Friday, December 18, 2009

LARA, Rails to Trails, and the Daily Item

I should be writing to the Daily Item, but they have already published a reply to their stories about the Union County Commissioners's most recent meeting. But here goes.

First, the Daily Item published a story reporting on comments from Preston Boop speculating on what might happen at the next meeting of the Union County Commissioners. But it was the coverage on December 16 that the DI really ought to reconsider. I have no problem with their publishing a picture of Yvonne Morgan wearing a pig hat to the meeting. Who wouldn't? It was obviously a good bit of political theater. I do have a problem with this passage:

But it was Morgan’s personal attacks against Showers and Republican Commissioner John Mathias that cast a pall over Tuesday’s meeting from the get-go.

“Commissioner Showers is the husband of a trust-fund child. He may not know what financial struggle is,” Morgan wrote as she called into question Showers’ and Mathias’ financial judgment in considering allowing the county to take over the Lewisburg Area Recreation Authority’s Rail Trail. “John Mathias has financial means to weather the economic storm. Most of us do not.”

That may not include Morgan, the wife of Evangelical Community Hospital general surgeon James Morgan, who also sits on the hospital’s board of directors.

Take a good look at that last sentence. It looks like The Daily Item simply turns Yvonne Morgan's tactic (of drawing inferences based on who someone is married to) back on her. It's not relevant to the story, and it diverts attention from the issues that journalists ought to be looking at. (Note: if this was said by someone at the meeting, it would be relevant, but that's not the way it's reported.) It's legitimate to report on the emotions of the meeting, but it's not okay to try to stoke them.

Ultimately, the story ought to be about the merit and wisdom of the project: what do the economic impact studies say, and what do economists who understand such things think about their accuracy? Is there public support for the project in the county as (I believe) there is in the Lewisburg area? What has been the experience of other communities and areas that have put in Rails to Trails system? Finally, is there a strong argument that the county should be interested in the project, or are the potential costs prohibitive? I understand that the DI can't send reporters around the country, but in the age of e-mail, is it that hard to get enough information to write a story about similar projects in other rural areas?

But even if the DI doesn't want to do any background reporting about the project itself, here's what might interest me: Has Yvonne Morgan ever been a public official? How long has she been chair of the Republican Committe in Union County? Does she seem to understand the issues, or is her opposition simply a matter of basic principle (no federal money for any projects)?

Further: What are the known costs associated with a rails to trails system and how much burden might they place on the county and taxpayers? What's the current plan for funding over the long haul? As far as I've seen, the DI has not taken on any of these questions. So here's an idea for the next issue of the Williamsport Guardian: where rails to trails paths have gone in, what has been the result? Have these projects been a net positive or a negative in various locations and why?

I realize that some citizens are opposed to the Rails to Trails project on principle because of the use of federal funds. I respect that and understand the point. Federal requirements mean that the trail will need a larger initial investment than it otherwise might (because of federal standards). I don't see anyone stepping forward with ideas about how to get a trail up and running without those funds, however. Because I think a trail here that is flat, scenic, and convenient would significantly enhance life in many ways, including economically through increased visitors to the valley, I'd like to see that trail built. But first we're going to have to focus on the merits, not on the sideshow.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

No mandate without a public option

FINALLY--somebody gets it. Below is today's e-mail from Jim Dean and Democracy for America, the grassroots group founded by his brother Howard in 2004. Candidate Obama said he didn't support a mandate, and Pres. Obama ought to veto any bill with a mandate that doesn't get serious about controlling costs. I keep coming to the same conclusion: get a bill that works, not a hollow (and short-lived) political victory. It's nice to see someone on my side. Here's my favorite part:

Without the choice of a public option, forcing Americans to buy health insurance isn't just bad policy, it's political disaster for Democrats -- a ticking time-bomb for years to come.

Way to go Jim. Now talk to your brother!

______
from DFA:

Loren -

I'll get straight to the point. If Democrats remove the choice of a public option, they can't force Americans to buy health insurance.

Here's the deal, Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say, even without a public option, the bill still "covers 30 million more Americans." The problem is that's not really true.

What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess.

A public option would have provided the competition needed to drive down costs and improve coverage. It would have kept insurance companies honest by providing an affordable alternative Americans can trust. That's why, without a public option, this bill is almost a trillion dollar taxpayer giveaway to insurance companies.

We must act fast. Both Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Senators need to hear from you. Please stop whatever else you are doing and make the calls right now.

Senator Harry Reid
DC: (202) 224-3542

Carson City: (775) 882-7343
Las Vegas: (702) 388-5020
Reno: (775) 686-5750

Call your Democratic Senator too -- Senate Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

REPORT YOUR CALL AND TELL US HOW IT WENT


Without the choice of a public option, forcing Americans to buy health insurance isn't just bad policy, it's political disaster for Democrats -- a ticking time-bomb for years to come.

Does anyone think Republicans won't use this against Democrats in 2010?

What about in 2014 after the mandate goes into effect and the press reports all the horror stories of Americans forced to choose between paying their monthly health insurance bill to Aetna or paying rent?

The mandate is toxic and Democrats will own it. By the 2016 presidential election, is there any wonder how this will play out for Democrats?

CALL SENATOR HARRY REID NOW AT (202) 224-3542 THEN REPORT YOUR CALL HERE

The message is simple: No public option? No Mandate!

Thank you for everything you do,

-Jim

Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Which way now on health care?

The health care debate (that's seems like too generous a term) has been tough to stomach. Now we seem to be left with no attractive options. E. J. Dionne argues one extreme: cut a deal asap.

MoveOn.org and others are still rallying their members to keep on the pressure to keep a strong public option alive in the Senate.

What's most galling is that Joe Lieberman and a couple others are able to derail what the public supports and what most senators support. With nearly 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats should be able to do better. Howard Dean is out there fighting on, but it's getting harder and harder to believe that any final bill will involve have real cost controls if there's no real competition to private insurance.

We already spend far more than other countries and get worse results (based on the findings of Kaiser Family Foundation and many others). I'm for health care for all, but not for unregulated private insurance forced upon all. If Medicare expansion is on the table, perhaps Medicare reform and expansion down to age 55 could happen together. We could also pass the pre-existing condition reforms and some of the other insurance reforms. We should not accept a cynical compromise that will make insurance less affordable and therefore less available. (Then when it fails the conservatives can argue, See, it didn't work as promised.) And states must be allowed to experiment with other models, including single-payer.

