The ghosts are in the machine: Has anyone here noticed that the Heritage Foundation (a virulent right-wing organization) is scheduling events to mobilize opposition and win converts from the Obama camp using the OFA website?
Check out their recent postings for events they are scheduling in October in the Twin Cities. Seems we need a strategy to counter. Anyone involved in deriving or applying one?
Invitation to join citizen journalists team at Huffington Post to investigate insurance claim denials follows. Also, do you have any leads to share? Join Our Investigation: How Often Do Health Insurers Deny Claims? Posted by Adam Clark Estes Amid all the loud arguments about the proper role for government and private companies in American health care, one point often seems lost: Exactly how well – or badly – are private insurers handling claims in the existing system? Daniellle Ivory is uncovering some answers. But we also need you to help us investigate... http://huffpostfund.org/participate/join-our-investigation-how-often-do-health-insurers-deny-claims
When you go to a lawyer and have a situation where all you need to do is some administrative routine to address your issue, the lawyer, not being able to litigate and therefore collect huge fees for his billable hours, will tell you that there is nothing that can be done to redress the wrong you have suffered.
A military commander is employed to develop winning strategies for winning conflicts/engagements/delivering the results his country is seeking: it is in their interest to continue engagement for this is the 'thrill' of the job. This is why people have an interest in joining the military, to protect and serve and fight and win. We must always be the one to win. Well sometimes we have to lose some to win something more. In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran coming on the set, we may have to 'lose' by military standards in order to win diplomatically/strategically.
Cutting off the funding source for these deviants and terrorists is the first and most effective step we, as a global community, can take to disarm/dismantle their operations. Let us seek a more peaceful resolution to these issues for the tact we are taking is not sustainable.
1) The Congressional Budget Office dealt Blue Dogs a blow Thursday by notifying House Democrats that tethering a public option to Medicare reimbursement rates would save the government $110 billion more than a public option in which the government has to negotiate rates with doctors and other health care providers.
The initial projections showed the difference between the two was $65 billion. But this shows it would cost the government a lot more money to heed moderate demands. House Democrats need to trim as much as $200 billion from a bill that most estimates peg at $1.1 trillion in order to meet President Obama's $900 billion target.
An actual robust public option saves money, and it's what the majority of constituents in districts like Rep. Mike Ross's district supports. Will Rep. Mike Ross actually listen to what the CBO says, or act like Senator Kent Conrad in dismissing the CBO's projections about the public option?
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition — just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.
Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.
For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.
Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies. "There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."
Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.
Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.
A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.
"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report.
"A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."
"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate."
Insurers contend their industry is extremely competitive, and a public plan is unnecessary. About 1,300 carriers operate across the country, although many only have a small share of the market in their states.
"You can have a very competitive market and still have companies with a high market share," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Fox points to the federal employee health program, which also covers members of Congress. It offers a total of more than 260 options and 10 nationwide plans. Despite all the choices, about 60 percent of federal workers pick a Blue Cross plan. "Insurers need to be of a significant size to best serve their customers and make sure that people get the best value," Fox said.
Nonetheless, lawmakers are concerned. Big insurers are getting bigger. Small businesses in particular have fewer and fewer options for getting coverage.
Congressional investigators this year looked at insurers catering to small employers around the country. The Government Accountability Office found that the median _or midpoint — market share of largest carrier increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002.
There's widespread recognition among lawmakers that a health care overhaul should foster more competition among insurers. The debate is over how far to go.
The basic framework lawmakers are looking at would encourage competition, even without a government plan. It calls for setting up a big insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. It would be open, at least initially, to individuals and small businesses. The government would offer subsidies to make premiums more affordable.
Consumers would find it much easier to shop for a plan through the exchange. For one thing, they would be able to readily compare benefits and premiums in different plans. Also, participating insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge higher premiums to those in poor health.
Offering the option of a public plan would supercharge the competition, supporters say.
Blumberg envisions a plan that pays medical providers more than Medicare, but less than private insurance. Her study estimated it could grow to 47 million members, leaving 161 million with private insurance. Even so, that would make the new public plan one of the largest insurers in the country, rivaling Medicare, Medicaid and big private companies such as Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare.
It's a scenario that gives pause even to traditional adversaries of the insurance companies.
