Kelly Price, Debra Cox and Tamia Hill talk to Tracy Tluv on RFLTV about Health Care and their new humanitarian project called "The Queen Project". Please support and see how you can help me continue to get many fellow celebrities involved with their voice that can make a difference. Thank You
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Word-from-the-White-House-President-Obama-Welcomes-Doctors-from-Around-the-Country/
It's no secret that institutions of all stripes focus their communications on certain messages day to day. We thought it would all be a little more open and transparent if we went ahead and published what our focus will be for the day, along with any related articles, reports or documents.
Supporting Article: "Poll: Doctors Among Public Option's Biggest Fans," NPR, 9/15/09
Related Event: "President Obama Speaks to Doctors from Across the Country," Live-streamed at WhiteHouse.gov at 11:10
On Friday, Dr. Alice Chen sent out a special message to fellow OFA supporters:
My name is Alice Chen. I'm an OFA supporter, and a physician practicing internal medicine in Los Angeles.I'm following the health reform debate pretty closely -- you probably are too. And as I see opponents of reform trying to water down or derail the President's plan, I know it's our urgent responsibility to speak out.That's why millions of my fellow doctors and nurses, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and groups like the one I work with called Doctors for America are all fighting so hard for reform right now: talking to our patients, holding grassroots events -- and a few are even filming an ad with OFA.Health professionals are doing what we can, but this is something we need to do together. Your voice, your opinion, and your story can help influence the debate at this crucial moment. Can you take 5 minutes to write a letter to the editor of your local paper in support of President Obama's Plan for health reform?OFA has an online tool that makes it really easy. They'll provide background info on the President's plan that you can combine with your personal story about reform, and you can even submit your letter online to newspapers near you.You don't have to be a doctor or an expert to write an effective letter -- you just have to have an opinion or a personal story to share. And these letters are short, usually just a paragraph or two, but they can have a huge impact because it shows your representatives and the media what local folks are thinking in the most public way possible.I know that one of the most important things I can do for the health of my patients is to stand up for the reform all Americans need. That's why I and my fellow doctors are working so hard to spread the word, and that's why I'm asking you to join me by writing a letter today.http://my.barackobama.com/writeThank you,Dr. Alice ChenP.S. -- I want to share a story with you about why I'm so passionate about reform: Two years ago, I took care of a businessman in Los Angeles. He had Crohn's disease, and his health and nutrition had been getting worse for over a year. He was seeing doctors at one of our private hospitals, but he lost his insurance, so he couldn't see his doctors anymore. Buying private insurance was impossible - no amount of money could have convinced an insurance company to cover him. He tried the county hospital ER, but the wait was 24 hours. He thought maybe he could manage.A few months later, when he could barely walk from his bed to the door, he tried the ER again. By then, he had kwashiorkor (the kind of malnutrition that famine-stricken African children get) as a complication of his gut disorder. Every organ system was failing. I remember that even in the hospital, he tried to keep up his work via his Blackberry. We tried to help him, but he rapidly deteriorated and died just six days after admission.I was devastated and talked to many colleagues about what I could have done differently to save my patient. He should have been living his life and being a productive member of society today, but he's dead. We could have saved him if he had been able to come for care sooner -- instead of being deterred by his lack of insurance. Ultimately, I recognize that he died because the system failed him. In our great country, that is unacceptable.That's a big reason why I keep fighting for reform. I hope that this week, you can share your own view and your story in your letter to the editor. Over the past week, OFA has been organizing events for health insurance reform with doctors and nurses across the country. At a “Roundtable” event in Gainesville, FL, Dr. Rob Hatch said the health care status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. Here’s his quote from an article in the Gainesville Sun:"It's just inexcusable. It's absolutely inexcusable and we need to do something about it. One reason our health care is so bad is that we have so many uninsured people," Hatch said.In Albany, Georgia, about half a dozen doctors are planning to make 40,000 calls for health insurance reform. They’re talking to locals about what reform will mean for them, answering questions, debunking rumors and asking them to call on their senators and representatives to support President Obama’s plan. Here’s an excerpt from the piece on WALB News:"I was calling to discuss health care reform with you," said Dr. Tania Smith, of Prestige Pediatrics.Public opinion over health care reform remains divided and now these south Georgia health care professionals are weighing in. They joined forces with Organizing for America to push reform now."Right now people are looking for answers, they're looking for the truth about health care reform and doctors are a great place to start," said Ken King, Organizing for America.Pediatrician Tania Smith is on the front line of this debate. While critics worry the President's plan may take decisions away from doctors, she feels insurance companies are already doing that. "As the system is going now we have a lot of people who are medically ignorant making decisions and denying claims and making insurance populations where you don't have any wellness visits included in your plan," said Smith.
