Another view on Rockefeller and the healthcare debate

Senate Whip Count now at 41 supporting the Public Option (0.00 / 0)

Yet Rockefeller's last stance was that he wasn't inclined towards passing it because it would be too "partisan".

Let's stop blowing smoke and just weigh the facts here.

We all know that Rockefeller has NOT helped to build any public support or consensus for it once it failed in his committee. Instead, he came out to publicly bark at Dr. Howard Dean for being disappointed over it.

By weight of the above facts alone anyone can plainly see that there's something fishy. Add to it that 82 percent of the Democratic senators obviously show that they have no confidence in Rockefeller's Senate Finance Committee failure. Not to mention that Rockefeller's fellow committee member Senator Ben Nelson is the latest to commit to the public option.

That's notable, CA Berkely, because by holding out, Nelson earned himself an amazing mandate which would require the taxpayers of West Virginia (along with the other 48 states) to pay for the expansion of Medicaid for his entire state of Nebraska. Virtually forever.

Yet apparently you believe that Rockefeller's S-CHIP bargain now has him gagged. Perhaps you'd like to explain how that works.

As for bargaining on behalf of health care for West Virginians, I'm still left wondering how is it that Rockefeller still remains so staunchly in support of the coal industry despite experts having recently revealed how it poisons coalfield families at alarming rates. Not to mention how surface mining drains our economy.

I only mention it because it just so happens that

[b]uried in the deal-clinching healthcare package that Senate Democrats unveiled over the weekend is an inconspicuous proposal expanding Medicare to cover certain victims of "environmental health hazards." source

Unfortunately, the proposal passed out of the Senate Finance Committee doesn't cover the victims of coal ash, slurry in our aquifer or black lung for Rockefeller's constituents. It's for asbestos victims from a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana for Max "Blue Dog" Baucus.

By the way, although you note the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling above, you failed to mention that there's more than one way to skin that Public Option cat.

Rockefeller apparently wants to bury it alive.

Perhaps you can explain why we all shouldn't take the demands of the coal-powered West Virginia Chamber of Commerce as to why that is.

---

by: One Citizen @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 19:54:03 PM UTC

I have some reservations about Grayson (0.00 / 0)

as a House freshman knowing what and how the Senate parliamentarian will do. And the standalone is great, when it gets out of Sander Levin's committee.

Why do you keep referring to Finance as Rockefeller's committee? Yes he is a member, but he is not the chairman, does not set agenda, does not manage bills on the floor. As chair of a relevant subcommittee Jay should have been tasked by Baucus to do groundwork, but go ask Max why not. I can never give you an answer there. Which is why the markup was so g-d awful. Max shut out 17/23 of his committee.

How much did Haliburton's purchase of W. R. Grace delay getting Libby some help, esp. during Jan 2001 to Jan 2009? Don't go there.

I watched Orrin Hatch and John Thune today during FAA authorization debate time, continue to lie about process and substance on health care. FAA is a Commerce bill so Rockefeller came back to the floor and debated. Rare in the Senate anymore.

Language is sloppy. It is pretty obvious that the GOP is afraid Obama will succeed where Clinton and Truman and . . . failed to pass stuff. Afraid of Obama's package.

I am totally with Johngcole, Go 'Eers!

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 04:28:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The fact remains that Rockefeller never even referred to the CBO scoring (0.00 / 0)

even though it was the FINANCE COMMITTEE he was supposedly trying to impress.

Why would he argue the case for implementing the public option without using the evidence most persuasive to his target audience? By now we all know that Rockefeller will use anything he can to win a debate when his heart is in it.

BTW you still haven't explained why Rockefeller even gone on record to say that he'd support the public option since he dropped it like a hot potato after the finance committee vote. In fact he said it'd be "too partisan". In contrast, I remember when Republicans came out of those Finance Committee debates screeching like someone set their clubhouse on fire. Yet Rockefeller actually scolded Dr. Dean for expressing disappointment over the loss, all but telling him to clam up and lay down.

So you go right ahead and root for johngcole. I'll be rooting for Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and universal health care. If Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) doesn't know what the Senate Parliamentarian will do, no one does.

If you think Rockefeller did his best to sell the public option, that's certainly your prerogative. Just like it's Wabi-Sabi's prerogative to take him beyond his words that he's for its passage although Rockefeller has clearly stated that he's against it.

Worrying that the public option would make health care reform appear "partisan" is so stupid it's comical. Apparently Rockefeller either didn't notice that the Senate bill already passed on a pure partyline vote, with every Democrat voting "yes" and every Republican voting "no", or else he thinks YOU didn't know the difference.

C_A_Berkely, anyone even half paying attention watched Rockefeller go from promising to vote against any bill without some form of a public alternative to promising to vote against any effort to create a public option. At this point is it really necessary to explain why I'm beyond waiting for Wabi Sabi to report Rockefeller's response to his personal inquiry about the issue? I mean come ON! Haven't we all begun to marvel at the Coalpatch Gazette's apparent lack of interest in Rockefeller's silence?