"The fear and concern is that the public plan could become the market-dominant plan," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "When you've got the federal government involved, it can infuse money into a plan to keep it solvent even if the premiums are lower than its actual costs."
Snowe, among the few Republican senators still trying to come up with a bipartisan compromise, wants to hold back on creating a public plan for now and give insurers one last chance to show if they can keep costs in check.
That's doesn't go far enough for liberals, who are loath to give the insurance industry tens of millions of new customers supported by taxpayer subsidies.
"It would give the industry a windfall without any countervailing force to require them to lower their costs," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the advocacy group Health Care for America Now. "The insurance companies could continue to jack up premiums while getting a whole new market."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.
ref (1) http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/24/cbo-tells-blue-dogs-that-the-public-option-will-save/
ref( 2) http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3148749.aspx
I cannot rest for the cry of these great agonies. ~ E.A.P.
Caring is the Key to Life - Healthcare for All ... Rob [bob-pol]
This week Congress started the 'marking up' session on the Health Care and Insurance Reform. It is crucial we keep the pressure on them pass the bill.
The Daily Kos has an excellent article about the amendments we should push to support, and those we should push against.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/21/10112/5602
Please take the time to write your politicians and the ones listed demanding they support the Health Care and Insurance Reform.
Hi FriendThere is a new group that just started on Facebook that I thought Organizing for America members may be interested in joining. Please see United Against Racism -
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/354956/80588439?m=9dc74a6eUnited Against Racism
posted by David Apperson
Today, a group of progressive Senate Democrats led by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI, Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution) introduced the Justice Act, to fix the horid Patriot Act, protect your liberty, protect your privacy, and restore Constitutional principles.
A complete copy of their announcement follows. I will keep you posted as developments proceed; you will need to support this legislation with your own Senators and later, Representative.
- Mark Dorlester
-----
Press Release:
SENATORS INTRODUCE PATRIOT ACT FIXES TO SAFEGUARD AMERICANS’ RIGHTS
JUSTICE Act, Introduced on Constitution Day 2009, Would Fix Long Standing Problems with the PATRIOT Act and Other Surveillance Laws
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have introduced legislation to fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens. The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect Americans’ constitutional rights, while preserving the powers of our government to fight terrorism.
The JUSTICE Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the “sneak and peek” search provision of the PATRIOT Act, “John Doe” roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities. The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act, passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing “bulk collection” of the contents of Americans’ international communications, and prohibiting “reverse targeting” of innocent Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice Inspector General issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 23rd, on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
“Every single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” said Feingold. “But with the PATRIOT Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all. The JUSTICE Act permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. When he was in the Senate, President Obama was a strong ally on these issues, and I look forward to working with his administration to find common ground on commonsense reforms.”
“The Government must use every legal tool available to protect us from the threat of global terrorism. But when those tools override Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties, we run the very real risk of never getting them back,” Durbin said. “As we move toward reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, we’re proposing commonsense changes to better protect our most basic constitutional rights. Our bill strikes a careful balance between the law enforcement powers needed to combat terrorism and the legal protections required to safeguard American liberties.”
"Like a lot of Montanans, I have serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act and how it was implemented,” Tester said. “What this bill will do is add commonsense so we can fight terrorism without ignoring the Constitution and without invading the privacy and civil rights of law-abiding Americans."
“In recent years, I believe our government has failed to protect the constitutional right to privacy for American citizens,” Tom Udall said. “The JUSTICE Act strikes the right balance between respecting the needs of our law enforcement to pursue suspected terrorists and upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to live free from unnecessary government intrusion in their lives. I firmly believe we can keep our nation secure without infringing on the inherent rights of the American people. ”
“We must provide law enforcement with the tools they need to protect our country, and do so in a way that also safeguards Americans’ rights. This legislation addresses both of these important objectives by ensuring our security and upholding our cherished constitutional protections,” Bingaman said.
“Every American understands that we have got to do every single thing we can to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. There is no debate about that. Some of us believe, however, that we can be successful in doing that while we uphold the rule of law, while we uphold the Constitution of this country, which has made us the envy of the world,” Sanders said.
Senator Akaka said: “The JUSTICE Act will allow intelligence agents to monitor terrorism suspects while putting checks in place to ensure that law-abiding Americans’ privacy and civil liberties are protected.”
