Bucknackt's Sordid Tawdry Blog: healthcare reform

Showing posts with label healthcare reform. Show all posts

30 December 2011

2011's Last Viral Lie About Health Reform 29DEZ11

MORE from the gop / tea-baggers opposed to the Affordable Care Act and anything from Pres Obama. They are consistent, continuing to fight facts with lies.....This from HuffPost
When so many good things have happened as the result of health care reform, I hate to end this year with a rebuttal to a viral lie about the Affordable Care Act. However, this one seems to come from a credible source but is so wrong that I can't resist.
This is how the email reads:

MUST LISTEN This needs to go viral. A brain surgeon called into the Mark Levin show. If you are over 70 years of age and you go to the ER and you are on government supported care, you will get comfort care instead of surgery. A government panel (a group of people that know absolutely nothing about medicine) will decide if you can have surgery and it has been decided that it will be denied if you are over 70. Patients will also be called "units" instead of "patients". Sarah Palin was correct--DEATH PANELS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wsnHGI5K-E&feature=player_embedded

The video shows the radio host, Mark Levin, listening to this so-called brain surgeon call into his show. The surgeon claims that he has just been to a meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons in Washington, D.C., where he learned something shocking! Obamacare will require only "comfort care" for people over 70. If you read the comments below the YouTube video, you are directed to the AANS site itself, where the Society blasts this person and his claim as a complete hoax. This disclaimer is on the AANS site under the "AANS news" subtitle:

On November 22, 2011, an individual claiming to be a "brain surgeon" made several statements referencing neurosurgical care on a Mark Levin radio show segment. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) reviewed this segment and found that it contained several factual inaccuracies. Please read the following statement regarding this matter. Should you have additional questions, contact Alison Dye, AANS/CNS Senior Manager of Communications, at 202-446-2028.

The statement continues:

The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided. Furthermore, in conducting our own due diligence, it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon may not actually be a neurosurgeon, nor was there any session at the recent Congress of Neurological Surgeons' scientific meeting in Washington, DC at which a purported government document calling for the rationing of neurosurgical care was discussed.

Neurosurgeons are committed to providing timely, compassionate, and state of the art treatment for all patients -- regardless of age -- who have neurosurgical conditions. As such, we have requested that this podcast be removed from Mark Levin's website as it portrays inaccurate information which could potentially be harmful to the patients that we serve.

What motivates a person to misrepresent themselves while also blatantly lying about health care reform? Money? Anger? Ignorance? Hard to say. But as we say goodbye to 2011 and anticipate even more kooky and mean-spirited accusations about health care reform, I hope you will all bookmark and consult websites like politifact.org, factcheck.org, or snopes.com before you pass along any of these lies and distortions.

Follow Linda Bergthold on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lab08

06 January 2011

How Much Would It Cost to Repeal Health Care Reform? from MOJO 4JAN11

WHAT the gop and tea-baggers aren't tell us about their plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, from Mother Jones

— By Suzy Khimm

Republicans have released their health-care repeal bill—snappily titled "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"—which the party has now scheduled for a vote on January 12. The bill would repeal every part of the Affordable Care Act except for an overhaul of the student loan industry.
One thing the bill won't include, however, is a price tag. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that health care reform would save an estimated $143 billion over the next 10 years. According to that figure, repealing the law would add the same amount to the deficit. Republicans, however, have dismissed the CBO's estimates, arguing that Democrats have gamed the number by front-loading the legislation with savings in the first decade and that the law would cost taxpayers in the long run. As a result, they've refused to let the CBO score their repeal bill.
Democrats, in the meantime, have backed off their line that health care reform will save the country money—not because of the substance of their argument, but because it hasn't proven politically popular with voters, according to Politico. So Democrats have basically conceded that Republicans have won the message war when it comes to the price tag of health reform, and taxpayers have little way of confirming exactly how much the GOP repeal effort could end up costing them.

DEFEND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT from HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW 5JAN11

A CALL TO ACTION TO DEFEND HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSED BY CONGRESS LAST YEAR, to sign the petition click the links or header, and share with family and friends. Check out the article about the hypocritical House members who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act but aren't willing to forgo their own government subsidized health care below and the entire earlier post on this blog REP STEVE KING (R IA) WON'T GIVE UP GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DESPITE BASHING REFORM 5JAN11
It’s here. The first day of the 112^th Congress with its Republican majority bought and paid for by Wall Street-run corporations and their shill groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It comes as no surprise that one of the Republicans’ first items is to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and all the benefits and consumer protections that are making a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans right now .¹ What are they replacing it with? NOTHING.

Click here to automatically sign the petition that says: "Republicans in Congress shouldn't give our health care back to the insurance companies and sentence more than 30000 Americans a year to death because they can't afford health insurance."

Everyone already knows that the Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry² and other profit-hungry corporations. In case there was any doubt, the Republicans have hired insurance and health care industry lobbyists for key positions on committees and members’ staffs.³ So far, two health care industry lobbyists have joined the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care legislation. One of them was named staff director. In addition, a top lobbyist from the medical device industry has joined Boehner’s staff as policy director.⁴

Click here to automatically sign our petition. When you cut through the political hyperbole the GOP’s search-and-destroy mission is serious business. Thankfully we have a strong Democratic caucus in the House and a majority in the Senate to fight back. The repeal vote in the House scheduled for next week is part of an all-out assault on the new law in the Congress

After a century of legislative and political combat over health care, working families and small businesses and ended the insurance companies’ stranglehold on our health care. Naturally, Boehner wants to roll back the new health care law and let the health insurance companies resume their reign of terror. That’s why Boehner and his band of corporate shills, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor⁵, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell⁶ and a raft of presidential wannabes⁷, have made repealing the health care law the top priority for 2011 for the Republican Party.

Click and automatically sign our petition. Now is the time for us to send this Congress a message. We will not go back. We will not let them play partisan political games with our rights as consumers or with the lives of our families.