I'm starting to wonder if Dems should let the Republicans vote down a reasonable proposal (with supporting votes from Lieberman and a handful of others) and then go to the voters in 2010 arguing that the party of NO means NO health care reform in spite of what the voters said in the 2008 election. In spite of all appearances, I think that's a fight Pres. Obama would like to have.

So, my question: what do you think the Dems should do now? Compromise and take what they can get in order to build momentum for the rest of Pres. Obama's agenda? Fight on, realizing that Republicans might be able to block progress indefinitely? Try to find a way around potential filibuster in the Senate?

Right now, I think taking a compromise bill that might lead to overall failure of the reforms would be a mistake. Fight for something that will work, not for something that has little chance of fixing the system (and that won't kick in for three or four years anyway).

Sunday, November 8, 2009

House Bill passes--what next?

The House bill for Health Care reform passed on Saturday 220-215, so the bill had two more votes than it needed to pass. Congressman Carney voted yes on the Stupak amendment (which went further than the long-standing Hyde amendment in prohibiting federal coverage of abortion services) and voted YES on the final bill. As far as I know, he had never announced a position on the bill until he cast his vote. Several of the Blue Dog Democrats voted no on the final bill, but just enough Democrats stayed on board to pass the bill. One of the ironies was that the Republican yes votes on the Stupak amendment probably locked up the final votes need to pass the overall bill.

Congressman Carney has always said that he will vote the district, and I think his delay in taking a position reflects how hard it is to read the 10th district on this issue. I'm not thrilled about the individual mandate in the bill--I recall candidate Obama explaining why he didn't support that approach. Make it affordable and people will want to buy it. Don't force them to do it. Perhaps that part of the bill will change in the reconciliation process with the Senate--assuming the Senate actually passes a bill. It's time to get something done so we can all get to work figuring out how to create a better system. The Democrats should forge ahead in the Senate--force the opponents to filibuster if necessary. That's not a record of accomplishment the Republicans will be able to run on in 2010. The argument would be this: we stopped them from doing the things you elected them to do in 2008.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Action Alert: Help House Progressives Get 218 on Robust Public Option

(This is pretty much a direct quote of a post at DailyKos today, but as it applies to Carney, I wanted to get the word out. -JG)

Today (Friday, 10/23), the House Democratic Caucus will meet and determine what version of the public option goes into the House bill. Pelosi announced earlier today that there's probably the 218 for a good public option, but report are that they are only 12-15 votes away from the strongest version of the bill, the Medicare Plus 5 version that ties public option rates to Medicare reimbursement rates.

Having the strongest possible House bill going in to conference with the Senate is critical, and it's within reach. Chris Carney is one of the "leaning" Dems who are considering supporting the Medicare Plus 5 version according to Hill activists. Please call his office before 2:00 today and say that you support the "Medicare Plus 5" version of the public option.

Christopher Carney (PA-10): 202-225-3731, 570-585-9988, 570-327-1902

(I just called his D.C. office myself, and the woman who answered the phone knew exactly what I was talking about and thanked me for the call. It took about 1 minute, total, so please take a minute to call.)

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Fake Grass Roots and Energy Policy

Click on the title to read more revelations about the fake grass roots letters sent to Congressman Carney. I was most struck by this passage:

Bonner billed Hawthorn for $43,500 but has not been paid; the coal group told Hawthorn not to pay the bill, according to a letter from Hawthorn. A document from the coal group indicates it paid Hawthorn about $7 million last year for grass-roots lobbying services and about $3 million through the first six months of this year.

Hawthorn is described as the "primary grass-roots lobbying contractor" for this coal industry group. Perhaps these industry people need a bit of help understanding what grass roots means. If you have to pay $7 million per year for it, I'm pretty sure it's not grass roots.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Good video explaining Public Option

This is a nice short video from master explainer, Robert Reich (Clinton Labor Secretary and Economist).


Friday, October 2, 2009

Issues and Eggs TOMORROW

Issues & Eggs (SATURDAY)
Saturday, Oct 3, 9-11am
White Deer Twp Fire Company
366 Cemetery St, New Columbia

In place of our regular meetup this month, CSCC will be sponsoring a special event TOMORROW--a breakfast forum titled "Issues & Eggs: A Frank Conversation About Healthcare in America" at the White Deer Township Fire Company in New Columbia. For $5, get an all-you-can-eat breakfast hosted by the fire company, and talk to neighbors of all different political views about why you (and they) support or oppose various aspects of the healthcare reform proposals. We have advertised this event widely, not just among CSCC and Democrats, but to outside organizations as well.

The format of this event will begin with casual discussion over breakfast, then some brief remarks by CSCC (e.g., Steve & Jove) leading into an open, moderated, interactive discussion where participants will be invited to share their perspectives and ask back-and-forth questions of each other. This is not meant to be an overly "formal" program--everyone is welcome, even if you can only stay for part of the time.

Directions: The White Deer Fire Company is located at 366 Cemetery Street in New Columbia. Traveling north on Rt. 15, take the New Columbia Exit, turn left at the end of the ramp, then make an immediate right. Turn left on Cemetery St, and the fire hall is ahead on the left. All proceeds ($$) directly benefit the White Deer Fire Company. But we have financially guaranteed them a minimum number of attendees, so you will be indirectly supporting CSCC by attending. So please come, bring a friend, and spread the word!

For more information, you can download our full press release here.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Support for Public option in "swing" blue dog districts

So, our Rep, Chris Carney is a member of blue dog coalition (I just checked).

I know that others have done the critical work of organizing and delivering the signatures to Rep Carney (thanks y'all).

Despite the baying on the megaphones, the radial right is not relevant to the debate on health care reform. Sam Tannenhaus discussed this idea with Bill Moyers last week. He said:

Either the Republicans or Democrats have ruled since the Civil War for periods of some 30-36 years. And in those periods, all the great debates have occurred within a single party. So, if you go back to the 1980s, which some would say was the peak of the modern conservative period, the fight's about how to end the Cold War, how to unleash market forces-- were really Republican issues.

