West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
I wonder why Charleston Newspapers never reported that Republican Rep. Joe Wilson (R-Loudmouth) and our very own Shelley Moore Capito (R-Hypocrite) actually BOTH voted in lockstep with Bush Rubberstampeders to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants' healthcare?
The rubberstamping Repub votes came during the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011. At that time, they authorized $250 million annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals which provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants.
This is an important element of the legislative debate on the public option--it is not just about health care reform, it is also about changing who has power in Washington.
Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people.
In the day to day media coverage of competing health care reform rallies, it is easy to lose sight of what has to happen for a bill to arrive on President Obama's desk to sign.
Consider that the following things would need to happen for a health reform bill to become law:
1. Senate Finance Committee writes a bill.
2. Finance bill is reconciled with HELP bill.
3. Reconciled Senate bill passes full Senate.
4. House Rules Committee reconciles the slightly different versions of the House bill.
5. Reconciled House bill passes full House.
6. Conference Committee reconciles House and Senate bills.
7. House passes conference report.
8. Senate passes conference report.
9. President signs bill.
Matt's larger point is it is far too early to give up on a public option.
That said, it would be really crazy to give up on the public option right now. It might or might not be a good idea to give up on it at some time in the future, but that time certainly isn't now.
[snip]
Right now, the most important thing is to get through steps (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5). At the moment it appears that you can't do (4) and (5) without a public option. It also appears that you can't do (1), (2), or (3) with a public option. And that's all just fine since this is what step (6) on the process is there for. At step (6) the appropriate thing to do is to press for a conference report that includes a public option. If progressives win that fight, then step (7) should be easy and there'll be a tough fight over step (8). If progressives lose that fight, which I think may well happen, then I really do think it would be time to give up on the public option.
Right now there is a huge battle of nerves under way between the House Progressive Block who will keep any health care reform from passing the House without a public option and the obstructionists in the Senate who are siding with insurance companies.
Chris Bowers over at Open Left is optimistic about getting health care reform with a public option passed. He says we are five supporters away from having 50 Senators committed to a public option (this changes steps #2 and #3 considerably). With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now saying, "we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary", we are edging closer and closer. (One possibility is the Obama health care reform plan will be split in two, with the less broadly supported items passing through budget reconciliation and other items being subject to Senate filibuster.)
As meaningful health care reform edges closer to reality, those with major interest in the status quo are moving into full panic mode. They want you to think the public option is already dead. They want you to give up on any health care reform. Don't believe it. Now is the time to redouble our efforts and get robust health care reform with a strong public option in place.
Here in West Virginia are very fortunate to have a strong advocate for health care reform in Sen. Rockefeller. We also need Sen. Byrd on board so he doesn't cancel out Sen. Rockefeller's vote.
So tonight I almost didn't answer my phone when I saw Unknown Caller on the Caller ID. But I did and was greeted with our Representative's chirpy voice, welcoming me to her Town Meeting on healthcare reform. I thought it was a new gimmicky kind of ad, aimed at Obama's healthcare reform bill. But I was actually kind of pleasantly surprised. Did anyone else hear this?
Apparently there were thousands of callers "logged in" to the conference TOwn Hall. We were invited to press *3 to request time to ask a question or make a suggestion (of course I did!), but warned that because of the high volume of callers, she wouldn't be able to get to everyone.
I felt sure it was a ploy and I listened with trepidation to the callers' questions and suggestions.
Surprisingly, most of them were asking for the public health option, and even three or four of them were bold enough to suggest a single-payer health plan! Shelley Moore capito rather gently tried to steer the callers to her way of thinking -- private industry is the best solution -- but enough callers suggested otherwise to her that I think she was probably a bit rattled.
I never did get to talk -- I wanted to tell her about our travails with the insurance companies from a physician's point of view -- literally 7 months of trying to credential with a handful of "good" insurance plans, encountering roadblock after roadblock, every plan requiring a different kind of application/form/set of documents/contracts/rules.... and we are STILL not credentialed with them all! But that's ok.
I'm hoping that the public health option and even single-payer keeps popping up into her consciousness. I have to hand it to her -- she didn't talk nasty about Obama or the Dems' healthcare reforms, not once -- she simply stated that a few of its points "concerned" her. Even when a caller referenced a Rush Limbaugh statement that the eldery would be led to hospice (and implying that they would then be led to suicide, I think?!?!) she said that she thought that sounded like sensationalism. I have to say she conducted herself very fairly.