My name is Alice Chen. I'm an OFA supporter, and a physician practicing internal medicine in Los Angeles.I'm following the health reform debate pretty closely -- you probably are too. And as I see opponents of reform trying to water down or derail the President's plan, I know it's our urgent responsibility to speak out.That's why millions of my fellow doctors and nurses, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and groups like the one I work with called Doctors for America are all fighting so hard for reform right now: talking to our patients, holding grassroots events -- and a few are even filming an ad with OFA.Health professionals are doing what we can, but this is something we need to do together. Your voice, your opinion, and your story can help influence the debate at this crucial moment. Can you take 5 minutes to write a letter to the editor of your local paper in support of President Obama's Plan for health reform?
OFA has an online tool that makes it really easy. They'll provide background info on the President's plan that you can combine with your personal story about reform, and you can even submit your letter online to newspapers near you.You don't have to be a doctor or an expert to write an effective letter -- you just have to have an opinion or a personal story to share. And these letters are short, usually just a paragraph or two, but they can have a huge impact because it shows your representatives and the media what local folks are thinking in the most public way possible.I know that one of the most important things I can do for the health of my patients is to stand up for the reform all Americans need. That's why I and my fellow doctors are working so hard to spread the word, and that's why I'm asking you to join me by writing a letter today.http://my.barackobama.com/writeThank you,Dr. Alice ChenP.S. -- I want to share a story with you about why I'm so passionate about reform:
Two years ago, I took care of a businessman in Los Angeles. He had Crohn's disease, and his health and nutrition had been getting worse for over a year. He was seeing doctors at one of our private hospitals, but he lost his insurance, so he couldn't see his doctors anymore. Buying private insurance was impossible - no amount of money could have convinced an insurance company to cover him. He tried the county hospital ER, but the wait was 24 hours. He thought maybe he could manage.A few months later, when he could barely walk from his bed to the door, he tried the ER again. By then, he had kwashiorkor (the kind of malnutrition that famine-stricken African children get) as a complication of his gut disorder. Every organ system was failing. I remember that even in the hospital, he tried to keep up his work via his Blackberry. We tried to help him, but he rapidly deteriorated and died just six days after admission.I was devastated and talked to many colleagues about what I could have done differently to save my patient. He should have been living his life and being a productive member of society today, but he's dead. We could have saved him if he had been able to come for care sooner -- instead of being deterred by his lack of insurance. Ultimately, I recognize that he died because the system failed him. In our great country, that is unacceptable.
That's a big reason why I keep fighting for reform. I hope that this week, you can share your own view and your story in your letter to the editor.
Over the past week, OFA has been organizing events for health insurance reform with doctors and nurses across the country. At a “Roundtable” event in Gainesville, FL, Dr. Rob Hatch said the health care status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. Here’s his quote from an article in the Gainesville Sun:
"It's just inexcusable. It's absolutely inexcusable and we need to do something about it. One reason our health care is so bad is that we have so many uninsured people," Hatch said.
In Albany, Georgia, about half a dozen doctors are planning to make 40,000 calls for health insurance reform. They’re talking to locals about what reform will mean for them, answering questions, debunking rumors and asking them to call on their senators and representatives to support President Obama’s plan. Here’s an excerpt from the piece on WALB News:
"I was calling to discuss health care reform with you," said Dr. Tania Smith, of Prestige Pediatrics.Public opinion over health care reform remains divided and now these south Georgia health care professionals are weighing in. They joined forces with Organizing for America to push reform now."Right now people are looking for answers, they're looking for the truth about health care reform and doctors are a great place to start," said Ken King, Organizing for America.Pediatrician Tania Smith is on the front line of this debate. While critics worry the President's plan may take decisions away from doctors, she feels insurance companies are already doing that. "As the system is going now we have a lot of people who are medically ignorant making decisions and denying claims and making insurance populations where you don't have any wellness visits included in your plan," said Smith.