Today, when we look at the great questions -- how to stimulate the economy, how to provide and expand and improve a sustainable health care system, the fight is taking place among Democrats.
The chance of a public option, which I think is more about whether a politician can imagine a more radical restructuring of our society versus a kind of apologist, window-dressing, don't-shake-the-table approach, will be fought out WITHIN the democratic party.

So, the health insurance industry is against a public option. Who is for it? The public in 91 swing districts.
The poll, by respected Dem pollster John Anzalone, finds that 54% of these swing district voters support the public option, and makes the case that these voters emphatically don’t want a “trigger,” the compromise of choice in some quarters:
Geeky stats note- that is 54% with a 2.5% margin of error at 95% confidence interval. In plain English- it is 95% likely that the real support is between 51.5 and 56.5%.

The polling memo does not indicate if they can break it out by distircit, but given they covered 91, I doubt it. So, we don't know or sure if our swing district is like the rest of these.

Some polling of specific swing districts found support for the public option (from a plurality to clear majorities) AND LESS for Obama by name. The message: campaign on the details in these types of districts.

Meanwhile, the DCCC raises money for vulnerable "frontline" dems, like the Blue Dogs who almost always get an allergic reaction to progressive ideas, with appeals to health care reform from Bill Clinton:
It’s up to us to prevent the Republican Party and their special interest backers from doing whatever they can to prevent this historic opportunity to make quality health care affordable and accessible to all.
On the bright side, the progressive hosue caucus is holding firm.
For the first time since they formed in 1995, the Blue Dogs have been out-organized by their liberal counterparts. The Congressional Progressive Caucus completed its first survey and began whipping back in the spring. They launched a final whip count last week that will be finished by Wednesday evening.

Maybe they can do so until the Blue Dogs realize that at the end of the day, they want to be on the right side of history here.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Rally Sunday at 1pm by BZ Motors

If you have seen the editorial in today's (Thursday) Daily Item, then you know that what we are doing is making a difference. Please come out on Sunday to spend some time with friends, and support real health care reform. We will be there from 1-3pm by BZ Motors with signs.

We are also going to start the next "phase" of our efforts by setting up "phone booths". Instead of collecting signatures on a declaration, we will have people make calls to their congress people on the spot. Should be fun! Imagine watching someone call their representative for the first time in their lives. Really participating in the democratic process. Our booths at the farmer's market and the post office will start to switch gears in the next week or so.

Come out Sun at 1pm and be a part of this with us.
Thanks-
Chip

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Trip to DC Report

[This was posted in the comments by Chip, but I wanted to bump it up. And if you missed it, there was a really good (I thought) article in today's Daily Item. -JG]

I write to give an update on the United Union CountyCentral Susquehanna Citizens Democratic Coalition.

A group of us went to DC today to drop off the signatures (1,597!) in support of health care reform that we have gathered since mid-July to Rep. Carney and Senator Casey.
It is my sincere belief that what we have already done has made a difference. The comments from both men indicated clearly to me that they understand there is a "silent majority" who support reform, and that this group needs to stop being silent. We have been a small and dedicated group of people. If you are reading this, please find a way to join us for an hour a week. Wed at the Farmers Market; Sat at the Post Office; or Sun at the rally on Rt. 15.

Thanks-Chip

Monday, September 14, 2009

Healthcare Talk TOMORROW

I just heard about this today, but the League of Women Voters is hosting a "lunch forum to discuss health care reform" tomorrow (Tuesday, Sept. 15) from 11:30-1:00 at La Primavera on Route 45. Their speaker will be Professor Amy Wolaver from Bucknell University (who was one of our CSCC panelists at the healthcare forum in May) giving a presentation titled "Health Care Reform 2009--The Issues."

This event is open to the public and the cost for lunch is $12. Call 524-4439 for more info.

I won't be able to go because of work commitments, but if anyone can go, please let us know how it is!

Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Dark Underside of Private Insurers

If you'd like to remember why we need health insurance reform, take a look at some of the things we've been learning from Wendell Potter, who worked for insurance giant CIGNA for 15 years but couldn't take it any longer.

Interview with Bill Moyers

Commentary: How Insurance Firms Drive Debate (how your premiums pay for PR)

Is Obama Planning to Sign Congress' Health Care Reform Bill with Lipstick?

An Apology for Destroyed Lives (from Stand with Dr. Dean)


If you can take it, also listen (via Democracy Now) to the story of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died waiting for her insurance company (CIGNA) to approve a liver transplant. Amy Goodman interviewed her mother on 9/9/09. (Kudos to whoever is getting Democracy Now on FM radio here in Lewisburg over the noon hour on Wednesday!)

If you missed the President's speech about health care, you can get full text and video here.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Response from Chris Carney

[Several of us have gotten the following email response to letters we've sent to Chris Carney (PA-10) in support of healthcare reform. The response is somewhat encouraging in that, in the opening paragraphs, he acknowledges the current problems and the need for reform. It is somewhat discouraging, however, that he refers to the house bill (H.R. 3200) but never states whether he is for or against it, and he mentions some other bill (H.R. 2360) that I've never heard of but which sounds like a competitor to H.R. 3200. We need to keep the pressure on Mr. Carney to remind him how important it is that he support the bill that includes a public option.]

Dear ___,
Thank you for your message supporting health insurance reform. Hearing from the people of northeast and central Pennsylvania is an integral part of my job in Congress and I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.

People throughout Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District have contacted me to express their concern with insufficient and shrinking health care coverage and skyrocketing costs. Forty-six million Americans are completely without health insurance, including over one million people from Pennsylvania. At the same time, health care costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational Trust, premiums increased by 98 percent while wages only increased by 23 percent from 2000 to 2007. This puts a huge strain on our middle-class families.

Increasing health care costs also threaten our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. In the past ten years, the cost of health insurance to businesses has increased 140 percent. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that spending on health care and related activities will total $2.6 trillion in 2009 - 17 percent of our gross domestic product. Our current health care system is unsustainable. We need common sense health reform that will provide all Americans access to affordable, quality coverage, while reducing costs. Any reform effort must ensure that preexisting conditions are covered, must protect an individual's right to keep their own insurance and their own doctor, must provide security to people who lose or change jobs, and must not raise the federal deficit.