The grossly negligent media coverage of Rockefeller's long, sordid history of undercutting important so-called "liberal" issues after first promoting them is exactly why people still think he's such a great leader. Be it strip mining, women's right to choose, or the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, he's punked out at least once on each. But you don't take my word for it.

You can either on my schlockylinks below in order to read a 1972 newspaper accounting of Rockefeller's early political flop-flipping in Appalachia, or you can read the same scanned newspaper at this link.

It's just too bad we have to go outside the state to get accurate coverage.

Schlockefeller 1

Schlocky 2

SCHLOCKYROCKY 3

---

by: One Citizen @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 18:57:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Response from Rockefeller (0.00 / 0)

One Citizen, if you spoke to the Senator's office a bit more and ranted about fellow commenters a bit less, I think you'd be more effective.

To clarify, Rockefeller criticized Dean not for "expressing disappointment", but for saying folks should scrap the bill entirely.  Rockefeller was pointing out the merits of the bill, which are substantial, and criticizing attempts to scrap the bill as counter-productive.

I share your frustration that Rockefeller isn't asking to use Reconciliation for the Public Option, but despite the fact that you keep saying it, he has NOT "clearly stated  that he's against it". He expressed a nuanced statement, but he stopped short of saying he would vote against it.

In my opinion if there was a vote on the Public Option, he would vote for it. The road block to such a vote is not Jay Rockefeller; it's the lack of a push for a Public Option from the White House.

Since you asked, here is the Senator's response to my email and calls asking him to support using reconciliation for the Public Option.  While he avoided reference to the Public Option, which is disappointing, the features of the bill that he outlines are nothing to be sneezed at.

Dear Jim,

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about health care reform.  This is such an important issue, and I am glad you have been in touch.  I am proud to see so many West Virginians participating in the conversation about moving our country's health care system forward.  Right now, we are historically close to passing comprehensive health reform legislation that would go a long way towards beginning to fix our broken health care system and making life easier for hundreds of thousands of West Virginians.  

On December 24, 2009, I voted to support passage of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  My vote reflects the imperative need to improve the coverage people have today, expand access to affordable and meaningful coverage for the uninsured, control runaway health care costs, and to rein in the private health insurance industry's underhanded business practices.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would make significant improvements to our health care system if it were signed into law, which is why I will continue to push for its final passage as the health care reform debate moves forward.  The following are some of the immediate benefits West Virginians would receive within six months or less if H.R. 3590 were enacted into law:

o   Making Health Coverage More Affordable for West Virginia's Small Businesses.  Within six months of enactment, small businesses in West Virginia would have access to tax credits for up to 35 percent of the cost of health coverage for their employees.  This bill could help as many as 20,000 small businesses in West Virginia afford to offer health coverage.

o   Significant Help for West Virginians Denied Coverage Due to Pre-existing Conditions.  Within 90 days of the bill's enactment, individuals with pre-existing conditions who are denied health coverage would have access to affordable and meaningful health coverage through a high-risk pool.  West Virginians have the highest rates of diabetes and heart disease in the country, with one-third of the total population of the state exhibiting high blood pressure.  These are all pre-existing conditions for which health coverage can be, and often is, denied.  A complete prohibition on insurance company pre-existing condition exclusions would begin in 2014, when the state health insurance exchanges are operational.

o   New Immediate Protections for West Virginia's Children Suffering from a Pre-existing Condition.  Effective immediately, health insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage for children under age 19 due to a pre-existing condition.  Almost one-third of children and youth with special health care needs are considered to be underinsured - many of them because they are denied the coverage they need due to a pre-existing condition.

o   Stable Coverage for West Virginia's Children and Young Adults.  For plan years beginning six months after enactment, health insurers that provide dependent coverage for children are required to continue providing that coverage until the child turns 26 years of age.  Young adults just starting out would no longer be ignored by our health care system.

o   Protection for West Virginians against Abusive Health Insurance Rescissions.  Within six months of enactment, insurance companies in all markets are banned from dropping your coverage once you get sick (rescissions).  All 1.8 million West Virginians can rest assured that their health insurance coverage would not be rescinded when they need it most.

o   Protection of Health Coverage for West Virginia's Early Retirees.  As soon as practicable upon enactment, the Secretary of Health and Humans Services is required to create a new, temporary reinsurance program to help companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55-64 to offset the expensive cost of that coverage.  An estimated 41,500 people from West Virginia have early retiree coverage through their former employers, but early retiree coverage has eroded over time.  The reinsurance program included in the health reform bill would stabilize early retiree coverage and provide premium relief to both early retirees and the workers in the firms that provide their health benefits.  This could save West Virginia families up to $1,200 on premiums.