First i want to thank President OBAMA for an outstanding job for the last 10 months in office and when you read this Mr President,i want you to know that all my thoughts and prayers are with you.God Bless you and your family,and God Bless America.
Mr President,these thoughts i am about to outline are both to you and to the American people for as a keen observer of all the ongoing events,i think a good percentage of Americans are either lost in translation,or they are just stupid and stuborn.Mr President i want you to know that you are doing a phenomenal job for some of us who got a brillant mind like you and are great free thinkers.To those of you who don't understand,i am going to help you Mr President,to break it down for them so they can let you go further with your agenda,and achieve these brillant visions that we have for America.
To all readers of my thoughts from the Balcony,you should know by now that RESISTANCE WITHOUT A PURPOSE TO ME IS CONSIDERED FOOLISH AND STUPID.Why?
What is your problem with a PUBLIC OPTION in the Healthcare reform plan?
What is your problem with President OBAMA'S Birth certificate?
What is you problem with LIFE?
Are you DELIBERATELY stopping the President elect from doing his job?
Now let me break it down for those of you who got all these so called issues with President OBAMA.You guys are just IGNORANT,and have idle minds which is the devil's workshop.You don't think,You don't VISUALIZE,and You REFUSE to learn.My fellow WORLD CITIZENS,this is a RECEIPY FOR DISASTER.When i see and read the way some of you critisize him,deform his character and image with no better proposals in return,i feel like we are driving ourselves pretty close to what we call ARMAGEGON TODAY.People let me remind you this:
"Ignorance leads to ego,ego to selfishness,selfishness to resentment,resentment to anger,anger to hatred,hatred to annihilation."Heart of a Buddha.
But this fellow concerned citizens is not going to happen because of ignorance,because we have a President in the person of BARACK OBAMA,who has a perfect VISION for this country and the world as a whole.You have a President with the brightess mind ever,You have a good man who is sacrificing alot for his people,You have a Presidentwho is willing to give you everything you want and as he promissed during his campaign,He is willing to work for America and the World to get better,SO CAN YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND HIM ,AND GIVE HIMA CHANCE TO WORK FOR YOU THE PEOPLE.Open your eyes,ears,hearts so your minds can be free and you would understand him better.
"Hear what is said,retain what is important,speak what is worthy.Attach to nothing."Heart of a Budda.
President OBAMA came to power at a very crucial point and time in world history.He inherited not only a very HUGE DEFICIT,but also a POWERFUL ECONOMIC RECESSION,TWO UN-NECESSARY WARS,and as if it's not enough,CRITICISM from a group of people with unthinkable not to say stupid and crazy reasoning faculties.
"Peace is not the absence of WAR,it is a VIRTUE,a STATE OF MIND,a DISPOSITION FOR LOVE,HONESTY and TRUSTWORTHINESS."Heart of a Buddha.
President OBAMA is here to let his people free.When i say his people,i know very well what i mean.All around the World,peopl are looking up to him for a better situation for everybody i.e Parents,children, and even future generatiopns to come.But the amazing thing is that all Resistance against him is comming from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,which is considered the greatest Power and Democracy in the WORLD.Now i have another question which is WHAT DOES THAT POTRAY ABOUT AMERICA?Peolpe again let me remind you of this:
"In our interactions with others,gentleness,kindness,respect are the source of harmony."Heart of a Buddha
"I THANK GOD HE IS A GOOD MAN,AND HE IS HERE DURING THESE VERY DIFFICULT TIMES TO SET US FREE."
President OBAMA is not a politician for some of you who don't know.First of all he is a parent,then he is a man on the rise with an outstanding vision for AMERICA and the WORLD.He is a free thinker with a brillant mind,he dares to do what most of our leaders before him could not do,he is a GOOD TEACHER if you let him into you hearts,he is a good family man and to add it all up A MAN OF GOD.With his great commonsense,vision and wisdom, he understands the FUNDAMENTAL BASICS OF LIFE.Give him his chance to work and stop what i call "BLIND RESISTANCE"because it's not going to take us anywhere.
WE THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS,GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT FOUNDERS AND ORGANIZERS around the WORLD, are going to continue to give you Mr President,all the support that you need because we understand what time it is.This is a very crucial and important moment in WORLD HISTORY.