Recently, comprehensive health reform legislation, H.R. 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation focuses on a few key factors. It ensures that every American has comprehensive health insurance even if they lose their job or get sick. It stops insurance companies from denying coverage to people based on preexisting conditions, requires insurance companies to renew coverage, and prevents them from rescinding coverage. For the millions of people who have insurance through their employer, nothing changes. Individuals and small businesses that do not have or cannot afford insurance could purchase affordable coverage through a "health insurance exchange." This exchange pools risk, lowering premiums for everyone. It also provides a wide array of insurance plans to choose from including, potentially, a public option. Finally, the bill provides individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance with limited subsidies to purchase coverage.

The Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor considered and passed versions of this legislation in late July. These versions must be reconciled before the full House of Representatives can consider the legislation. A vote on passage may take place this fall. Also, the Senate is working on comprehensive health reform legislation and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee already passed a bill. However, the Senate Finance Committee has yet to complete its version.

You may be interested to know that I supported H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan legislation reauthorized the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through 2013, preserving coverage for 7 million children already covered by SCHIP, including over 227,000 children in Pennsylvania. It also expanded coverage to an additional 4.1 million uninsured children, who are currently eligible for, but not enrolled in, SCHIP and Medicaid. It passed the House of Representatives on February 4, 290 to 135, and was signed into law. I also cosponsored H.R. 1619, the Children's Health Protection Act of 2009, which prohibits insurers from imposing pre-existing condition limitations on children.

I am also a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2360, the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), which would make health insurance more affordable, predictable, and accessible for small businesses and the self-employed. It offers tax incentives to encourage states to reform poorly functioning small group insurance markets and encourages the development of state exchanges backstopped by a voluntary, nationwide exchange.

This process still has a long way to go. It is vital that Congress show due diligence and get this reform effort right. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Carney
Member of Congress

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Rt. 15 Rally Last Sunday

Members of CSCC, UCDC and OFA gathered along Rt. 15 last weekend to show their support for healthcare reform. We got a lot of positive responses from passing motorists (more than we expected, I think). We're going to do it again soon, so come out and join us next time!


Open thread for Tuesday, 8/25

What do you say?

Monday, August 24, 2009

Response from Sen. Specter

[Joe received this response to a letter he had written to Arlen Specter about healthcare reform.]

Dear Mr. M___:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you.

The increasing costs and growing number of uninsured individuals illustrate the need for Congressional action to reform the health care system. With a reported 47 million people without health insurance the status quo is not acceptable. Additionally, there are millions more Americans who are underinsured, with health insurance that is inadequate to cover their needs. Families are forced to make tough sacrifices in order to pay medical expenses or make the agonizing choice to go without health care coverage. There are far too many Americans whose financial and physical health is jeopardized by the rising costs of health care.

In the coming weeks and months Congress will consider health care reform which seeks to address the health care crisis, by addressing access to quality care, wellness programs and payment improvements. We need to agree on a balanced, common sense solution that reins in costs, protects the personal doctor-patient relationship and shifts our focus to initiatives in preventive medicine and research.

Health reform legislation should include health benefit standards that promote healthy lifestyles, wellness programs and provide preventive services and treatment needed by those with serious and chronic diseases. Health care coverage must be affordable with assistance to those who do not have the ability to pay for health care. We must work to ensure equity in health care access, treatment, and resources to all people and communities regardless of geography, race or preexisting conditions. The effort to improve health care should improve care in underserved communities in both urban and rural areas.

Health care reform should improve health care for those currently insured. Insurance companies should cover more preventive care costs. Reforms should eliminate lifetime and annual caps and limit out of pocket expenses. Insurers should be prohibited from refusing to renew coverage in the event of catastrophic illnesses, denying coverage, or charging higher rates based on gender, pre-existing conditions or health status.

I believe that ensuring all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care coverage is essential for the health and future of our Nation. The creation of an insurance pooling system could serve as a model to provide health insurance to all individuals. The pooling system allows individuals to group together to improve purchasing power to achieve affordable, quality coverage for the entire population and to equitably share risk. However, Congress must be mindful of the cost of providing this care and reforms should not affect those who want to maintain their current insurance through their employer.

On March 5, 2009, at the request of President Obama, I participated in the White House Forum on Health Reform. During this forum, my colleagues from the Senate and House of Representatives and other health care interest representatives shared priorities and concerns for health care reform. Since that time, regional forums have been held throughout the country so more voices can be heard on this important issue and President Obama has worked closely with those representing all health care sectors to find common ground on reform. I am open to discussing the best method in which to cover all Americans, including considering a public plan option and look forward to examining all of the options with my colleagues as the legislation progresses.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this issue to my attention. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
Arlen Specter

Open thread for Monday, 8/24

Healthcare, healthcare, healthcare.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Open thread for Sunday, 8/23

Remember, we'll be gathering to show our support for healthcare reform with banners and signs today, at the corner of Rt. 15 and William Penn Dr. (at the light near BZ Motors) in Lewisburg, from 1-3pm today.

What else is on your mind?

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Open thread for Saturday, 8/22

Remember, we'll be collecting signatures for a healthcare reform petition in front of the Lewisburg Post Office today, from 10am-2pm.

What else is going on?

Friday, August 21, 2009

Open thread for Friday, 8/21

In an experiment to try using this blog as more of a central message board for those of us involved in healthcare reform activities this month, I'm going to try and start more "open threads" like this one. There won't necessarily be much content in the original post, but since anyone is allowed to add comments once a thread has started, hopefully this will enable and encourage people to post messages and keep the conversation going.

So... what's on your mind today?

Carney Townhall in LaPorte

Who went to Congressman Carney's townhall in Sullivan County (in LaPorte) today?

How did it go? Can someone give us a summary?

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Casey's Live Conference Call Tonight

Was anyone able to participate in Senator Casey's "live teleconference" tonight discussing the Senate healthcare bill?

