, this is great, because there is a level of trust in these relationships, and I know the policy rationale that is required," Tarplin said in explaining the benefits of having government experience.
But public interest groups and reform advocates complain that the concentration of former government aides on K Street has distorted the health-care debate, and that it further illustrates the problem posed by the "revolving door" between government and private firms.
"The revolving door offers a short cut to a member of Congress to the highest bidder," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled some of the data used in The Post's analysis. "It's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits they can garner."
Aides to Baucus and other lawmakers bristle at any suggestion of special treatment for former staff members. Baucus spokesman Scott Mulhauser said the senator "remains committed to working with a variety of stakeholders" as the Finance Committee attempts to come up with a bill this summer.
"The senator and his staff meet daily with individuals, nonprofits and interests from across the health-care spectrum, and are proud that all interests are treated equally and that no one receives special treatment of any kind," Mulhauser said. "As a result, the Finance Committee has been praised by members of Congress and the media for its uniquely inclusive and transparent health-care reform process."
The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by health-care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first quarter of this year. It used current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff members and executive branch officials.
The analysis identified more than 350 former government aides, each representing an average of four firms or trade groups. That tally does not include lobbyists who did not report their earlier government experience, such as PhRMA President W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. Federal law does not require providing such detail.
Overall, health-care companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter, leading all other industries, according to CRP and Senate data. PhRMA led the pack in spending and employs 49 former government staff members among its 136 lobbyists, according to The Post's analysis. Dozens of other former insiders are employed as lobbyists by Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the AMA and the American Hospital Association, each of which spent at least $3.5 million on lobbying from January through March.
The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple: to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million uninsured Americans as new customers. Although many firms have vowed to help cut costs, major players such as PhRMA, America's Health Insurance Plans and others remain opposed to the public-insurance option, a key proposal that President Obama has endorsed.
Several major Democratic bills include such a plan, but Baucus's committee -- which is acting as the central broker in the debate -- has not committed to the idea. Instead, the Finance Committee has focused recently on private-insurance cooperatives and other proposals seen as more palatable to the insurance industry and centrist Democrats. More than 50 former employees of the committee or its members lobby on behalf of the health-care industry, records show.
Deploying former government officials is a key strategy for pressing such positions on Capitol Hill, according to industry lobbyists, many of whom discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. They say that legislative or administration experience helps ensure that policies considered by Congress do not imperil health-care interests, which account for about one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
At the same time, these lobbyists say, a personal connection to lawmakers and their staffs does not guarantee success.
"If anyone thinks hiring a former staffer for Baucus or [Charles] Schumer or Blanche Lincoln is going to get them what they want, they are crazy," said one health-care lobbyist who used to work on the Finance Committee, referring to several key Democratic senators. "If we were being judged on that, a lot of us should be fired."
William K. "Billy" Wynne, a former Baucus health counsel who now works for the Health Policy Source lobbying firm, said that "there's nothing insidious" about medical companies and groups hiring former legislative staff members. He also notes that he is subject to a two-year limit on contacts with Baucus's office.
"The technical processes of the House and Senate are not intuitive or widely known," Wynne said. "Like with any service, people who have experience are going to be valuable to people who don't."
Some trade groups and companies appear to emphasize hiring lobbyists with legislative or executive experience. Wellpoint, one of the world's largest insurance conglomerates, employs 11 lobbyists with government experience and three with none. One of its veterans is Stephen Northrup, who worked for several years for Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), including a year as his health policy director on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
"I think the experience on Capitol Hill gives you a better appreciation of the challenges that members and staff face," said Northrup, who began his Washington career as a lobbyist before entering government. "Every institution has its own rhythm. You need to understand when people need information."
The personal and professional ties between lawmakers, their staffs and lobbyists are often complex. Consider the case of Tarplin and his wife, Republican lobbyist Linda Tarplin. The two worked on opposite sides of the Family Medical Leave Act debate in the 1990s, and each has held high-ranking HHS positions -- he for Bill Clinton and she for George H.W. Bush.