Politics is the oldest game in the book,so politicians should stop putting their interests before those of the peolple who pay their salary and put them into office because we the concerned citizens already know the games they are playing.These "POLITICIANS"are mad,angry at President OBAMA because HE DOES NOT WANT TO PLAY THESE GAMES WITH THEM.Another food for thought for you America:IF WE SPEND 1 YEAR ON HEALTHCARE REFORM,HOW LONG SHALL WE SPEND ON OTHER PRESSING ISSUES?Ther is still a lot of work to do for the BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND,so politicians stop "PLAYING THIS OLD GAME"because we the people are sick and tired of it.IT'S TIME TO FACE REALITY.
"As human beings we chase after fleeting pleasures like a child licking honey off a sharp knife or a person carrying a torch against the wind."Heart of a Buddha
PRESIDENT OBAMA,CONTINUE THE GOOD WORK.WE WILL KEEP PRAYING FOR YOU'WE WILL KEEP SUPPORTING YOU,WE ARE THE PEOPLE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.TOGETHER WE STAND,TOGETHER WE WE SHALL WIN,TOGETHER WE SHALL PREVAIL,FOR THE RULE OF LAW WHICH IS ALSO THE "LAW OF NATURE IS ON OUR SIDE."
"Natural laws are impartial.Only those who are virtuos are in harmony with nature."Heart of a Buddha.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS THE WORLD
I think it is time for mass demonstrations in every city and town to let the media know that the people will not accept anything less than real heath care reform.
DEMAND THE PUBLIC OPTION
SHOW THE LOBBYISTS WE CAN MAKE IT STICK
Why do I still feel as if I am alone?
Because I have not been in a good demonstration recently!
We can stand together for our shared interest in bringing sanity to our healthcare system!
We can stand together with President Obama to take back healthcare for the people.
Let US help Congress find it's backbone!
Chuck Britt
OFA
President Obama needs more supporters on Facebook. The republicans there have started using the polling function and have made a significant number of anti-Obama polls and voted overwhemingly against President Obama making him trying to make him look unpopular there. OFA needs to try and get more Obama people on Facebook to vote in the polling functions there or create better poll's themselves. Maybe Facebook needs 1 million new Democrats to join it, so we can all vote in the polls there and change them. I think the press does look at the social networking sites when considering all the "popularity" articles they write, and the GOP has become "hip" enough to understand this. So Facebook is being bombarded by the GOP with propaganda and new users.
Thanks
John
Many people don't know any more about the healthcare reform than what they've been told by one or two pundits. Here's an article from the New York Times that you can give to people to help them get a more balanced view of the issues.
A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNPublished: August 9, 2009 WASHINGTON — With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line. Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics.Many Republicans view fighting the president as a smart political strategy, turning a potentially wonkish debate over Medicare reimbursement rates and subsidies for the uninsured into an ideological battle over the government’s role in health care.Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.”The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies. Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”SOCIALIZED MEDICINE Or Uniquely American?Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements. For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations. Whether a public plan would crowd out private insurers depends on details yet to be decided, including its premiums and its payment rates for health care providers. The public plan is not even a certainty. To win bipartisan support for the overhaul, some Democrats have proposed private nonprofit health care cooperatives, instead of a public plan, to compete with private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, under the House bill, the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance would climb to 162 million in 2016, which is 3 million more than expected under current law. Further, it said, enrollment in the proposed public plan might total 11 million, far lower than estimates cited by Republicans. An additional 10 million people, most of them now uninsured, would enroll in Medicaid, the budget office said. At any rate, the federal government already holds sway over the health care system through Medicare, Medicaid and various insurance programs for children, veterans, military personnel and other federal employees. The federal government will account for 35 percent of the expected $2.5 trillion in health spending this year, and that does not include subsidies built into the tax code.BLAMING INSURERS Or Ensuring Blame?Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.Most Americans do not know the full cost of their employer-sponsored insurance. And it is easier for Democrats to paint insurers as greedy than to explain the complex math that shows current health care spending is unsustainable.DEFICIT-NEUTRAL Or Budget-Buster?Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up. Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules. At this point, it is difficult to know who is right. Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law. House Democrats say the higher doctor payments should not count in the cost because they fix a problem that predates the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress. EUTHANASIA And AbortionConservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” The House bill would provide Medicare coverage for optional consultations with doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care. The legislation instructs Medicare officials to propose ways to measure the quality of end-of-life care. Doctors would have financial incentives to report data on such care to the government. On abortion, the situation is more complex. Opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say the legislation would use tax dollars to subsidize insurance that could cover abortion.Under a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, health plans, including the new government insurance plan, could choose to cover abortion. But they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries.Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.”Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, but “would not expand the prohibitions, as many Republicans want to do.”CUTTING MEDICAREOr Preserving It?To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats would make “massive cuts to Medicare to pay for more government-run health care.” Mr. Obama told AARP last month, “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” All the savings, he said, would come from measures to “eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare.” As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient. But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.