I received a message on our answering machine last night saying to expect a call between 6-7pm tonight, and that if I answered the phone, I'd be teleconferenced in. However, I got the call (around 6:20pm) and said "Hello?" but there was just a long pause on the other end followed by Casey's voice saying, "Hi! This is Bob Casey! Sorry we missed you..." and the rest of the message implied they thought I hadn't answered the phone and they were just leaving another message. So I guess: (a) they need to debug their voice-recognition software, or (b) I need to sound less like a machine when I talk. But in any case, I guess I missed out.

Did this happen to anyone else? Did anyone get in? What did he say about the Senate bill?

Monday, August 17, 2009

Good op-ed on NHS and US hlth cr debate

In Defense of Britain's Health System

By Ara Darzi and Tom Kibasi
Monday, August 17, 2009

LONDON -- When Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created in 1948, its founder, the charismatic politician Aneurin Bevan, observed that it was "in place of fear." More than 60 years later, it is fear that dominates the discussion of the NHS in the U.S. debate about health-care reform.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Response from Senator Casey

[I have written Casey, Carney and Specter several times about healthcare reform in the past month. So far, Casey is the only one whose office has responded. I thought I would share the response below. He seems to be very much on-board, and so I think it is Specter that we need to focus our energy on (because the Senate will be a tougher fight), and to a lesser extent, Carney. -JG]

Dear ___:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about health care reform. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.We cannot afford to wait any longer to reform America’s health care system.

As a member of the United States Senate and of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I am working with my colleagues and with President Obama to enact meaningful health care reform, with the goal of providing every American with access to high quality, affordable health care. Ensuring the unique health needs of children are met will be a specific priority of mine in health care reform. Many of my constituents have contacted me to share their opinions on a wide range of potential health care reform options. I welcome your comments and suggestions on this important issue.

On July 14, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) successfully reported out our bill, the Affordable Health Choices Act, to reform the Nation’s healthcare system. At its core, this landmark bill provides additional choices for Americans who need health insurance, while maintaining health insurance options that currently exist and that individuals may wish to keep.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Health Choices Act will cost $611 billion over the next ten years. Our current system is not sustainable and waiting to act or doing nothing will only make the problems worse. If we do not act, more people will lose coverage. As costs increase, the quality of care will diminish and the ballooning costs incurred by the government and business will endanger America’s fiscal health.

The Affordable Health Choices Act will reduce costs by emphasizing prevention, cutting waste and modernizing the health care system through quality information technology.The Affordable Health Choices Act also promotes prevention by giving Americans the information they need to take charge of their own health, such as information on early screening for heart disease, cancer and depression and information on healthy nutrition. The Affordable Health Choices Act takes strong steps to improve America’s healthcare workforce, making sound investments in training the doctors, nurses, and other health professionals who will serve the needs of patients in the years to come and ensuring that patients’ care is better coordinated so they see the right doctors, nurses and other health practitioners to address their individual health needs.

To address the need for more choices for Americans, The Affordable Health Choices Act includes a public health insurance option called the Community Health Insurance Plan. This plan will be one of many plans available to individuals through the Affordable Health Benefit Gateways that will be established in each state. These gateways build on the success of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which provides a range of different health plans from which to choose to federal employees including civilian employees, Members of Congress and their staffs, retirees and their families. The Community Health Insurance Plan will be required to comply with the same rules governing private plans offered through the health insurance gateways, and will comply with the same insurance regulations as private insurers.

The Committee on Finance, of which I am not a member, has jurisdiction over other areas of health care reform and is in the process of developing its own draft legislation. This jurisdiction includes many of the options being discussed to finance health care reform such as Medicare payment reforms and taxing health benefits, sugary drinks or alcohol. Some of the most significant provisions regarding children also fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance, such as the Medicaid and CHIP programs. After the Committee on Finance has finished developing and considering its health care reform legislation, the bill will be merged with the Affordable Health Choices Act for consideration by the full Senate later this year. I will be examining carefully both the bill that the Committee on Finance develops and the merged bill that the full Senate will consider for their impact on health care for children, particularly our most vulnerable children, as we engage in the continuation of this debate in the weeks ahead.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Arlen Specter's Town Hall Meeting (full recap)

Loren just posted an excellent (and concise) summary of today’s Town Hall Meeting with Arlen Specter in Lewisburg (see the next post below). For those who weren’t able to go (or couldn’t get a seat), I figured I would post a more detailed recap. I realize this is going to be a really long post, so in case you don’t want to read this whole recap, I would just read Loren’s previous post, or just these 7 key points:
  1. Specter said he shared Obama’s view that we need to reform healthcare to control rising costs.
  2. He said he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add to the deficit.
  3. He said, in reference to single payer, that “nothing should be off the table.”
  4. He said that he thought the public option was “a good option.”
  5. He repeatedly talked about preventative care, and medical tests, and implied that having people get annual exams, etc. would help to reduce costs and keep people from getting sick.
  6. He repeatedly ducked other questions about healthcare by saying “the House bill is not law yet, and there is no Senate bill yet.” I understand he’s a Senator and so he doesn’t have to vote on the House bill, but he still could have actually addressed people’s questions (and sometimes their completely mythical Sarah Palin-esque delusions) about the House bill instead of just sidestepping them.
  7. On the topic of Employee Free Choice Act, he said that he believed we should “maintain the secret ballot” (i.e., he’s not supporting EFCA).

    And now, let the full recapping begin!

The Crowd: As expected, it was a full house and there were a lot of Republicans who, as far as I could tell, really enjoy saying the word, “boo!” a lot. And shouting every time they hear something they don’t like. This happened a lot, because: (a) there were plenty of Democrats in attendance, (b) Specter said a lot of things they didn’t like, and (c) apparently, there are a LOT of things they don’t like.... What DO they like? Um, “tort reform!” But we’ll get to that later.

The Format: 30 people asked questions. There was no “lining up at the microphones”; instead, 30 people were issued numbers as they entered (like at a deli counter). Nobody I talked to (including the ones who got the numbers) seemed to know how they picked who got the numbers, but there was at least somewhat of a mix of people with different views, so I don’t think there was any conspiracy going on.

Specter’s Opening Statement: He said he’d been doing these townhalls for “decades,” that he knew we were going through difficult times with the economy, and that there was a lot of anger about “what’s going on in D.C.” He mentioned several important issues, ending with healthcare, reminding the audience that there is a House bill that’s been through 5 committees so far but no Senate bill yet. He talked about the need for more preventative medicine as a way to keeping people healthier and reducing medical costs, and made an awkward word choice when he said he’d like to see women “catch” breast cancer at an early age.” (I think he meant “detect.”)