In Solidarity,

Melinda Gibson
Health Care for America Now

1. http://www.healthcare.gov
2. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/anthony-weiner-subsidiary/
3. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/gop-turns-to-k-st-to-unravel-health-care-law.php
4. http://www2.nationaljournal.com/member/daily/boehner-taps-top-lobbyist-to-be-policy-director-20101209
5. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7016891n
6. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/21/key-health-care-opponent-ambushed-with-cash/
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/elections-2012-_n_801856.html

Rep Steve King (R IA) Won't Give Up Government Health Care, Despite Bashing Reform & Rep.-Elect Walsh Joins Just Four Other Republicans In Forgoing Government Health Care For Themselves 5JAN11

TYPICAL of political hypocrisy, especially among the gop and tea-baggers, Rep steve king (r IA) will keep his federally subsidized health insurance.....he has his, why should he care about the rest of the country? Bet he votes for repealing health care reform too....
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a fervent opponent of last year's health care law, said Tuesday that he had no plans to give up his own federally subsidized health plan, despite saying that others "standing on this principle" deserved some praise.
"I don't intend to pull off of it, but I give [incoming Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.)] a lot of credit for that," King said on CNN. "I went to Chicago to help him in the campaign, and I give him a lot of credit for standing on this principle."
Earlier Tuesday, Walsh reiterated his intention to forgo his congressional health care plan because he saw it as a conflict of interest in his battle against the Democratic health care law.
"My wife and I now are going to have to go through the struggles that a lot of Americans go through, trying to find insurance in the individual market and having to deal with problems of preexisting conditions," Walsh said.
ThinkProgress reports that Walsh is one of five representatives who opposed the law and have decided to reject their own government plans. In doing so, they have accepted a challenge from Democrats, who last year asked Republicans to "walk that walk" on turning down the type of "affordable health care" they say the overhaul bill makes more available to Americans.

05 January 2011

Rep Steve King (R IA) Won't Give Up Government Health Care, Despite Bashing Reform & Rep.-Elect Walsh Joins Just Four Other Republicans In Forgoing Government Health Care For Themselves 5JAN11

Rep.-Elect Walsh Joins Just Four Other Republicans In Forgoing Government Health Care For Themselves

Responding to Rep.-elect Andy Harris’ (R-MD) hypocritical demand for government-sponsored health coverage last month, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) circulated a letter among his colleagues calling on Harris and other members of Congress who want to repeal President Obama’s health care law to forgo their own government health care plans. At least four GOP congressmen have already announced they will turn down their congressional benefits, and a recent poll found that a majority Americans “think incoming Congressmen who campaigned against the health care bill should put their money where their mouth is and decline government provided health care now that they’re in office.” In an interview with the New York Times published yesterday, Rep.-elect Joe Walsh (R-IL) has said he too will forgo government health coverage:

And get this: he’s turned down the usual congressional health care, pension and retirement packages.
“I don’t think congressmen should get pensions or cushy health care plans,” he said. His wife is not exhilarated with the latter decision; she has a pre-existing medical condition and is now forced to hunt for a plan.

Walsh’s decision to forgo government coverage is noteworthy because it is extremely unusual. Of the eighty-plus incoming Republican congressmen, all of whom ran campaigns railing against the Affordable Care Act, and the hundreds of incumbent GOP lawmakers, ThinkProgress has been able to identify only five who are willing to put their money where their mouth is and turn down government health care for themselves. This translates to just 2 percent of the 242 GOP House members of the 112th Congress. Moreover, those who have turned down their congressional health plans are either covered by other government programs, such as veterans benefits, or are wealthy, like Walsh, and can afford to pay for their own coverage.
Walsh’s wife, however, may have a hard time finding coverage no matter what she’s willing to pay due to her preexisting condition. If only Congress has passed some sort of law barring insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions…
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/27/walsh-gov-health-care/

Two More Republicans Who Ran Against Health Reform Opt-Out Of Federal Health Benefits

Last month, responding to Rep.-elect Andy Harris’ (R-MD) hypocritical demand for government-sponsored benefits, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) began circulating a letter among his Democratic colleagues calling on Harris and other members of Congress who want to repeal the new health care law to forego their own government health care plans. Two incoming Republican freshmen — Rep.-elect Mike Kelly (PA) and Rep.-elect Bobby Schilling (IL) — agreed to the deal immediately and now two others, Reps. Tim Walberg (MI) and Bill Johnson (OH) have also pledged to opt out of the federal employees’ health program:

– TIM WALBERG (R-MI): “Walberg didn’t take the federal plan during his first term in Congress, either. Walberg receives free health-care stemming from his 16-years in the state legislature.”
– BILL JOHNSON (R-OH): “This is one substantial way I can show that my commitment to the people of eastern and southern Ohio is to help them, not to gain exclusive benefits for myself,” he said, in a news release issued by his office. Johnson is not be going to be without health insurance coverage, however. He has health insurance available to him as a retired U.S. Air Force officer.

In reality, these two congressmen are still receiving health benefits from the government. Walberg is drawing on state benefits, while Johnson will be dependent on the military system, which is funded with federal taxes. Kelly and Schilling, meanwhile, will receive employer-sponsored coverage through their businesses. Meanwhile, the Wonk Room argues that if Republicans were really serious about “listening to the people who sent us here” — as they argued after the midterm elections — they would all opt out of their government-sponsored insurance plans.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/08/reject-fehbp/

03 January 2011

Despite Demanding ‘Bipartisan Discussions’ On Health Reform, Republicans To Vote On Repeal Without Hearings 3JAN11

THE gop and their tea-bagger allies in the House plan on bringing a bill to repeal the health care reform legislation passed last year for a vote on 12 JAN 11. This is the opening salvo of republicorp's attempts to completely take over the American government and establish a plutocracy, enshrining the economic disparity that is wreaking havoc on the poor, the working class and the middle class as the predominant political force in the nation. Keep in mind these same House members will not eliminate their own government run health care coverage, nor with they ever take any action to curb the corporate welfare system or the greed of the military-industrial complex. God help us if they succeed.....we can only hope and pray the Senate and Pres. Obama have the courage and strength to stop their assaults on the rest of us.....This from Think Progress
Politico reported this afternoon that House Republicans will hold a vote on January 12th to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Democrats quickly accused the new majority of bringing the measure to the floor without allowing time for adequate debate or bipartisan negotiation. During a joint appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball this afternoon with Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) argued that Republicans will force the Congress to vote on repeal without first considering the consequences of completely eliminating the measure:

MORAN: We had 80 bipartisan hearings, we made this bill available for a month to consider before we brought it to the floor. They’re going to bring it right to the floor. This party supposedly of transparency and open government, right to the floor without any hearings.
MATTHEWS: January 12th, without any hearings.
MORAN: Without any hearings.
LUNGREN: Oh no, the hearings have been held on under Obamacare…
MORAN: Not considering the ramifications, the adverse consequences of repealing it and it’s a whole new bill you’re talking about now.