Now they run their own health-care lobbying firms, drawing on their connections. Last year, Richard Tarplin's firm reported $650,000 in lobbying income and his wife's firm -- Tarplin, Downs and Young -- reported $3.5 million.
"We have been in situations that are much more combative than this," Linda Tarplin said of the health-care fight. "Both Democrats and Republicans want health-care reform. The rub has always been they tend to get there in different ways."
At least eight former HHS appointees have also crossed over into health-care lobbying, representing more than 25 companies with a stake in the reform legislation. Most were presidential appointees with high-ranking positions, such as the Tarplins.
A few have also cycled back into government. Jack Charles Ebeler, a former Clinton HHS official, left his job as president and chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans a few months ago to become senior adviser for health policy on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Financial disclosure statements show that Ebeler received consulting fees over the past two years from UnitedHealth Group, Academy Health, the Medicare Rights Center, the Center for Health Care Strategies and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Ebeler declined interview requests by The Post.
One of the most prominent examples of Washington's revolving door is Tauzin, who took the $2.5 million-a-year job as head of PhRMA in 2005 after shepherding a Medicare prescription drug plan through Congress.
Uproar over the appointment led Congress in 2007 to pass a bill barring former members from bringing clients onto the House and Senate floors and from lobbying their friends in members-only gyms. The legislation also forbade direct lobbying contacts with former colleagues for a year in the House and two years in the Senate; efforts to enact a wider ban went nowhere.
Tauzin and other lobbyists rebuff critics, arguing that it is unsurprising that those with experience on Capitol Hill should then draw on that background.
"Is it a distortion of baseball to hire coaches who have played baseball? Is it a distortion of universities to hire from academia?" Tauzin asked rhetorically. "The bottom line is that people work in the fields in which they have experience. Somehow there are people who think that's unusual for politics, but I think it's pretty normal."
Now that we’re full-on into silly season, where the policy is getting buried under the politics of the moment, it’s more important than ever to focus of these two essentials. One, reform that does not change the game for private, for-profit insurance is not real reform. Two, insurers will not police themselves, even when the business practice in question is morally indefensible. Such it was that yesterday at a hearing in the House of Representatives, CEOs from UnitedHealth, Assurant Health, and WellPoint point-blank refused to limit cancellations of insurance policies for sick patients.
This is a process known as rescission, and it’s the flip side of the pre-existing condition dilemma. For pre-existing conditions, you’re denied a plan or care at the beginning. For rescissions, you’re denied after you’re already sick. The policy exists to fight intentional abuse of the system. If you intentionally leave something off when you’re applying for insurance and sign a statement saying you haven’t, that’s a pretty clear breach of contract. But, as Bob Laszewski, a former COO of an insurance company himself, writes, “It would be an inadvertent and non-material misstatement to sign your health insurance application having promised you told all but left something, that in the end did not matter, off of it. It is always important to be thorough and honest in filling out a health insurance application but sometimes we forget things.” In Robin’s case, she didn’t even forget anything – it was a mistake on a medical record. Regardless, Laszewki asks the pertinent question: “How could you sleep at night knowing you retroactively canceled (or rescinded) a sick person’s health insurance because of something that really didn’t matter?”
And yet, when given the opportunity point blank to say their companies would cease rescissions except when in reaction to “intentional fraud,” all three CEOs refused.
We hear a lot from Karen Ignani of AHIP about how private insurance knows it must earn a seat at the table. We hear from Joe Lieberman that the private insurance market is plenty competitive and doesn’t require the competition on quality from a public health insurance option. Insurance is fine. Yet these companies haven’t just refused to limit rescissions. They’ve made money off of it: $300 million in California alone. As the L.A. Times reports, “It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.”
Let’s say that again. These companies praised employees for terminating the policies of sick patients with expensive illnesses.
Forget the politics and the theater and the supposed evils of government. This is health insurance as it’s practiced in this country. That’s the game. We need to change it.
Friday 12 June 2009
by: David Swanson, t r u t h o u t | Report
Health care reform plans are being drafted and passed around on both sides of Capitol Hill, but the plan with the greatest number of Congress members behind it was first introduced as a bill six years ago. With two new co-sponsors having just signed on, Congressman John Conyers's single-payer health care plan, HR 676, now has 80 Congress members supporting it.