The Questions: (The 17 Red questions were from conservatives, the 6 Blue questions were from liberals/progressives, and the 7 Black questions were from people who seemed basically neutral.)
Question #1: How does U.S. healthcare compare to other countries? And what is the prognosis for our system if we don’t reform?
Specter said we compare “very favorably” to other countries [whaaat--?], suggesting that we have lots of technology and have good cancer survival rates in a few cases. He said the “prognosis” is that costs will get out of control if we don’t reform. People need to change their lifestyles, and get earlier tests, etc., etc.

Question #2: A prospective medical student complained that she might not get into med school because schools were being encouraged (through federal funding incentives) to admit more underrepresented minorities. Also, the schools were being pressured to enroll doctors who would go work in underserved areas [implying that she was not a minority, and did not want to work in an underserved area]. She asked why government was allowed to control medical schools.
Specter basically said that these things shouldn’t be “controlled” by government, but they should certainly be considered and encouraged, particularly sending doctors to underserved areas (like Scranton!).

Question #3: A woman was concerned that healthcare bill was being “pushed through” too fast, and told Specter that the “two ways” to control costs were to enact tort reform and to “let the insurance companies offer different plans that cover different things.” (???)
He agreed with the first point and bragged that the Senate had “slowed things down.” He said that Obama wanted it passed in July, and didn’t get that, but that Obama understands how the Senate works since he used to be a Senator. [This got a really strange outburst of booing, which Specter actually commented on, because it wasn’t clear why he would get booed for saying Obama used to be a Senator. One person yelled, “We didn’t vote for him!” which seemed like a non-sequitir.] He said that torts have improved, but there hasn’t been a bill because there hasn’t been any big push for it. He repeated again that if everyone had an annual medical exam, costs would go down.

Question #4: A doctor who used to live in Canada told a long, rambling story and then asked where the money for healthcare reform would come from. Also, claimed that “page 16” of the House bill said it would “funnel everyone into a public system.”
Specter repeated his standard lines about how he would not vote for a bill that increased the deficit, and that no Senate bill had been decided on yet.

Question #5: A woman with a T-shirt showing a donkey kicking a map of the U.S., and with many pre-existing conditions including lupus, claimed that “section 123” of the House bill said that “a government bureaucrat with better insurance than what she has” would get to decide whether she lived or died, and her question was who would take care of her kids when she was dead.
[This was one of Specter’s better answers.] He jumped on her comment about “the bureaucrat with better health insurance” to say that the whole point of what they were trying to do was to get her “the same health insurance that I have.” He talked about how Senators get to choose from a slate of health plans and that everyone should have that choice.

Question #6: A woman said she was concerned that the administration had not yet “gone through and cut things out of the budget” [not strictly true, but ok] and they were spending too much new money, like in the “Cash For Clunkers” program, and that Obama had hired too many “czars” that we were paying for. Her question was, why doesn’t Congress do something about him?
Specter said that Congress did have some control, because he couldn’t spend any m money without them appropriating it. He promised to “count how many czars” Obama had and get back to her on that.

Question #7: A woman asked if he would support a renewable energy bill, and strengthen renewable energy.
He said he was all in favor of renewable energy, and that the stimulus bill he voted for included $80 billion to develop renewable energy sources.

Question #8: The owner of the Pineapple Inn opened with a quote from Goebbels (Hitler’s propaganda minister) as a way of comparing the current administration to Nazi Germany. Eventually, he asked when the government was going to cut their spending.
Specter said he supported the Balanced Budget Amendment, and that Obama has pledged that healthcare reform will pay for itself and not add to the deficit. He then rambled a little bit about other ways the government could save money.

Question #9: A student said that cancer ran in his family, and that he was worried about his family members “waiting in line” too long for cancer treatments, and that the government, not doctors, would decide who lived or died.
Specter said that doctors should decide if you need treatment and that NO ONE should decide whether you live or die. [I wish he would have pointed out that currently, insurance companies do make that decision for some people.] He then rambled a little bit about “what he wanted” was better treatments to save lives, and how the NIH (“the crown jewel of our government, maybe the only one”) was responsible for so many of our current treatments.

Question #10: A woman clutching a copy of a book on Jefferson said she was “scared” that we were “losing our freedoms” and that healthcare reform wasn’t about healthcare at all but just a way to lead us all down the path toward socialism.
Specter said his whole career, he has fought for constitutional freedoms: he fought to oppose warrantless wiretapping [which got booed with shouts of “warrants take too long!” which seemed hilarious to me at first, and then disturbing], and to protect the right to counsel.

Question #11: A woman who had obviously been watching a lot of Fox News said that the healthcare bill “scared her,” that it would let the government withdraw money from people’s bank accounts, and that there would be “end of life planning.”
Specter frustratingly declined to debunk any of this nonsense and instead just reiterated that “no one should make life or death decisions for you.”

Question #12: A man claimed to be reading from some section of the House healthcare bill, said it would increase debt, and asked where the money would come from.
Specter gave his standard answer about how the man was quoting the House bill, and that it wasn’t a law yet.

Question #13: A young man (with a backwards baseball cap) said that the government had “failed” at so many things, like the Cash For Clunkers program (???) and that he didn’t want to have to tell his children that he stood by and let the country go into debt.
Specter took issue with the assertion that the government “failed” at everything, there was some back-and-forth argument about Cash For Clunkers, and I got bored and stopped taking notes.

Question #14: A young woman said she appreciated that Specter (in Question #11) had said he was against “health panels” making decisions for people and against the government transferring money out of people’s bank accounts. She asked him to clarify whether he wanted to “require” people to have annual health exams, because she didn’t think Amish people should have to. [To be fair, this was actually a more reasonable question than I’m making it sound here.]
Specter said no, they shouldn’t be required, but we should encourage people to get annual exams. This got a lot of applause from the non-conservatives in the audience, which seemed to temporarily confuse the conservatives.