“The JUSTICE Act rights some of the basic wrongs of the PATRIOT Act, which became a poster child for the Bush Administration’s lack of respect for Americans’ privacy rights,” said Wyden. “This bill is designed to keep every law-abiding American free from arbitrary government surveillance. At the same time, it gives law enforcement the agility needed to go after actual terrorists and spies who would do our country harm.”
Fact Sheet JUSTICE Act Of 2009
The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.
Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records
Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters
The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.
Section 107 – Section 215 Orders
The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.
Title II – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Homes
Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches
The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.
Title III – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Communications
Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps
The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.
Section 302 – Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices
The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to cover electronic communications, but would allow pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these authorities.
Section 303 – Telecommunications Immunity
The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.
Section 304 – Bulk Collection
The bill retains the new warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the government from using that law to conduct “bulk collection” of the contents of communications, including all communications between the United States and the rest of the world.
Section 305 – Reverse Targeting
The bill would ensure that the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.
Section 306 – Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information
The bill would limit the government’s use of information about Americans obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases.
Section 307 – Protections for International Communications of Americans
The bill would amend the FISA Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States.
Section 308 – Computer Trespass
The bill would guard against abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their systems.
Title IV – Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight
Section 401 – FISA Public Reporting
The bill would require limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.
Section 402 – Use of FISA Evidence
The bill would apply the Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases, and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.
Section 403 – Nationwide Court Orders
The bill would permit a recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.
Title V – Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations
Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism
The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.
Section 502 – Material Support
The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.
Our gracious leader is truly a Man of Peace who turns the other cheek, or he would have a few reasons to get angry.
A few examples over the past year -
Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Normalcy-Cannot-Lead-to-Complacency/
While full recovery of the financial system will take a great deal more time and work, the growing stability resulting from these interventions means we're beginning to return to normalcy. But here's what I want to emphasize today: Normalcy cannot lead to complacency.Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we're still recovering, they're choosing to ignore those lessons. I'm convinced they do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation's. So I want everybody here to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.And that's why we need strong rules of the road to guard against the kind of systemic risks that we've seen. And we have a responsibility to write and enforce these rules to protect consumers of financial products, to protect taxpayers, and to protect our economy as a whole. Yes, there must -- these rules must be developed in a way that doesn't stifle innovation and enterprise. And I want to say very clearly here today, we want to work with the financial industry to achieve that end. But the old ways that led to this crisis cannot stand. And to the extent that some have so readily returned to them underscores the need for change and change now. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself.So what we're calling for is for the financial industry to join us in a constructive effort to update the rules and regulatory structure to meet the challenges of this new century. That is what my administration seeks to do. We've sought ideas and input from industry leaders and policy experts, academics, consumer advocates, and the broader public. And we've worked closely with leaders in the Senate and the House, including not only Barney, but also Senators Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby, and Barney is already working with his counterpart, Sheldon Bacchus. And we intend to pass regulatory reform through Congress.And taken together, we're proposing the most ambitious overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression. But I want to emphasize that these reforms are rooted in a simple principle: We ought to set clear rules of the road that promote transparency and accountability. That's how we'll make certain that markets foster responsibility, not recklessness. That's how we'll make certain that markets reward those who compete honestly and vigorously within the system, instead of those who are trying to game the system.
The President went on to lay out the specifics of the new regulations and oversight that the largely Wall Street audience would come under. Read the full transcript for the details.
I support our President and admire his dedication to resolving our Health care problems. But, I am increasingly convinced that Corporate America has framed the debate in a way that they can’t loose, regardless of the outcome.
The problems are many, but principle among them, is that between 15 and 20 percent of the population is without Health Insurance. The solution on the table, which seems to have some appeal from both sides, is a law which takes employer based health care insurance, now the norm, and makes it required by law.
Now who benefits from this? What used to be provided by choice of businesses, large and small, is now required by law. From the Insurance Companies point of view, the population of premium payers has just increased. That combined with point number three, assures them that they will get the premiums of all the currently uninsured.
They would never do this on their own, because large numbers of healthy people would stay out of the premium pool.
We are embroiled in bitter debate about death panels, Illegal residents and The Public Option, all red herrings. The insurance industry is nothing but overhead in our health care system. It can be completely eliminated if we had a single payer system as they have the world round. This is the outcome feared most by insurance companies.