At the risk of planting, forever, my personal political flag squarely on the ulnar nerve of the advertising, insurance, corporate medical and drug industries, this whole business of suggesting that the health-reform efforts underway on behalf of the Obama administration will somehow result in an extraordinary "rationing" of health care is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, the only connection any logical person can make to that argument is that "rationing" and "irrational" share the same root.
The plain fact is that we are already rationing health care to about 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance. (Actually, it is more than that if you take into account the various schemes states, including our own, have undertaken to restrict Medicaid). As well, we are rationing health care to those who can pay, but who can't pay enough to get meaningful primary and preventive care.
Delegate Purdue can turn a phrase. And, he's got both his head and his heart in the right place on the topic of health care.
If we lose this opportunity to make America stronger, more economically competitive and physically sound due to the shamelessly disingenuous arguments presented by those industries who would cheerfully do so (to preserve the status quo), we deserve precisely what we will get -- a more expensive system that fewer and fewer people will be able to afford. We will get lowered life-expectancy across all populations, reduced educational competency attendant to poor health, and the moral stigma attached to being so beholden to the Big Lobby (and, consequently, the Big Con) that we are politically paralyzed in the face of a growing national tragedy.
The Baucus 8 were arraigned today after pleading not guilty to disrupting Congress. According to Russell Mokhiber, a Morgan County citizen," 60 Americans die each day because they lack health insurance". The average health insurance CEO makes $14 million a year. Where is the justice?
Single payer action day is May 30th. I plan on wearing a black armband in memory of the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they lack health insurance.
I am still a believer that promises from the insurance companies or tinkering around the edges and calling it healthcare reform aren't the answer we need to solve the healthcare crisis.And it surely is a crisis when we spend $2.5 trillion per year as a country to provide healthcare and leave 46 million of our fellow citizens with no care.
Earlier to day,after watching the clip of the hearingroom of Sen.Max Baucus,I sent him and Sen.Rockefeller and Rep.Rahall emails similar to the following:
Dear Sen.Byrd,
Could we,this time,not let the promise of reform and increased competition turn into just another occasion for another segment of corporate America to reduce services and raise prices?
Today, we all pay more,one way or another, because doctors and hospitals must cover the costs of those people without insurance. Folks without insurance usually put off getting preventive care or early treatment for an illness. They get sicker and are harder to treat, and we all end up paying more. This is a terrible cycle we have to break, which is why we need meaningful reform.And even if you are lucky enough to have some sort of coverage,how many billing clerks do doctors have to hire just to duel with the claims clerks whose job it is to deny your treatment,another reason we need reform.
But the answer isn't leaving my insurance choice solely to the giant insurance companies. That's just a recipe to increase the insurance industry's profits, and put more paper-pushers between me and my doctor.
Even if the insurance industry agrees to stop excluding people with pre-existing conditions, charging women more than men, or sticking the seriously ill with exorbitant rates, these companies will always be in the business of making a profit by finding the best "risks."
The companies likely will still charge higher rates for getting older, or charge more depending on where a person lives. Middle class people who don't qualify for subsidies could be particularly hard hit as they get older, and ultimately be priced out of the insurance market. We risk winding up back where we started with high rates of uninsured and costs shifted to everyone else.
We need a real, meaningful solution. In addition to employer-based and insurance industry offerings, Americans need the choice of a publicly run insurance plan. All insurers, including the public plan entities offering coverage, would have to compete for customers, state clearly what they cover and what they charge, and play by the same rules and laws, so no one has an advantage. These rules would crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. For those who couldn't afford the full cost of insurance, subsidies would be available to help them pay the premiums for either a private or publicly run plan.
Because the public plan wouldn't need to spend billions on advertising,marketing,and administration it could relieve employers of an increasingly untennable burden,and pressure private insurers to lower their costs. And private insurance would pressure the public plan to be more resourceful and responsive. We'd see vigorous competition, with better prices and better quality and service.
I hope we get a better result from this round of "reform" legislation than we got when we de-regulated the telecoms and called it reform in 1996.How much did YOUR cable,telephone,and internet bills go up after that? And did the deregulation of the airlines bring the increased competition and lower prices that were promised?
On a side note,does anyone know why Jay hasn't cast a vote for a while?Maybe he is completely absorbed by the sections of the healthcare bill Baucus asked him to take charge of:Medicaid Expansion,Quality Improvements......
After the healthcare rountable and before any witnesses were heard from,the Chairman of the Finance Committee declared that single-payer was "off the table",and in fact no supporters of that solution were or have been on the witness lists.Hence the arrests of the Drs.and lawyers who rose to speak from the audience.Baucus'response:"We need more police."