Question #15: A man asked whether Specter supported the Employee Free Choice Act.
Specter said he thought they should maintain the secret ballot (so, in other words, no). He said something wonky about a second provision on arbitration (and the “last best offer” approach) that I didn’t understand.

Question #16: A young man complained about the deficit, all the bailouts, TARP, and how Obama had promised not to hire lobbyists but the assistant treasury secretary was a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs). [This is actually a good point that bugs me, too.] He asked why “[his] generation” should have to pay for what’s going on.
Specter pointed out that TARP and some of the other bailouts were under President Bush (which prompted a lot of confused, angry booing and the sound of heads exploding). He repeated his line about how he wouldn’t vote for a healthcare bill that added to the deficit.

Question #17: A young man with a libertarian T-shirt asked Specter if he supported Bernie Sanders (I-VT)’s bill to start auditing the Federal Reserve. [I completely agree with this.]
Specter said yes, that government agencies should always be accountable.

Question #18: A woman said she worried that the healthcare bill was being “pushed through” too quickly. She then made a bizarre logical claim that she had read the House bill, and that it didn’t say anything about abortion, and therefore it must be saying that abortions are “okay.”
Specter repeated his bragging that the Senate had “slowed the bill down.” To the second point, he said he realized that some people didn’t want their money going to fund abortions, and so there was a proposal to let people choose whether they wanted a health plan that paid for abortions vs. one that didn’t.

Question #19: A man claimed that the House bill said that illegal immigrants would get healthcare, and that they would be counted in the census (“to give them benefits!”).
Specter said, no, he wouldn’t support covering illegal immigrants.

Question #20: A man said he was “sick of you people in Washington” and wanted to know where our border fence was.
Specter said they had appropriated money for a 750(?)-mile border fence, and that it was under construction. [This prompted one shout from a man who said “it was supposed to be 92,008 miles long!” which made me question his grasp of geography.]

Question #21: A cardiologist from Geisinger told a story about a 47-year old man he’d just treated who had gotten insurance through his wife, until she lost her job, and then needed a catheterization and bypass surgery without insurance. [Unfortunately he went on a little long and got lots of people shouting out for him to get to the question.] He asked Specter to support universal health insurance, and also (referring to Question #2) sending more doctors to underserved areas.
Specter said unequivocally (!) that he supported universal health insurance, and that he also agreed we needed to send more doctors to underserved areas.

Question #22: A man said he was concerned about global warming [which brought lots of rude shouting, including people saying “no such thing!”], and asked Specter if he supported a cap on carbon emissions.
Specter said he will support a carbon cap bill, that they just needed to work on how it would be paid for.

Question #23: A man said that the deficit was a concern, but that the one place where we could afford to cut spending was the military, and that we had spent $3-5 trillion on an unjustified war in Iraq. [This prompted the worst cacophony of booing of the afternoon; at one point, some people started chanting, “Support our troops!” but luckily it didn’t really catch on.] He asked Specter when Congress would realize that we could stop wasting money by ending the Iraq War.
Specter gave a textbook answer about how “if we had known Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, we’d never have gone in,” that we were on our way out now, and that Iraqis were ready to stand up for themselves. [Gee, we’ve never heard that before.] He said we need to be “very cautious” about cutting military spending because “we still live in a dangerous world” with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., etc. Overall, this was a very disappointing Republican answer.

Question #24: A woman said she was a nurse, and a Christian, and against abortion. She said she worried the healthcare bill “removed the conscience clause, and allowed partial birth abortion.” She challenged Specter to define the conscience clause, and partial birth abortion, and state his position on them.
Specter correctly defined both things, then said he had voted against partial birth abortion in the past.

Question #25: A man said he was all in favor of solar and wind energy, but where did Specter stand on nuclear energy? [This prompted lots of “yeahs” from conservatives who apparently love nuclear power now. I’m just guessing that they probably love it more when it’s in someone else’s backyard than theirs...]
He said he supported it, that “the days of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were over” and that it was safe. (This reminded me a lot of Alan Alda in the last season of The West Wing....)

Question #26: One of our CSCC members, LK, asked Specter whether he had heard any Christian groups expressing concern for the suffering of poor people who can’t get access to healthcare.
Specter said yes he had. [Unfortunately, I think this was intended to be a 2-part question, but the senator moved on before we got to hear the second part.]

Question #27: A man asked a confusing question about whether the public option would be “like Medicare and Medicaid.” [It wasn’t clear whether he wanted them to be alike, or not.]
Specter said he hoped they’d be “better” than Medicare. [Great Republican pandering there, Arlen.] There was some confusing back-and-forth with the questioner, but eventually he said the public option would be “like a private entity,” but public, and not run for profit.

Question #28: The executive director of the Susquehanna Valley Community Education Council (I think I have that right) asked Specter whether he supported the current initiatives to start more community colleges in Pennsylvania.
Specter didn’t answer directly, but said that he supported community colleges (in general) and had backed them in the past.

Question #29: One of our CSCC members, NC, told a story about a friend who had lost her job, applied for private insurance through Geisinger, went for the physical exam they required, and was told she was uninsurable because she was obese. [This was a great story, because it drew gasps and confused the conservatives who didn’t want “the government” telling them how to live, but suddenly were faced with an example of an insurance company telling someone they were too fat. I think I heard some heads exploding in the back...] She then asked Specter if he could name “the top 3 myths” about healthcare being perpetuated on the radio and TV, and tell us the truth about them.
Specter said that under healthcare reform, her friend would be able to get health insurance. He ignored (or forgot about) the question part of the question.

Question #30: A man said he was an army veteran [which got a standing ovation]. He wanted to know if Specter would “put in for” a bill that would basically give him free healthcare. He complained that he “went to the doctor the other day and had to pay $50 for a test.” He also asked Specter, “did you read the [healthcare] bill?”
Specter said he was a veteran too, told a story about WWI veterans, and said he’s always supported broader coverage for veterans. He talked about how he had meetings coming up in the next few weeks with Gen. Shinsheki and Secretary Sebelius [whose name prompted a lot of booing and shouting] to work on improving the VA hospitals.

And then, just like that, he was gone....