This is not even part of the discussion. If we pass Health Care reform, the insurance companies win because they are now established in law, no longer just tradition. If we don’t, they continue as usual. Either way they are on solid ground.
It is ironic that corporate health Insurance has the rest of corporate America paying their premiums. We should be writing to the rest of corporate America, the only ones powerful enough to defeat corporate insurance. We should remind them that they are less competitive in the world market because they have the unfair burden of health care in the costs of their products and services.
Corporate America has been trying to shed these costs by shifting them to their employees. This is an increasing trend. Instead the cost of health care should be spread across all taxpayers fairly, in a single payer system, as they have in Canada. View this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQFX32Ed7ZQ&feature=channel_page
Write to GE, Alcoa, Dupont, Boeing, Zerox and so. Tell them we are on the verge of legitimizing the concept of Employer based Health Insurance. The burden is being placed squarely on their holders in law. Once this is passed, it will be even more difficult to get single payer. American goods and services will be forever burdened by the unfair costs of Health Care and will continue to be at a competitive disadvantage.
And American citizens will be forever burdened, with our anachronistic employer based health insurance. The cost of which is a drain on what we actually need the money for, Health Care Providers.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3489/towersa.jpg
SACRED LAND AND SACRED SOULS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snFyt4Kdhl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdSJFHnbls0
GOD BLESS AMERICA'S BELOVED AND THEIR FAMILIES
President Obama,
You were elected with the greatest wave of hope that I have seen since the election of President Kennedy...
...and now I feel terribly let down.
You have allowed, yes allowed the radical right to capture the emotions of this nation.
Although your negotiating skills are important; although your intelligence is important; although your organizing abilities are important; the most important ability you have is the ability to inspire.
You have not been using that ability lately at all. You have gotten sucked into the endless chess game of power and politics, and you have neglected your constituency, big time!
I listen to the news and the talk shows with dismay. I have been to a town hall meeting on health care with Lynn Woolsey. The passion and fear of the radical right was prominent, although not in the majority. It is hard to believe that so much credence is given to such outrageous lying. The right wing does not approach this subject, or any other, as far as I can tell, with logic or facts; its approach is on a crazy version of faith. It is like people who twist the bible to support their hate and then say, "The bible says it and I believe it." They forget that the people who hated Jesus were the ones who upheld the letter of the law, but not the spirit; the ones who were judgmental and divisive, not the ones who believed in love and community.
The greatness of the United States was NOT achieved by people acting alone, as much as independence is prized here. It was achieved by people acting together. People harvested their crops together, raised barns together. People helped each other. They were good neighbors. We developed a system of free public education, so all children could be educated, not just those of the rich and powerful.
Respect for the United States in the world was not born of military prowess, but of respect for the generosity, caring and fairness of the American people. It was because, at one time, we took the high road, the road less traveled!
Now we have fallen. We take the low road, talking about the necessity for something we don't call torture, but is. We kill, not to protect people from tyranny, but to protect *our* resources, even if they are located in the countries of others.
I find it so hard to believe, President Obama, that you seem to be cooperating with those who are so short-sighted as to believe that the well-being of the United States rests with military domination.
You talk about health care, but you have given away everything important that you might have done for health care. You talk about health care costs, but you are no different than President Bush in your spending our hard-earned wealth on death, on military adventures and military toys. Do you hope to save on health care and give those savings to the military?
Is it time for me to realize that I have been had? That in handing you this election, the American people have been had? Where is the man I voted for?
Yes we can...what? We can sit by while you allow the military-industrial complex and the insurance vipers to destroy America? I don't usually use that term, America - it applies to pretty much the whole western hemisphere, but I use it now, for the idea of American. The idea of people living together in freedom and peace, in community, caring for the well-being of all - not just our families, not just our town, not just our state, but everyone, everywhere. I thought we were nice people! What happened? Tears come to my eyes as I write these words. What happened?
I could understand the trend under President Bush - but you?
I know you cannot single-handedly do it all. But you have ceased to be a leader, because a leader inspires. A leader calls to the best and highest in us. The majority of Americans responded to that call when they voted for you. They were overjoyed at the opportunity to put their energy into positive endeavors at last.