A House committee held a hearing on single-payer health coverage on Wednesday, and a Senate committee included single payer in a hearing on Thursday. Many opponents of single payer, including President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, say it would be the ideal solution if it were possible.
A single-payer or "Medicare for all" system that eliminates for-profit health insurance and simply pays for everyone's treatment by private doctors and hospitals of their choosing is also the only solution consistently favored by a majority of Americans in polls. The proposal, already in place in most of the world's wealthy nations, is raised at every health care town-hall forum that Congress members or President Obama speak at, including the one Obama held on Thursday in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The president always rejects single payer on the grounds that some Americans are too fond of their health insurance companies to part with them. A report by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting last week found that the corporate media still virtually bans coverage of single payer. A Senate bill being championed by Sen. Chris Dodd in place of ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, does not include single payer (which is supported by only one US senator, Bernie Sanders). The Kennedy-Dodd bill, at least in its initial draft, does not even include a "public option," that is a Medicare-like program to exist alongside the private insurance companies. The House bill is being drafted by one current and two former co-sponsors of HR 676, Congressmen George Miller, Henry Waxman and Charles Rangel, but it avoids single payer, championing a public option instead. Other competing Senate bills are expected to complicate things further.
The approach taken by the Kennedy-Dodd bill and considered for the House bill is, rather than eliminating health insurance companies, expanding them by making insurance mandatory and subsidizing its purchase. While this approach is favored by the insurance companies, which have been among the primary participants in White House and Congressional health care forums this year, it is not supported by other corporations that would rather not be required to provide health insurance to employees. If anything has emerged on Capitol Hill this week, it is a chaotic lack of consensus except around the idea that something must be done to address a health care system that is damaging Americans' health and economy. Whether the growing chaos opens the door to single payer remains to be seen, and that possibility appears much more real in the House than in the Senate.
In the House, the progressive Caucus has declared that, while it would prefer single payer, it will back no bill without a public option; the Black, Hispanic and Asian caucuses have also backed a public option; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that no bill without a public option will pass. This should mean that, as the debate advances, the House will be more likely to back single payer than any other solution. Or, rather, it would be if it could create laws without having to get them through the Senate as well.
Sen. Max Baucus has taken the lead in Kennedy's absence and chaired hearings last month to which he refused to invite any supporters of single payer. Baucus had 13 people arrested for speaking up at his hearings uninvited, an action that generated more media coverage of single payer than any poll or study ever could have. One of those arrested, Dr. Margaret Flowers, is the Maryland co-chair of Physicians for a National Health Program. She was interviewed by Ed Schultz on "MSNBC," who began covering single payer in a major way. "Bill Moyer's Journal" on PBS also focused on single payer and aired interviews with three leading advocates, including Donna Smith of the California Nurses Association (CNA). Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) was interviewed on Fox News. Even the Washington Post took note.
Over the past few weeks, the relatively serious media attention has inspired more activism and vice versa. Senator Baucus has been surrounded by demands for single payer at town-hall forums in Montana and questioned by activists with video cameras in Washington, DC, as have health insurance executives and lobbyists.
Congress members John Conyers, Raul Grijalva, Donna Edwards, Steve Cohen and Emanuel Cleaver, along with Carpenter of PDA and Smith and Michael Lighty of CNA met with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to lobby for single payer. Conyers has become increasingly outspoken, and on Wednesday evening, complained of being shut out by the president and by Waxman and Rangel, promising not to let up. On June 3, Senator Baucus met with advocates of single payer and told them he was wrong to have excluded them. But he said he would continue to do so.
However, on Wednesday, the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee in the House, Chaired by Congressman Robert Andrews, held a serious hearing on the topic of single payer, with four of the five witnesses favoring a single-payer system, and Conyers was one of the four.