Watch it:

Indeed, Democrats in the House held “79 bipartisan hearings and markups” since 2008, incorporated Republican amendments and posted the original House bill online for 30 days. Republicans, meanwhile, intend to post the repeal legislation tonight but have not announced any formal hearings or plans to bring Democrats into the process.
But throughout the 15-month health reform debate, the GOP repeatedly accused Democrats of ramming through the health care bill without going through a bipartisan process. In February 2010, for instance, Speaker-elect Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wrote a letter to President Obama endorsing his call for a bipartisan health care summit and encouraging Democrats to scrap the existing bill and start over in a bipartisan fashion. “In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats,” they began.
The two Republican leaders argued that “our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency” and asked Obama to invite Governors and experts to participate in the discussions before moving forward with reform. “‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support,” they said. “Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.”
Earlier today, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reported that Democrats intend to discuss the consequences of undoing the measure on the House floor and through a series of amendments.

01 January 2011

The 2010 Worth Remembering 1JAN11

VICTORIES from 2010 to celebrate, motivation to keep on keeping on in 2011.....
Some victories of the past year.
Cross-posted from the “Arguing the World” blog at Dissent magazine.
It is a tragic fact: progressives are notoriously bad at celebrating their victories. Tragic, because when it comes to motivating people to take action, keeping evidence that collective organizing efforts can produce real changes–some small, some groundbreaking–is far more important than producing lists of new outrages and fresh causes for alarm.
Even in times of setbacks and difficulties, there are signs of progress worth remembering. And this year was no exception. The Obama administration would like us to enshrine 2010 as the year it passed a landmark law overhauling health care in the United States. However, there were enough compromises in the health care deal and enough issues left unresolved that, as one friend of mine nicely put it, it’s probably better to consider that as not so much a victory as a work in progress.
Yet the year offered some more outright progressive wins. Two came quickly to mind for me. The first was an obvious choice since it was in the news in late December: the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This affirmation of basic civil rights for gays and lesbians in the military was, of course, long overdue. But that in no way diminishes the victory.
The DADT repeal was one within a package of bills passed in quick succession during the lame duck session of Congress. Other fine components included a new START treaty controlling nuclear weapons and a 9/11 first responders bill, itself long overdue.
Also making the DADT win a little bit sweeter was this video. In it, a reporter for a conservative news network tries to pin Representative Barney Frank with a gotcha question based on the homophobic conservative talking point that, with DADT gone, “straight troops will now have to shower with gays.” (The horror!) Quick-witted and articulate as always, Frank succeeds in making an absolute fool of the guy. It is a pleasure to watch.
The second bit of progress that I thought of right away was the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. Before being freed in November, the Nobel Peace Prize winner had spent the last seven years–and fifteen of the last twenty-one years–under house arrest, imposed by her country’s military junta. If there are any who deserve the label of democratic hero in the world today, Suu Kyi is among them. This year, for the first time in a decade, she was able to travel out of the country to reunite with her youngest son.
Such reunions were the subject of Amnesty International’s genuinely touching holiday e-card, which featured a video celebrating the return of several prominent human rights defenders to their families. It starts with Suu Kyi but includes others released in recent years after international advocacy campaigns, such as Sakit Zahidov, an opposition journalist, poet, and satirist in Azerbaijan. The stories and images pretty quickly punctured my cynicism.
Also good for keeping cynicism in check was the feedback I received when I asked friends and readers to send their picks for top progressive victories of 2010. The responses I got back were many and varied–and that ended up being quite heartwarming.
Highlights included the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights, a precedent-setting measure passed in New York State that extends vital labor rights to more than 200,000 nannies and housekeepers.
In a similar vein, Danny Postel over at Interfaith Worker Justice mentioned victories in the fight against wage theft (the disturbingly common failure of business owners to pay money owed to day laborers and other low-wage workers) in New York State and in South Florida. Bolstered by these advances, the campaign to enact protections against wage theft at a national level continues.
Other scrappy and perseverant campaigners who had a good year were the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and the Prometheus Radio Project. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel writes:

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) enjoyed a remarkable 2010, successfully obtaining penny per pound pay raises and code of conduct agreements for farmworkers from the three largest food service companies and the growers who had blocked checks buyers cut directly to the workers so that millions of dollars languished in escrow. These agreements stand to increase workers’ annual earnings from about $10,000 to as much as $17,000. The State Department also recognized Laura Germino, CIW’s antislavery campaign coordinator, as an “anti-Trafficking Hero” for her work helping the US Department of Justice prosecute seven slavery operations in Florida over the last fifteen years, resulting in the liberation of over 1,000 farmworkers.

As for the Prometheus Radio Project (based in my newly adopted home of West Philadelphia), the advocates for grassroots, democratically controlled, low-power radio won a national victory with the passage of the Local Community Radio Act. As the organization noted over the popping of champagne corks,

In response to overwhelming grassroots pressure, Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) a mandate to license thousands, of new community stations nationwide. This bill marks the first major legislative success for the growing movement for a more democratic media system in the United States….The bill repeals earlier legislation which had been backed by big broadcasters, including the National Association of Broadcasters.

Not all went wrong on the electoral front, either. California bucked national trends in a big way, with voters rejecting right-wing candidates and thwarting a business-backed ballot proposition to block regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is far more aggressive than anything on offer at the national level. Time’s Ecocentric blog commented, “With a $1.7 trillion gross state product, California alone is the world’s eighth-largest economy, so even if it is acting alone while the rest of the country drags its feet on climate change, the state has a real chance to make a difference.”
And, speaking of large economies, the left-leaning Dilma Rousseff of the Brazilian Workers’ Party beat Jose Serra in elections this fall, a reflection of the region’s continued dissatisfaction with the legacy of neoliberal economic policy.
Reviewing this list put me in a pretty good mood. No doubt, there are things I would change about 2010 if I could. But these I’d keep.