You are gone, it seems. You have gone over to the fraternity of the rich and powerful.
I am dispirited, left behind, holding the (empty) bag of hope, while the mean-spirited rejoice.
We Can Afford Reform, We Can’t Afford the Status Quo
Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President and Executive Director of the Middle Class Task Force, debunks the myth that we can’t afford health insurance reform. To the contrary, not only has the President demanded that reform not add to the deficit in the short term, but reform is the only way to get skyrocketing health care costs under control that will be devastating not for families , businesses, and for government deficits in the long term under the status quo.
Watch the Video
Earlier today, it was announced that President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on the issue of health insurance reform next Wednesday, September 9th. CNN reported:
It will be Obama's second speech to the full legislature since he took office in January, and the setting and rarity of such an event highlighted the importance the president places on his top domestic priority: overhauling the nation's ailing health care system.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid formally invited Obama to make the address, as required, in a letter issued Wednesday after news broke of the planned speech.
We'll have more information on this important speech in the days to come.
www.whitehouse.gov
AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE REFORM
http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com
Phone/Fax (712) 239-0992
Direct Questions to:
americansunitedhcr@cableone.net
Press Release
9 A.M. CDT, August 31, 2009
AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE & INSURANCE REFORM RALLY & March in Washington, D.C. Sept. 13, 2009
Sioux City, August 31, 2009: A rally/march will be held in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 13, 2009 between 12N – 5pm in support of the administrations health care and health insurance reform goals. It is the goal of Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform to let congress know that all Americans need health care and insurance. Over 47 million Americans are uninsured and millions more are underinsured or at risk of losing their health insurance
The rally/march will begin at the Lincoln Memorial and march to the steps of the Capitol Building via the National Mall. This rally/march will be peaceful.
Robert Reich has given his support to this rally and march, “….I just want Congress to know how many Americans want universal health care and will settle for no less than complete coverage and no less than a public insurance option, to keep private insurers honest. So I’m happy to lend my support to whatever you are doing.”
Americans have enjoyed the freedom of movement, speech and employment. It is time that American citizens have the freedom that comes from knowing they have affordable health care for themselves and their families. Health care is not just for the privileged but it is a fundamental right.
Other groups marching on September 13, 2009 for health care reform are Congressman Fattah’s “March for Healthcare”, “Medicare for All”, and “March on Washington for Health Care.”
We invite all those who wish to participate visit our web blog at http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com and register to rally.
For more information please see our web blog (address above)Please direct all questions to our committee at americansunitedhcr@cableone.net.
Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform is not affiliated with Organizing for America or the Democratic National Committee or affiliated with any other groups, special interests or lobbying forums.
Think of health care ASSURANCE, not insurance. Insurance is when you pay to participate in a risk pool from which you may never need to take a benefit. Homeowner's and vehicle insurance are good examples. And the payment of different insurance rates can be justified based upon the risk of using benefits, i.e, on your behavior, age, or other characteristics. It is "catastrophic" coverage.
We have allowed what should be health ASSURANCE to be forced into the mold of insurance. And thus the capitalists have devised a way to profit off other people's misery. They have made access to health care a privilege, not a right.
With health ASSURANCE, it is virtually guaranteed that sooner or later, those covered have to use benefits from the funding pool. It's not just catastrophic; thus it can't be related to the behavior or nature of the covered person. It must cover all kinds of health care and medicines. Everyone must pay the same controlled rate - no differential premiums for sicker or older or younger. And for those who cannot pay at all, there must be government assistance and that must be paid for by taxation of the wealthy (you can't tax the middle and low income folk in order to in turn give it back to them). This means of paying for health care is incompatible with the profit motive of insurance companies. The profiteers cannot be controlled by regulation because they will always use their money to chisel down that regulation.
Government is the best performer of services that must be democratic and non-profit, because government is the representative of and beholden to the people. Now, are we going to let these ill-informed, prejudiced, anti-government screamers, funded and motivated by the private insurance industry, win this argument? Are we going to allow our country to abandon the rest of us to their chopping block? Or are we going to demand that our government create health care ASSURANCE (ASSURECARE?) for all Americans?
This is really sad. What a vibrant community this was.
If Barack ever wants to get this community really behind him ever again (in 2010 or 2012), he really needs to get a public option through on the healthcare bill. Not a trigger, not any other lame replacement. Yes, the rest of the reforms are important, but the public option is a litmus test.