After the hearing and a briefing, Stephen Spitz of PDA told me, "Some of us met with Congressman Conyers in his office when he suddenly said: 'Let's go to Nancy Pelosi's office.' Off we went and, after talking to an aide of the speaker, we talked with Speaker Pelosi in her office in the US Capitol. She said she is for single payer and encouraged us to keep on doing what we were doing. She said that single payer cannot pass this year in the Congress. She said she was fighting to get a meaningful public option. Congressman Conyers asked her to let him (and experts he would bring) conduct a briefing before the entire House Democratic caucus on HR 676."
The next day, on Thursday, the Senate provided a stark contrast. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing with possibly a record number of panelists, one of whom, Dr. Flowers, favored single payer. Senator Dodd, chairing in place of the absent Kennedy, opened by remarking that he'd never seen a panel so large and that he at first thought the panel was the audience. While hearings often include as many as six witnesses, this one included two panels with a total of 24 speakers. The first panel, with 15 speakers, began with Flowers's very brief statement, followed by 14 other prepared statements, none of them responding to Flowers.
Flowers began by indicating that she spoke for a majority of Americans. No one ever challenged that claim. Flowers criticized the idea of a uniquely American market solution as a delusion that has failed for 40 years. She said that health care in the United States is rationed right now ("rationing" being one of the dangers of "government health care" warned about by the sole witness against single payer on Wednesday). Congressman Dennis Kucinich had made the same point on Wednesday. The threats of wait time and denial of care are here under the current system. In what other industrialized nation, Flowers asked, do people hold bake sales to pay for their health care? In what other industrialized nation do millions of people go bankrupt because of medical bills? None of the following 14 speakers or any of the senators in the room answered these questions. In fact, they directed more criticism at the Kennedy-Dodd bill.
Randel Johnson, vice president of the US Chamber of Commerce, warned that employer mandates could force companies to go out of business. William Dennis of the National Federation of Independent Business claimed to be concerned that employer mandates would hurt low-wage employees. There were no low-wage employees on the panel.
Dr. Samantha Rosman of the American Medical Association (AMA) spoke against any public option. She did not provide arguments against it so much as announce that the AMA would not accept it. President Obama has said that a public option must be included. He is scheduled to speak to the AMA on Monday.
Other panelists included right-wing think tankers and the CEO of a supermarket chain, who advocated urging employees to take better care of themselves. Two panelists other than Flowers were not from the usual crowd. They were Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO and Dennis Rivera of SEIU, both leaders of labor unions that have backed HR 676 in the past and whose members overwhelmingly favor single payer. The AFL-CIO does not have a clear position now. Rose Ann DeMoro, vice president of the AFL-CIO, was part of the meeting with Baucus and advocates single payer. Shea mentioned that unions have always favored single payer, but he moved immediately to discussing the details of Dodd's plan, favoring a public option and employer mandates, but opposing taxing employees for health insurance payments made by employers. Rivera, too, favored a public option.
The panel was followed by a lengthy question-and-answer period. For a long time no senators asked Flowers any questions. Finally, she grabbed a microphone and asked to speak. She responded to a discussion of preventive care by pointing out that when the goal of health coverage is not profit, an incentive is created to keep people healthy since doing so saves the public money.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski later asked Flowers why a public option isn't good enough. Flowers said that one problem is that insurance companies will cherry-pick the healthiest patients and leave the sickest to the public program. More importantly, Flowers argued, much of the waste in the current arrangement is due to the fragmentation of the coverage system into 1,300 different companies, requiring hospitals to employ staff to interface with them. Adding a public option would only make this worse, Flowers said, not fix it.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman tried to claim he had found a consensus among most of the panelists on various points, acknowledging that he was excluding Flowers. The fact that 14 of the 15 panelists represented a smaller portion of the public than the one panelist alone did not seem to matter.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who supports single payer, asked Flowers to expand on why single payer is the best plan and then proceeded to criticize another panelist, the CEO of Aetna, for denying people health care.
While the Senate has a long way to go, even just to measure up to the House, single-payer advocates are encouraged by the progress this week. Katie Robbins of Healthcare-NOW! called Wednesday's and Thursday's hearings "measurable successes of the groundswell of support for a just, equitable system based on single-payer financing."