Mark Engler is a freelance journalist, senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus, and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy. An archive of his work is available at www.DemocracyUprising.com.

The new year brings health-care changes 1JAN11

More benefits from the health care reform legislation passed last year....the only people who loose out are the greedy executives of the insurance companies because now they have to spend money paid to them by their clients for care for their clients! WHAT A CONCEPT! Health insurance companies paying for health care!!!!!

The new year will bring important changes to U.S. health insurance rules, as new provisions related to last year's health-care overhaul take effect.
The new rules are designed to help those caught in Medicare's prescription drug "doughnut hole," offer seniors more preventive care, and limit how much of customers' money health-insurance companies can keep for overhead and profit.
They all go into effect Saturday.
These provisions were not affected by a Dec. 13 federal court ruling in Virginia that declared another piece of the new health-care law - the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance - unconstitutional.
The judge allowed implementation of the overhaul to continue until a higher court rules on the issue.
The new rules include:
l A provision that limits what health insurers can do with the money their customers send in as premiums.
The rule requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of this money on the customers themselves. The companies must either spend this money to pay insurance claims or use it for activities that improve customers' health.
For policies that are sold to large groups instead of small companies and individuals, the number is even higher: 85 percent. The remaining 15 or 20 percent of the money can be used for company salaries, marketing and overhead - or kept as profit.
Previously, there was no federal restriction on insurance companies' spending. The federal government says some insurers kept 30 or even 50 percent.
Insurance companies say this could cause them to cut back on the services they offer, or even pull out of states where administrative costs are higher.
State officials also worry that the companies might cut the fees they pay to insurance brokers. That, they fear, would eliminate key middlemen who help individuals navigate a complicated insurance system.
l A provision that provides prescription drug discounts for seniors who find themselves in Medicare's "doughnut hole."
The doughnut hole is a controversial gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed in 2006. In 2010, for instance, Medicare paid for part of the cost of drugs - until the total cost of the drugs hit $2,830.
After that, seniors were responsible for 100 percent of the cost of their drugs, until they had spent $3,610 of their own money. That was the other side of the doughnut hole, and federal insurance kicked in again.
This provision will give Medicare recipients stuck in the doughnut hole a 50 percent discount on the price of brand-name prescription drugs. Health-care activists are worried, however, that drugmakers will jack up their prices. In that case, customers would receive 50 percent off that higher number - which might not be much less than what they were paying before.
l A rule giving seniors free screenings for cancer and other diseases.
Nearly all Medicare beneficiaries will be able to receive for free all "preventive services" screenings given an A or B rating by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That could include mammograms, colorectal cancer screening, bone mass measurement and nutritional counseling. Medicare will also provide one free "wellness visit" per year for patients who want a checkup.
l The creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. This new agency is aimed at slowing down the rapid rise of health-care costs. It is supposed to foster innovation in both caring for patients and processing their payments and claims.

23 December 2010

White House White Board: Health Reform & Rate Review 21DEZ10

AMERICA continues to realize benefits from health care reform passed earlier this year, including protection from premium rate increases based on insurance company greed. This from HHS
For the past decade, Americans have seen double-digit health insurance premium increases. From 2000 to 2010, premiums rose 114 percent and nothing suggests that the quality of insurance coverage improved. In many cases, insurance companies had free reign and weren’t held accountable when they attempted to raise rates on consumers. Only 26 states and the District of Columbia can reject premium increases that are excessive or unjustified, and many of these states lack the resources to use this authority to protect consumers.
That’s beginning to change. Here’s how:
First, the Affordable Care Act gives states $250 million to enhance their rate review procedures so they can better protect consumers and stop unreasonable premium hikes from taking effect. 46 states and the District of Columbia have already received a share of these resources and they’re using the new funds to make more information about premiums available to the public and get the authority they need to oversee the insurance marketplace and protect consumers.
Second, the Affordable Care Act brings new transparency to the health insurance market by requiring insurance companies to publicly justify any unreasonable premium increases. Under the new rules, if an insurance company proposes to raise rates by 10% or more, they must publicly disclose on their own, as well as HHS’ website the justification for the increase. The appropriate state insurance commissioner or, if a State does not have an effective rate review process, HHS, will then review the insurance company’s justification to determine whether or not the increase is justified. In some states like, Washington and Maine, all new insurance premium rates, regardless of whether they are below 10% need to be approved by the state insurance commissioner’s office ahead of time, and will continue to be reviewed moving forward.
Shining a bright light on health insurance premium increases and conducting aggressive rate review will help control costs for American families. And we know rate review works. States like Washington and Maine have strong review laws that have been effective at protecting their residents from out-of-control premium increases. And just recently, Connecticut regulators recently rejected a proposed 20 percent rate increase that would have impacted 48,000 consumers after their review found that such an increase was unjustified and excessive.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recorded a new White House White Board video to explain just how this new rule works, and how rate review helps states review and crack down on unjustified premium hikes and protect consumers:

Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President for Special Projects

18 December 2010

Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans 18DEZ10

A candid article by the former senior executive of cigna and their fight to defeat health care reform to protect their profits...I saw Wendell Potter on The Countdown a couple of weeks ago, Keith Olbermann interviewd him and Michael Moore and Mr Potter apologized to Mr Moore on the air for his lies, deception and propaganda campaign against Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' .

As the former senior exec for CIGNA, Wendell Potter details the health insurance industry's dirty tactics at garnering both public and presidential support.

The following is an excerpt from Wendell Potter's new book, Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans (Bloomsbury Press, 2010).

The Beginning
“My name is Wendell Potter and for twenty years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick— all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”

That is how I introduced myself to the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on June 24, 2009. The committee’s chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., had asked me to testify as part of his investigation into health insurance company practices that for years had been swelling the ranks of the uninsured and the underinsured in the United States.