A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNPublished: August 9, 2009
WASHINGTON — With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.
Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.
President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line. Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics.
Many Republicans view fighting the president as a smart political strategy, turning a potentially wonkish debate over Medicare reimbursement rates and subsidies for the uninsured into an ideological battle over the government’s role in health care.
Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.
KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.
The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.
The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.
”The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies. Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE Or Uniquely American?Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements. For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations. Whether a public plan would crowd out private insurers depends on details yet to be decided, including its premiums and its payment rates for health care providers.
The public plan is not even a certainty. To win bipartisan support for the overhaul, some Democrats have proposed private nonprofit health care cooperatives, instead of a public plan, to compete with private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, under the House bill, the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance would climb to 162 million in 2016, which is 3 million more than expected under current law. Further, it said, enrollment in the proposed public plan might total 11 million, far lower than estimates cited by Republicans. An additional 10 million people, most of them now uninsured, would enroll in Medicaid, the budget office said.
At any rate, the federal government already holds sway over the health care system through Medicare, Medicaid and various insurance programs for children, veterans, military personnel and other federal employees. The federal government will account for 35 percent of the expected $2.5 trillion in health spending this year, and that does not include subsidies built into the tax code.
BLAMING INSURERS Or Ensuring Blame?Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.
Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.Most Americans do not know the full cost of their employer-sponsored insurance. And it is easier for Democrats to paint insurers as greedy than to explain the complex math that shows current health care spending is unsustainable.
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL Or Budget-Buster?Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up. Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules.
At this point, it is difficult to know who is right. Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law. House Democrats say the higher doctor payments should not count in the cost because they fix a problem that predates the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress.
EUTHANASIA And AbortionConservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” The House bill would provide Medicare coverage for optional consultations with doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care. The legislation instructs Medicare officials to propose ways to measure the quality of end-of-life care. Doctors would have financial incentives to report data on such care to the government.
On abortion, the situation is more complex. Opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say the legislation would use tax dollars to subsidize insurance that could cover abortion.Under a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, health plans, including the new government insurance plan, could choose to cover abortion. But they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries.
Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.
”Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, but “would not expand the prohibitions, as many Republicans want to do.”
CUTTING MEDICAREOr Preserving It?To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.
The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats would make “massive cuts to Medicare to pay for more government-run health care.” Mr. Obama told AARP last month, “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” All the savings, he said, would come from measures to “eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare.” As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient. But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Henry M
One good thing that "birthers" have inadvertently done is to make everyone aware of President Barack Obama's birthday. This year, Thomas Pynchon (my favorite author) has a new, more popularly styled book out today.
It is a bittersweet day for me, however, as it was also my father, Sam Musikar's birthday. He was a New York artist who loved jazz, and he would have loved to see the President who beat the Republican stranglehold on Washington, the arts, and the world, celebrate his birthday on the same day as he.
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."
We need to work together, or we all loose. This has nothing to do with progressive, or conservative, your way, or their way, it has to do with us finally coming together to get health care reform on the table. Do you not think that the Republicans are watching. If we represent the President, then shouldn't we trust him and his decisions Who's divisive method of divide & conquer, by way of fear, are we using. We must keep in mind the bottom line, The Goal. Which is reform. If we don't, not one congressmen will listen. We must make a united front behind the President, in order to succeed in achieving real reform in Washington, just like we did during the campaign. Are we adult enough of a party to get past ourselves and support the man we asked to do the job at hand? For our children's sake, I hope so!!!!!!
If a Public Option is So Bad, Why are They So Sure that It Would Kill Private Health Insurance?
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