"However," said Robbins, "the conversation is just beginning. We demand full hearings on single payer in the Senate, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Energy and Commerce Committee. In addition, a fair scoring of single-payer legislation must be included in the Congressional Budget Office's report on health care reform."
Kevin Zeese of Prosperity Agenda emailed me from Thursday's Senate hearing: "The multi-player advocates are divided. Bitterly so over mandates, paying for their plans and whether to have a public plan to compete. The senate is trying to fix the equivalent of a broken egg. It cannot be done. But they all have their heads in the sand and their hand in the till. Single payer is making progress. More people know single payer is right than admit it. It will win the day but they will pursue the wrong paths until they run into the dead end."
A single-payer rally is planned for Friday, June 26, at 6:00 PM in front of Union Station in Washington, DC. Those likely to show up often speak about their struggle as one for basic human rights. Those who imagine the single-payer movement might go away often speak about health care reform in terms of "political feasibility" and "focus group message testing." Perhaps the growing success of the push for single payer is not so surprising.
-------
David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union," by Seven Stories Press. You can preorder it at http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook.
I know we had a slammin' victory in 2008 and we had an amazing Inauguration. We are still basking in the glow of our victory. But the Whitehouse is moving at 150 miles an hour with a 100 tons of garbage on their plate that they have to deal with every day.
We have to help them.
We got them there, NOW we have to support them.
THEY CAN NOT DO THIS ON THEIR OWN.
We have to be somewhat incessant in getting the message across to the folks out there that its not just COOL to have President Obama, Vice President Biden, Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton, David Axelrod, Rahm Immanuel, Press Sec Gibbs. and all the pretty faces (and David Plouff helping on the outside too of course), its EFFECTIVE.
I mean look, this country is in the doghouse. The ball of yarn is so tangled up they are just now finding the end and starting to detangle..and they have a long way to go. OK?
So what's up? What do they need all of us for next?
HEALTH CARE REFORM!!!!! HEALTH CARE REFORM!!!! Health Care Reform.
We have to get just as bolstered up and just as caffeinenated for this fight as any. BELIEVE ME, there is a TON of money on the other end of this battle and they are going to fight like the SWIFTBOATERS. They are mean, greedy, manipulating and they will twist and lie and do anything they can to put out the most grossly disgusting propaganda against Pres. Obama's Health Care Policies you can imagine. Just look up this guy "Dick Morris". He's a knucklehead, but you might as well get your feet wet and check him out. He's the kind of nightmare you're going to see.
WE HAVE TO GET ORGANIZED TO FIGHT THESE GUYS. WE CAN'T GO BACK INTO LAZY SLACKERDOM NOW THAT OUR MAN WON. ALL THAT WE FOUGHT FOR AND WORKED FOR WILL BE GONE DUE TO OUR BEING LAZY. WE ARE NOT LAZY. WE ARE SO STRONG WHEN WE WAKE UP AND GET ORGANIZED. WE ARE UNSTOPPABLE!!!!
Come on!!! It was fun getting involved wasn't it? It was fun getting passionate over something bigger than yourself. Let's do it again. Lets get Health Care Reformed so our parents don't have to pay thousands of dollars in premiums when they are in their 80s. Heck, so WE don't have to pay thousands of dollars in our eighties. So we CAN GET the CARE WE NEED WHEN WE ARE SICK instead of some letter that says we are declined due to pre-existing conditions -( so just go die somewhere away from us please.)
Let's not let just any Health Care Reform pass either. A good one. One like what Congress has. Seriously.
YES!!!!! WE CAN!!!! YOU'RE BRIGHT!!! YOU'RE STRONG!!! YOU'RE OH-SO-SMART! HOW ABOUT HEALTHY TOO!!!!!!! DO IT FOR YOU, YOUR KIDS, YOUR PARENTS, YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR FRIENDS. GO TO BARACKOBAMA.COM AND THEN ORGANIZING AMERICA AND CALL FOLKS LIKE LAST TIME. WRITE BLOGS, GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH YOUR OLD BUDDIES FROM THE PAST 2 YEARS.
THE TIME IS NOW!!! YES! WE CAN!!! :-D