I explained how insurance companies make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even obtain—information needed by consumers. I described how for-profit insurance companies, in their constant quest to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, routinely cancel the coverage of policy-holders who get sick, and how they “purge” small businesses when their employees’ medical claims exceed what underwriters expected.

I knew that as soon as I said those words my life would change forever. It did—but in ways I never could have imagined.

I had quit my job as head of public relations at CIGNA—a job that had paid me deep into six figures—because I could no longer serve in good conscience as a spokesman for an industry whose routine practices amount to a death sentence for thousands of Americans every year.

I did not intend to go public as a critic of the industry. But it gradually became clear to me that the industry’s duplicitous PR strategy was going to manipulate public opinion and likely shape health care reform in ways that would benefit insurance company executives and their Wall Street masters far more than most other Americans.

I was eventually compelled to pull back the curtain on the industry’s deception-based PR strategy, which comprised two active fronts. One was a highly visible “charm offensive” designed to create an image of the industry as an advocate of reform—and a good-faith partner with the president and Congress in achieving it. The second front was a secret, fearmongering campaign using front groups and business and political allies as shills to disseminate misinformation and lies, with the sole intent of killing any reform that might hinder profits.

I had left my job at CIGNA in May 2008, but it wasn’t until 10 months later that I realized I couldn’t stay on the sidelines. As it turned out, it would be a fellow Tennessean who gave me one of the final shoves off the sidelines and into the spotlight and the new role of whistle-blower, as many people have called me.

It was March 5, 2009, and I was channel surfing for some news about the health care reform summit that President Obama was holding at the White House that day. Of the 120 or so people at the summit, many were from special interests that had the largest stakes financially in a reformed health care system: doctors, hospitals, drug and medical- device manufacturers, and, of course, insurers. Knowing that these groups had played a lead role in killing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s reform plan 15 years earlier, Obama wanted to keep them from doing the same this time around. Having campaigned as someone who could bring people with diverse points of view together to work toward the common good, Obama had brought the top lobbyists of each special interest group to his kickoff reform “table”—which the Clintons had not done—and openly solicited the groups’ support and cooperation. To win their support, his administration would eventually cut side deals with some of them, most notably the drugmakers.

I flipped to MSNBC just as Tamron Hall was getting ready to interview Republican representative Zach Wamp, from Tennessee’s Third Congressional District. I’m also from east Tennessee, although I have lived in Philadelphia since CIGNA relocated me to the company’s headquarters there in 1997. I grew up in Mountain City and Kingsport, both in the northeastern part of the state near the Virginia line. Wamp lives in Chattanooga, in the southeastern part of the state near the Georgia line.

When Hall asked Wamp about his views on the president’s ideas for reform, he just about called Obama a Marxist: “It’s probably the next major step toward socialism. I hate to sound so harsh, but ... this literally is a fast march toward socialism, where the government is bigger than the private sector in our country, and health care’s the next major step, so we oughta all be worried about it.”

He then started accusing the Democrats of wanting to redistribute wealth in the country by taking money away from those who already had health care to pay for those who didn’t have it, many of whom, in his view, were just irresponsible bums waiting for a handout.

“Listen,” he said. “The forty-five million people that don’t have health insurance—about half of them choose not to have health insurance. Half of ’em don’t have any choice, but half of ’em choose to, what’s called ‘go naked,’ and just take a risk of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room, costing you and me a whole lot more money. How many illegal immigrants are in this country today, getting our health care? Gobs of ’em!”

As I listened to Wamp’s rant, I knew exactly where he’d gotten his talking points: from me.

He was using the same misleading, intentionally provocative and xenophobic talking points that I had helped write while serving on the Strategic Communications Advisory Committee of the insurers’ biggest trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). We PR types had created those talking points, with help from language and polling experts, and given them to the industry’s lobbyists with instructions to get them into the hands of every “friendly” member of Congress. Most of the friendly ones were Republicans, and most were friendly because they had received a lot of money over the years in campaign contributions from insurance company executives and their political action committees.

(In spirited remarks on the House floor shortly before the vote on final reform legislation in 2010, Representative Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., called the Republican Party a “wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry.” As someone who had managed CIGNA’s PAC contributions for several years, I knew Weiner’s remark had the ring of truth. CIGNA and other big insurers have contributed considerably more to Republicans than to Democrats.)

I was dismayed to hear Wamp’s demagogic remarks— and not just because I’d had a hand in writing his script, but also because I know his district well. If anybody in America could benefit from the Democrats’ vision of reform, it would be those who live in the counties he represents. Many are rural and remote, with high percentages of people who are either uninsured or underinsured. The per capita and house hold incomes in most of his counties are far below the national average. Yet the Third District’s representative—contrary to the best interests of his constituents— was saying exactly what the insurance industry wanted him to say.

Later that evening, I saw a couple of TV reports about the summit. One of the clips featured Karen Ignagni, AHIP’s president, standing up at the summit and telling the president he could count on her and the health insurance industry.

“Thank you, Mr. President,” she said. “Thank you for inviting us to participate in this forum. I think, on behalf of our entire membership, they would want to be able to say to you this afternoon and everyone here that we understand we have to earn a seat at this table. We’ve already offered a comprehensive series of proposals. We want to work with you. We want to work with the members of Congress on a bipartisan basis here. You have our commitment. We hear the American people about what’s not working. We’ve taken that seriously.”

Turning in one of her best performances to date, she added, “You have our commitment to play, to contribute, and to help pass health care reform this year.”

The president— having just been played like a Stradivarius by one of the best lobbyists ever to hit Washington—said, “Good. Thank you, Karen. That’s good news. That’s America’s Health Insurance Plans.”

The crowd cheered and applauded. They all seemed to be buying it—but I wasn’t, not by a long shot. I wasn’t surprised, either, at the president’s and the crowd’s reactions to what she had said.

Ignagni is one of the most effective communicators and—with a salary and bonuses of $1.94 million in 2008—one of the highest-paid special interest advocates in Washington. I’ve known her since she left the AFL-CIO in the early 1990s to lead one of AHIP’s predecessors, the Group Health Association of America, an HMO trade group of which Humana was a member when I worked for that insurer. I knew from the first time I met her that she was the perfect choice to lead the insurance industry. She is smart, telegenic, articulate, charming, a strong leader, and a brilliant strategist. Following her success in shaping to her industry’s liking the legislation creating the Medicare prescription drug program, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt commented, “Whatever AHIP pays her is not enough.”