Anything less will be considered a Republican victory, or at-least they will say it is (and be heard).
If there is to be vigorous Democratic support in 2010 or 2012 there MUST be a public option passed.
Ted Kennedy- Everyone's Senator.
"We shared about the exciting work the NJ Library for the Blind and Handicapped is doing to help support the independent business owners. Highlights of the day included a visit from NJ Congressman Rush Holt and an impromptu reading by Senator Edward Kennedy." (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thewordblog/650915336/)
Ted Kennedy on HEALTHCARE, "We are going to make healthcare what it should be - a fundamental right for all, rather than an expensive privilege for the few".
Who are the uninsured? http://www.truthout.org/082309Z
Up to 46 million Americans are uninsured, because they are unemployed, or their employer does not provide cover, or because they do not qualify for existing government-funded healthcare. People 65 and older can qualify for Medicare, the poor can qualify for Medicaid, veterans and members of the military can qualify for Veterans Health Administration and Tricare and children can be covered under a programme called SCHIP. Those left out by the system include the young just entering the workforce, the self-employed, the unemployed and people who work for small businesses.
Comparison of Canada's Health Care Plan http://www.truthout.org/082709A
It might be helpful for Americans to know about Canada's program. Here are some essential facts.
1. It is a single-payer system, meaning that the government - federal and provincial - pays the bills. But many providers - clinics, hospitals, diagnostic services, etc. - are privately owned. They are reimbursed for services just as doctors - who are mostly incorporated - submit for fees.
2. You get to choose your doctor.
In 2005, all the provincial government leaders reconfirmed their commitment to The Canada Health Act's key principles: that Canadians have the right to timely, high quality, effective and safe health services on the basis of need, not ability to pay, and regardless of where they live or move in Canada. They also committed to a system that is sustainable and affordable and that will be there for future generations.
Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan in the Unites States http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580516633344953.html
Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America's non-system of health care -- private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers -- have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.
Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won't consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don't want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That's the whole point.
Critics say the public option is really a Trojan horse for a government takeover of all of health insurance. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's an option. No one has to choose it. Individuals and families will merely be invited to compare costs and outcomes. Presumably they will choose the public plan only if it offers them and their families the best deal -- more and better health care for less.
Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with health care on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals.
But, say the critics, the public plan starts off with an unfair advantage because it's likely to have lower administrative costs. That may be true -- Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs -- but here again, why exactly is this unfair? Isn't one of the goals of health-care cost containment to lower administrative costs? If the public option pushes private plans to trim their bureaucracies and become more efficient, that's fine.
Critics complain that a public plan has an inherent advantage over private plans because the public won't have to show profits. But plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality health care more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, that's a plus.
Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.
Finally, critics say that because of its breadth and national reach, the public plan will be able to collect and analyze patient information on a large scale to discover the best ways to improve care. The public plan might even allow clinicians who form accountable-care organizations to keep a portion of the savings they generate. Those opposed to a public option ask how private plans can ever compete with all this. The answer is they can and should. It's the only way we have a prayer of taming health-care costs. But here's some good news for the private plans. The information gleaned by the public plan about best practices will be made available to the private plans as they try to achieve the same or better outputs.
As a practical matter, the choice people make between private plans and a public one is likely to function as a check on both. Such competition will encourage private plans to do better -- offering more value at less cost. At the same time, it will encourage the public plan to be as flexible as possible. In this way, private and public plans will offer one another benchmarks of what's possible and desirable.
Mr. Obama says he wants a public plan. But the strength of the opposition to it, along with his own commitment to making the emerging bill "bipartisan," is leading toward some oddball compromises. One would substitute nonprofit health insurance cooperatives for a public plan. But such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.
Another emerging compromise is to hold off on a public option altogether unless or until private insurers fail to meet some targets for expanding coverage and lowering health-care costs years from now. But without a public option from the start, private insurers won't have the incentives or system-wide model they need to reach these targets. And in politics, years from now usually means never.
To get health care moving again in Congress, the president will have to be clear about how to deal with its costs and whether and how a public plan is to be included as an option. The two are intimately related. Enough talk. He should come out swinging for the public option.
Mr. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, is the author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007).