Seems that in addition to healthcare reform debate we are going to have to revisit campaign finance reform,and Obama's lobbying reform has had little effect on who gets heard and who writes the laws and regulations.
So my husband is going after his Big Dream, and opening a medical practice in our area in July. After working for a couple of community health centers for 10 years, he's going to get to practice medicine on his own terms. He is passionate about family practice, loves his patients and his community. He'll be using an Electronic Medical Record software package that he and his buddies created (and hope to market) just so they could all open their own so-called micro-practices which allow extremely low overhead (ie, staff) while offering high-quality healthcare. Their EMR allows them to track patients like no software ever has before, send e-prescriptions (which cuts down on prescription errors), and it's actually easy to use.
Here's the rub. Now that he'll be on his own, what do we do about health insurance? We both hate the idea of supporting this inefficient, corrupt system, never mind the fact that most plans are prohibitively expensive, especially since we're just starting out. There is also the moral issue of us having some wonderful plan (if we can afford it) while many of his patients will have to be without.
Any ideas? Does anybody know of a socially-conscious health plan?!?! Would a HSA be less morally reprehensible?
Why should we buy into a system we're trying to bring down?!
I'm sorry this is so last minute, but if you have no plans tonight, please join us at the Morgan County Democrats monthly meeting at the Country Inn. The Association will meet at 6:00, and then at 6:30, Dr. Matthew Hahn will make the case for Single-payer Healthcare Reform.Using poignant stories from his experience as a community healthcare provider and examples of how current single-payer systems work, he will make the case for the Single-Payer health system here. A buffet dinner is available for $10. For more information, see the Morgan County Democrat website at http://morgancountydemocrats.com/index.html
The Senate is an inherently undemocratic (little D) legislative body, a fact made all the worse with the evolution of the filibuster from its original rules. (Mind you, the filibuster exists nowhere in the constitution, it derives from Senate rules, continually changing since the late 1700's.) Today, the filibuster rules allow Sens. represented a small minority of the countries population to obstruct the will of the majority of our citizens.
This story hit the news last Friday and it isn't pretty (emphasis mine, article by Darren Samuelsohn)
Budget move for climate bill draws rebuke from 28 senators
A White House-led push to move global warming legislation in the Senate without having to deal with an expected GOP filibuster has drawn opposition from 28 senators, including six Democrats and several moderate Republicans.
Critics of using the budget reconciliation process as a vehicle for President Obama's cap-and-trade plan weighed in with a letter (pdf) to the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Budget Committee, saying the fast-track strategy should not be used for something as complex as a climate bill.
There has been wide-spread speculation that the budget process might be used to avoid Republican obstruction to enact Obama's campaign promises on both climate change and healthcare reform.
Sens. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) led a signature drive that included several notable moderate lawmakers from both parties who have long been considered critical to passage of a climate bill. They include Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
Carol Browner, Obama's top energy and climate adviser, has been quietly pressing Democrats on Capitol Hill to consider using the budget reconciliation strategy out of concern that a cap-and-trade bill could not otherwise win 60 votes. Earlier today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is still considering the controversial budget strategy and questioned the premise that he does not have the 51 votes necessary to pass the legislation with the climate language included (Greenwire, March 12).
The obvious and most tantalizing option for congressional Democrats for moving Obama's agenda is the budget process known as reconciliation. Under this system, legislation that affects tax revenue and mandatory spending needs only 51 votes to pass the Senate, meaning it negates the threat of filibusters.
But moving either the emissions cap-and-trade legislation or a health care overhaul through this process wouldn't be easy either, because of what is known as the Byrd rule. Named for Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the rule allows policy language that has no effect on spending or revenue to be struck from reconciliation bills when they come to the floor.
In summary... the administration says cap-and-trade and health care legislation are fundamentally legislation that affect tax revenue and mandatory spending. Sen. Byrd is preemptively signaling that he does not agree. In doing so, Sen. Byrd is allying with Republican obstructionist seeking to derail Obama's climate change and health care policies--two of Obama's three major campaign promises.
If you support the administration taking action on climate change or on a health care system overhaul, I urge you to contact Sen. Byrd's office to express your concerns. Sen. Byrd has significant influence to help both of these initiatives through the Senate. It is important for him to knows West Virginians are for change, not obstruction.
Follow below the fold for contact information for Sen. Byrd's office.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
In summary... the administration says cap-and-trade and health care legislation are fundamentally legislation that affect tax revenue and mandatory spending. Sen. Byrd is preemptively signaling that he does not agree. In doing so, Sen. Byrd is allying with Republican obstructionist seeking to derail Obama's climate change and health care policies--two of Obama's three major campaign promises.