I realized after watching the exchange between Ignagni and Obama that I had seen both sides of the industry’s duplicitous PR campaign in a single day. Ignagni was saying what she knew the president and the inside-the-Beltway crowd wanted to hear, while Wamp was saying what the industry wanted him to say to the rest of the world. He was a tool in the industry’s effort to use “third parties” to kill key elements of the president’s plan, if not all of it, by scaring and lying to the public.

But it was another televised interview the following Monday that pushed me from the sidelines and into the fray. Four days after the White House summit, Chris Matthews was interviewing Mike Tuffin, AHIP’s executive vice president of strategic communications, on his MSNBC show, Hardball. “The same people who helped kill the Clintons’ efforts back in the ’90s are on the other side now,” Matthews said in introducing Tuffin. “Times have changed. The worm has turned. The cosmos has shifted. Some of the bad guys are becoming perhaps the good guys.”

There was no doubt about it: Tuffin was on the show as part of AHIP’s charm offensive.

“This time,” he told Matthews, “we’re coming to the table with solutions. We want to be part of the process. We pledged that to the president. We’re calling for new regulations on our industry to make sure everyone has guaranteed access to coverage.” He thus joined Ignagni in spinning the fiction that, for the first time ever, insurers were willing to accept more regulations and change their ways so that everybody in America could “have access to affordable, quality care” (a favorite term of industry leaders).

And just like Obama, Matthews seemed to be falling for it.

Copyright 2010 - Bloomsbury Press: All Rights Reserved

Wendell Potter, former vice-president of corporate communications at CIGNA, is the author of 'Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans' (Bloomsbury Press).

17 December 2010

Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed: Study 17DEZ10 & Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information 9DEZ10

BIG SURPRISE HERE, fox faux "news" is nothing more than the national enquirer on TV. I think a majority of people who watch fox do so to validate their own ignorance and prejudice, after all fox didn't create the tea party movement but it certainly jumped on the bad wagon and maneuvered to take control through their propaganda campaigns and manipulate the tea-baggers to throw their support behind certain candidates. Click the header to go to the actual study from the University of Maryland.
Fox News viewers are much more likely than others to believe false information about American politics, a new study concludes.
The study, conducted by the University of Maryland, judged how likely consumers of various news outlets and publications were to believe misinformation about a wide range of political issues. Overall, 90% of respondents said they felt they had heard false information being given to them during the 2010 election campaign. However, while consumers of just about every news outlet believed some information that was false, the study found that Fox News viewers, regardless of political information, were "significantly more likely" to believe that:

--Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely) --Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
--The economy is getting worse (26 points)
--Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
--The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
--Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

Story continues below
--The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
--When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
--And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

In addition, the study said, increased viewership of Fox News led to increased belief in these false stories.

Voters Say Election Full of Misleading and False Information

December 9, 2010Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key Issues
Full report(PDF)
Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks.
(Image Credit)
Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources.

Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
• Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.

• Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
• Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).
Other key points of misinformation among voters were:
• 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush

• 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates
• 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation
• 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009
• 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush
Clay Ramsay, of WorldPublicOpinion.org commented, "While we do not have data to make a clear comparison to the past, this high level of misinformation and the fact that voters perceived a higher than usual level of false and

misleading information, suggests that the increased flow of money into political advertising may have contributed to a higher level of misinformation."
The poll also found significant differences depending how people voted. Those who voted Republican were more likely than those who voted Democratic to believe that: most economists have concluded that the health care law will increase the deficit (voted Republican 73%, voted Democratic 31%); the American economy is still getting worse (72% to 36%); the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (67% to 42%); most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (62% to 26%); and it is not clear that Obama was born within the United States (64% to 18%)
On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%).
In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.
There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP.
The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel^®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel^®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.
WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=

13 December 2010

On Key Legal Issue, Even Conservatives Say Health Care's On Safe Ground 13DEZ10

While disappointing because it will give the gop and tea-bagger talking heads a "victory" to howl about, this puts this most recent court ruling in perspective. Doom for health care reform....no, but reason to remain vigilant. From HuffPost....
WASHINGTON -- Among health-care experts and reform advocates, the immediate reaction to a federal court ruling declaring a key portion of Obama's health care law illegal was one of bitterness, but not dread.
The decision, as handed down by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, determined that the individual mandate requiring individuals to buy coverage was unconstitutional. Politically, it was a setback -- breathing life into a repeal-and-replace movement that had appeared momentarily dormant -- but the broader health-care overhaul seems to remain on safe ground.
For starters, experts say, the court cordoned off the individual mandate from the rest of the bill, rather than demanding that administration of the entire reform package be halted.
"One important thing to note is that the judge does not enter an injunction" said Tim Jost, a professor of law at the Washington and Lee University Law School, on a conference call hosted by the White House-allied Center for American Progress. "He enters a declaratory judgment with respect to this provision only, and he decides that this provision is severable from every other provision that is not directly dependent on this and makes specific reference to [the individual mandate]. There are no other provisions in the Affordable Care Act that do so. So this decision is solely a decision as to the minimum-coverage requirement."
As Jost suggested, the somewhat-esoteric notion of severability could prove a crucial element in the debate over the health-care law's long-term viability. When being crafted in Congress, lawmakers were widely reported to have -- somewhat inexplicably -- forgotten to add a severability clause to the bill's legislative language. Such clauses are added for the purpose of ensuring that if a portion of a bill is struck down in the courts, it simply "severs" that portion from the legislation rather than invalidating the entire law.
Since health care lacked this language, Republicans hoped that by ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional, the courts could essentially nullify the entire legislation. Hudson, however, declined to issue such a broad ruling. And in interviews with The Huffington Post, even conservatives acknowledged that severability could be applied by the courts, post facto, to a piece of legislation.
"I'm of the opinion that this is really up to the courts. They have shown on multiple occasions that when they look at a constitutional flaw in a bill, particularly a large bill, that they attempt to severe it," said Ben Domenech, who, as a research fellow for The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes "free-market" solutions to health care reform, has written on the subject. "As a legal matter, I think the courts are clearly within their historical backgrounds ... they have clearly taken the opinion that they can strike these things out whether there is a severability clause or not."