o   Providing Value for the Health Insurance Premiums that West Virginians Pay.  Beginning in 2010, insurers in the large group market are required to spend a minimum of 85 cents of every premium dollar paid on medical care, rather than on marketing campaigns or profits.  Insurers in the small group and individual market are required to spend a minimum of 80 cents of every dollar on medical care.  Insurers that do not abide by these minimum limits would be required to refund consumers the balance of the premium that should have gone towards medical care.  Insurers in West Virginia currently spend an average of 65 cents of every dollar on medical care in the individual market and only about 75 cents of every dollar on medical care in the small group market.  West Virginians can rest assured that the vast majority of the hard-earned dollars they pay to private health insurance companies would go towards actual medical care.  

o   No Annual or Lifetime Dollar Limits on Health Coverage for West Virginians.  Within six months of enactment, the bill bans lifetime dollar limits on coverage, and tightly restricts the use of annual dollar limits to be sure individuals can access needed care.  The bill would completely prohibit annual dollar limits on coverage beginning in 2014, when the state health insurance exchanges are operational.

o   Access to Free Preventive Health Services for West Virginians.  Within six months of enactment, all new health plans must include coverage of preventive services and immunizations free of charge (i.e. health insurers cannot charge a co-payment).  An estimated 45 percent of West Virginians have not had a colorectal screening, and 23 percent of women over 50 have not had a breast cancer screening.  This provision would make life-saving health screenings more affordable for West Virginians.

o   Substantial Reduction in West Virginia Seniors' Prescription Drug Costs.  In 2010, West Virginia seniors who fall into the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap (the "doughnut hole") would receive $500 towards their prescription drug coverage.  Also, starting in 2010, West Virginia seniors who fall into the coverage gap would receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and biologics.  According to West Virginia AARP, roughly 135,000 West Virginians fall into this coverage gap each year.

A longer list of the benefits West Virginians would receive from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is available on my website at:  http://rockefeller.senate.gov/...  If you would like for me to send you a paper copy of the list of additional benefits for West Virginia, please contact my local office location nearest you or feel free to send an email to: health@rockefeller.senate.gov.

Additionally, you can find more information about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - including the text of the bill, a section-by-section bill summary, descriptions of specific provisions, and an implementation timeline - at the Democratic Policy Committee's website at: http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-s...  If you do not have access to a computer in your home, you can access the Internet at your local public library, free of charge.

Thank you again for writing.  It is always good to hear from my fellow West Virginians about matters of importance.  Please know that I will continue to push for action on this vital legislation, and your views and concerns will be critically important to me as the debate moves forward.  Continuous updates on health care reform are available on my website at: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/...  Best wishes.

With Warm Regards,

Jay Rockefeller

In a good conversation everyone speaks.  In a great conversation some even listen.

---

by: Wabi-Sabi @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 19:33:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the update. Too bad it's anything but. (0.00 / 0)

You say "While he avoided reference to the Public Option". Correct me if I'm wrong, my friend, but isn't that what you specifically asked him about?

So really it wasn't a response to your query at all, but an ad asking for your vote paid for by your tax dollars.

One thing's for sure. He sure blows a helluva lot of smoke for such a tiny fire. In fact like so many of the others I've gotten from him, that letter reminds me vaguely of a scene from Deliverance. By completely dancing around the issue, Rockefeller expects me to be another hapless hillbilly who should squeal with joy as he tells me that I shore has a purty mouf when all I really asked for was directions.

In other words, despite his Finance Committee choreography, all that dancin' doesn't help get the job done especially considering his complete avoidance of any mention of what it'll do to the federal budget. By the way, why am I the only one who sees that as being completely lame coming from a senator in the FINANCE committee? If I were a fiscal conservative, I'd say that it looks like he's trying to hide something, doesn't it?

Could it be mere coincidence that that's EXACTLY the lie that the insurance lobby is currently running as a scare tactic all across the country?

So you really ought to frame that letter. It really is classic Schlockafeller, leaving plenty of room for Conservatives to blame tax and spend libruls so that once they take back the Senate they already have the groundwork laid to repeal the reforms (as if Conservatives ever lost control of the Senate in the first place)

I understand that you don't believe that Rockefeller would  purposely go to a gunfight armed with a wet noodle, but I am certain of it. I used to excuse it, thinking it was because he wasn't being well served by his office staff (because I used to knew a bunch of them), but after this same crap has "happened" repeatedly for so many years, I'd say its more a problem stemming from the pool of people he ultimately chooses to work for him. That the G.O.P. never mounts a well-funded campaign for our junior senator's seat whilst clamoring many times for Byrd's seat ought to tell you something.

One last thing. For the record, I think he'd probably vote for the public option as well if there ever was a vote on it. The difference between where you and I stand is that I know good and well that there'll never be a vote on it as long as politicians like him have anything to do with it. I personally spent enough time in his Washington office to know that they cater far more to Wall Street types and big business lobbyists than the average joe there. Back then the ratio was something like 20-to-1 in favor of high rollers.

---

by: One Citizen @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 01:00:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]