Domenech's checkered past as a conservative columnist has not, and would not, make him a political ally for health care's defenders. And, indeed, other officials at Heartland argued that severability was a bit more difficult to apply to the health care bill.
"I think in the end, the court will find it severable, and when I say the court, I mean the U.S. Supreme Court," said Maureen Martin, The Heartland Institute's senior fellow for legal affairs. "But [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius did not take that position in a press release. She argued in a court that this whole thing is a linchpin. The entire Obamacare act, in her view, she said it is one whole piece of cloth. And the logical extension of that argument is if the individual mandate goes down, the whole bill goes down."
Martin's argument may have more to do with the law's logistical framework than its legal underpinnings. If the individual mandate is ultimately deemed unconstitutional, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the whole bill would be struck down. But it could doom health care's implementation -- dependent, as the bill is, on greatly expanding the base of coverage.
But on this and the legal front, people who know the legislation best say she's wrong.
"There are other ways to replace the individual mandate," said Ron Pollack, the Founding Executive Director of Families USA, a liberal consumer-advocacy group that focuses on health care. "I think the individual mandate is probably the most effective way to make sure that everybody has coverage, but there are other ways to try and make sure that everyone gets coverage, ultimately. So I do not suggest that this is a decision that people should be happy with, but one should not blow out of proportion what this means. The court made clear that it is not invalidating the entire statute, and the key elements, particularly where the costs are, are going to stand."
Ezra Klein, who has covered health-care policy extensively for the Washington Post, framed, Monday's ruling, counter-intuitively, as a victory for the reform law's defenders. The individual mandate, after all, is one of the legislation's most unpopular features. And there are numerous policy replacements that could be added in its absence, the most promising of which may be a Back Premiums penalty, which allows people who forego insurance to pay the costs of the policy should they suddenly need coverage.

03 December 2010

Your Health Care Dollars 3DEZ10

HERE'S an update on the Affordable Care Act (health care reform bill passed earlier this year), enactment of the provision starting in 2011 requiring insurance companies to spend 80% of insurance premiums on health care not on overhead or executive compensation, and if they don't do it they have to pay out rebates starting in 2012. This is what the gop and tea-baggers oppose.......I wonder why????? GREED?????


	Over the past few years, many Americans have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, while the quality of their health care declined. One of the reasons I pushed so hard to pass health care reform this year was to make sure that American consumers get what they pay for when it comes to their health care. Today, we're launching a new provision of the Affordable Care Act that does exactly that. Next year, insurance companies will be required to spend at least 80 percent of the health insurance premiums you pay on your health care, instead of overhead costs like advertising and executive compensation. If they don't, they will be required to give you a rebate or cut your premiums starting in 2012. I asked Nancy-Ann DeParle, the Director of the Office of Health Reform here at the White House, to break down what this means for you and why it's so important: This new rules will make our health care marketplace more transparent and ensure you get the best value for your premium dollars. And it is just one of the many parts of the Affordable Care Act that are already making our health care system stronger. Here are just a few ways the Affordable Care Act is helping you and your family: HealthCare.gov. This new website helps you find private health insurance coverage that's right for you and your family and now allows you to compare pricing for the options available to you. In 2014, there will be many more affordable private plan choices. Patient's Bill of Rights. Insurance companies can no longer place lifetime limits on your care. If you're a young adult under the age of 26, you can stay on your parents' plan, and if your child has a pre-existing condition, insurance companies can't deny his or her coverage. Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. If you have a pre-existing condition and are having a problem finding coverage, the Affordable Care Act created a special insurance plan just for you. Help for Small Businesses. If you're a small business owner, you may be eligible for tax credits to help provide insurance for your employees. Free Preventive Care. If you're purchasing a new plan, you’ll get preventive care like cancer screenings, well-baby and well-child check-ups, and blood pressure or diabetes tests for free. These aren't just talking points. These changes are saving people’s lives and saving you money, and we will continue our work to implement this landmark law and make our health care system better for all of us. Sincerely, President Barack Obama P.S. Nancy-Ann's video follows a few others from the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee, who explains some important economic policies. You can see them all here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/whiteboard

02 December 2010

Tell Republicans: Repeal health care? Give up your own first! FROM CREDO

GOP and tea-bagger hypocrites recently elected to Congress by promising to repeal health care reform / The Affordable Care Act need to step up and forgo their taxpayer subsidized government sponsored health care...see the earlier post on this blog from today 'REPUBLICANS COULD SAVE $2.4 MILLION A YEAR BY FORGOING THEIR HEALTH CARE' 2DEZ10. Click the link to participate in this petiton to john boehner and mitch mcconnell.

McConnell and Boehner need to practice what they preach.

Repeal health care? Give up your own first!

Clicking here will add your name to this petition:

Senator McConnell and Congressman Boehner, I am calling on you and your fellow Republicans in Congress to practice what you preach, and to give up your government-sponsored health care.

For two years, you opposed any effort at reasonable reform, and derided attempts to help tens of millions of uninsured Americans as 'socialist.' And yet, you seem to have no problem at all accepting government-sponsored health care for yourselves.

Practice what you preach, and stop being hypocrites. You want to repeal health care reform? Fine — start by 'repealing' your own!

For 2 years, GOP leaders in Congress fought tooth and nail to oppose health care reform. They did their best to keep tens of millions without coverage, decrying any effort to help citizens as "socialist," "fascist" or some other equally baffling "ist." And incredibly, they are now talking about repealing it.

And yet, when it comes to their own coverage, Republicans in Congress are not only using government-sponsored health care, they are whining about having to wait for it.¹

Well, four brave members of Congress are calling GOP leaders on their hypocrisy, demanding they practice what they preach², and calling on them to give up their government-sponsored health care:

Four members — Joe Crowley (NY), Linda Sanchez (CA), Donna Edwards (MD), and Tim Ryan (OH) — are rounding up signatures for a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Speaker-to-be John Boehner, encouraging them to press their members to refuse their federal health benefits based on the same principles underlying their opposition to health care reform.

"It is amazing that your members would complain about not having health care coverage for a few weeks, even after campaigning to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which will help provide coverage to millions of Americans who find themselves without health insurance for months or even years," the letter reads. "It begs the question: how many members of the Republican conference will be forgoing the employer-subsidized FEHBP coverage and experiencing what so many Americans find themselves forced to face? If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk."

We couldn't agree more. Write McConnell and Boehner today, and ask them if they will practice what they preach — and ask other GOP members to do the same. Click here to automatically sign this petition.

Thanks for all you do.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action

¹John Marshall, Talking Points Memo — November 15, 2010
²Brian Beutler, Talking Points Memo — November 18,2010


	Share on Facebook Post to your feed wall		Tweet this Post to Twitter

Republicans Could Save $2.4 Million A Year By Forgoing Their Health Care 23NOV10

ALL SENATORS AND HOUSE MEMBERS WHO RAN FOR OFFICE OPPOSING THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL THAT WAS PASSED EARLIER THIS YEAR SHOULD NOT SIGN UP FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE OFFERED TO ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. BUT YOU KNOW THESE HYPOCRITES WILL AND WILL TRY TO DESTROY THE REFORM THAT MAKES AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE AVAILABLE TO MILLIONS OF POOR, WORKING CLASS AND MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS.

WASHINGTON -- Some progressive organizations have been making a push in recent days for incoming congressional Republicans to drop their government-sponsored health care on the grounds that keeping the plans would be hypocritical.
The incident started after incoming Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) complained loudly during freshmen orientation that his coverage wouldn't start immediately upon taking office. It took a new turn when Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn) and Bobby Schilling (R-Ill.) both said they would, in fact, forgo the coverage. It escalated even further when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called out Harris for the "irony," and the municipal workers union AFSCME applied a similar charge to the whole GOP shortly thereafter.
"These Republicans want to repeal health reform, putting the insurance companies back in charge and putting affordable coverage out of reach of millions of Americans," said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee. "If they enroll in the taxpayer-funded health care system provided to members of Congress, they deserve to be denounced as hypocrites."
There is an apparent double standard with respect to lawmakers trying to reduce health care for American workers while taking a subsidy for health care for themselves. And in a Public Policy Poll released on Tuesday, a full 53 percent of respondents (and 58 percent of Republicans) said that if a congressman is opposed to the president's health care reform law, he or she should decline to participate in government-sponsored health care.
But another cudgel sits there on the sidelines waiting to be used by trouble-making Democrats. If the incoming Republican Congress is so concerned about the use of taxpayer funds, it could start by foregoing taxpayer-funded health care. How much money that would save is impossible to pinpoint with great accuracy. But it's possible to make some reliable estimates.
According to the Los Angeles Times, "the plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month." Of that total, "taxpayers kick in $700." So far there are 242 Republicans set to be seated in the incoming House of Representatives (that could only go higher) and 47 Republicans in the Senate. The taxpayer bill for insuring all those members over the course of a single year comes to just over $2.4 million ($700 X 12 months X 289 members).
Chump change? Yes, it is. That said, chump change seems to always at the heart of the most provocative political battles. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made a big issue over the fact that $1 million was being appropriated for a Woodstock museum in upstate New York.

UPDATE: Pete Sepp, the Executive Vice President of National Taxpayers Union -- one of the ultimate penny-pinching organizations in the D.C. area -- calls opting out of health care a "symbolic and not insignificant" gesture for congressional Republicans.
"If lawmakers are looking for ways to say that they feel solidarity with the American people this might be one way to do it," said Sepp. "And, again, if you are looking at dollar amounts that's equivalent or a little more of equivalent to [congressmembers] taking a pay cut of about five percent. And, again, we have heard a lot of pledges to reduce the overall budget of Congress by ten percent. So opting out of health care coverage is one place to start."

01 December 2010

A Second Federal Judge Holds That The Affordable Care Act Is Constitutional 30NOV10

AGAIN federal courts have ruled the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, a big smack down of the gop and tea-baggers in their fight for the greed of the insurance companies and corporate America. Yet these right wing fanatics will continue to waste tax payers money and clog the courts with these frivolous lawsuits and spreading lies, manipulating their supporters with their propaganda....pathetic....See earlier post on this blog 'ENTITLEMENT HYPOCRISY & GOP FROSH: WHERE'S MY HEALTHCARE? 19NOV10', '$86.2 MILLION DOLLARS & HEALTHCARE LAW GIVES NOTABLE IMPROVEMENT TO DEBT OUTLOOK IF IMPLEMENTED:GAO REPORT 18NOV10', AND 'HEALTH CARE REFORM CHALLENGE REJECTED BY SUPREME COURT 12NOV10'.

Last month, the first judge ever to consider the issue reached the obviously correct conclusion that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Today, a second federal judge reached the same conclusion. The lengthy opinion by Judge Norman Moon of the Western District of Virginia gives several reasons why the Act’s provision requiring all Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly higher income taxes easily fits within Congress’ broad authority to regulate the national economy, including the fact that striking down this provision would make it impossible to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to persons with preexisting conditions:

The conduct regulated by the individual coverage provision is also within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause because it is rational to believe the failure to regulate the uninsured would undercut the Act’s larger regulatory scheme for the interstate health care market. The Act institutes a number of reforms of the interstate insurance market to increase the availability and affordability of health insurance, including the requirement that insurers guarantee coverage for all individuals, even those with preexisting medical conditions. As Congress stated in its findings, the individual coverage provision is “essential” to this larger regulatory scheme because, without it, individuals would postpone health insurance until they need substantial care, at which point the Act would obligate insurers to cover them at the same cost as everyone else. This would increase the cost of health insurance and decrease the number of insured individuals—precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.

Today’s decision is just another nail in the coffin of the many meritless lawsuits challenging health reform. While conservatives have touted a pair of procedural victories they won in two high-profile lawsuits, the fact remains that every single judge to consider merits of these challenges has upheld the law. Indeed, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has indicated that he agrees with today’s decision. As Scalia wrote in Gonzales v. Raich, “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”

NORTON META TAG