Closing Thoughts: While the conservatives probably outnumbered the non-conservatives in the audience, it was gratifying that, whenever one of them shouted something out (which happened a LOT), they got shushed by the people sitting around them (some of whom, I suspect were conservatives themselves). Although a lot of people were yelling, to any moderate person sitting in the audience, I can only hope that they came off as rude and not particularly sympathetic. I was also gratified to see Specter generally poking fun at the shouters, and he seemed genuinely pleased when the Democrats in the audience would applaud him for something.
I was just constantly amazed by the cognitive dissonance on display. I wanted to ask these people—who were suddenly SO concerned about the deficit—where they’d been for the last 8 years when Bush was cutting taxes and sending us to war at the same time. I wanted to tell the veteran who was asking for free healthcare for himself that we all just wanted what he wanted. I wanted to tell the people who kept yelling at Specter, “Read the Bill!” that maybe they should read the bill and not a Fox News blog’s summary of it. Most of all, I just wanted to tell people not to be so scared. Because I think that’s what people truly are—partly scared of the black man in the White House, but partly just scared by the horror stories pounded into their brains by the right-wing media (and sometimes the rest of the media, too). I really wish there was something CSCC could do, not just to reach out to each other, but to help these people to not be so scared of government, of Obama, and of us “liberal Democrats.” To help them see that we want many of the things they want. To help them realize that Fox News and talk radio are not “news,” that they have an agenda, and that they are basically hoodwinking them into yelling at other citizens in an attempt to protect the interests of the type of people who own Fox News and radio stations. I think it’s part of our mission not to give up on these people.

Sen. Specter Packs the Hall at Bucknell

Not only did Sen. Specter pack Trout Auditorium, there was also standing room only for the simulcast in the Langone Center (where I was). The Williamsport Tea Baggers were out in force, but there were also plenty of pro-reform, pro-Obama people there as well. I heard that 25 of the 30 questions had a slant to the right (I didn't hear them all myself.) A typical question was What are you going to do to protect freedom and keep us from falling into total socialism?

In terms of policy clues from the senator's comments, he said that he wouldn't vote for any bill that adds to the deficit, and that he would like to see universal health coverage.

He didn't offer much insight into how to do both at once. He distanced himself from the House plan, and said that he wouldn't vote for any bill that included stuff like that. Given that the CBO estimates a cost of 1 trillion dollars over 10 years for the current House plan, it will have to change a great deal to get Sen. Specter's support, I gather.

When asked about whether doctors or bureaucrats should decide who lives or dies, he said that doctors should make the medical decisions, but that neither doctors nor bureacrats should get to decide who lives and dies. (I think he repeated that answer three times as the questioner repeated the question.)

I was surprised how a good part of the audience laughed derisively when a questioner stated that global warming is real and caused by human burning of fossil fuels. Clearly, these voters aren't having any of it, so there's no real ground to have a conversation about how to address the problem.

He suggested that there would be a health plan that covers abortions and one that doesn't--for those who don't want to pay into a plan that covers abortion. That didn't go over well, at least as I read the crowd response. Several questions came from young people asking why they should have to pay for the deficit that this generation is running up.

Any other impressions, comments, or ideas? Apparently, those first in line got first chance to ask a question. Overall, I was impressed by Arlen Specter's willingness to hold town halls and face the voters. There's obviously some good reasons why he's in politics.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

RNC Survey (Part 2)

[See my previous post for an explanation of where these survey questions came from.... -JG]

Question #4: Do you believe it is right for the federal government to use age and life expectancy as criteria for determining access to health care?
Yes
No
Undecided
Um, we do that now, by limiting Medicare access to only people over 65. And since access and affordability go hand-in-hand, those people have access. The rest of us are on our own. Is that right?

Question #5: Estimates show that the Democrats’ plan could cost more than $1.7 trillion dollars. Do you believe that America can afford this added debt when the deficit has already reached record levels?
Yes
No
Undecided

First of all, the CBO report just came out that the latest bill is $1 trillion, not $1.7. Second of all, just because something costs $X that doesn't mean that it automatically creates $X of "added debt." (Well, I guess unless you belong to a group who believes that the government should never raise revenue and should borrow money for everything. Hmm, that does sound kind of familiar. I think their group's name starts with an "R.") In fact, the bill is designed with revenue streams to pay for itself. Third of all, I wonder who we have to thank for the deficit having "already reached record levels." I think their group's name also starts with an "R."

Question #6: If you have private insurance, please rate your level of satisfaction with your coverage.
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
N/A
This is one of those genuinely complex issues. "If you have private insurance," then yes, you may be relatively happy with it. But as I pointed out in an earlier post on this blog, people with Medicare are happy with that, too (maybe happier than you). And if you're one of the people that has to answer "N/A" to this question, well, you're in trouble.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Some reading on health care reform options

Here's a selection of commentary from Robert Reich, Dean Baker, and others from the NYT:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/should-the-rich-pay-for-the-uninsured/


And if you haven't seen it, here's Walter Brasch on Prescribing Cake for the Health Care Crisis:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Prescribing-Cake-to-Cure-t-by-Brasch-090720-273.html

My reading is that the final bill will "pay" for reform in one of two ways: either by taxing excessive health care benefits or by some kind of surtax on superearners (over $500,000 per year or so). The latter option seems to be preferred right now, but it's going to be a long process. Dean Baker's anaylsis--that the projected health care reform deficit amounts to .15% of GDP while the military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan is 1%--puts the issue in proper perspective. But, of course, we still haven't gotten at the problems with long-term Medicare and Medicaid (which are much more difficult than the long-term problems with Social Security). But let's tackle one mountain at a time, shall we?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

RNC Survey (Part 1)

I somehow ended up on a mailing list for the Republican National Committee (RNC) and so I get regular email updates from their chairman, Michael Steele. Usually, I don't read the emails, but this week they invited everyone to take a "Future of American Healthcare Survey." This poll is mostly an excuse to get you to click on a link where they can ask you to donate $$. (And to be fair, I've gotten plenty of the same type of surveys from the Democratic Party, and I find them kind of annoying as well.)

However, it bothers me (though I guess it doesn't surprise me) how each question is carefully phrased to deliver a talking point, and most questions don't actually give you the option of answering in a way that would oppose that talking point. I thought it might be a useful exercise to go through the poll and discuss each point. I hope that others will add their comments. Here are the first 3 questions (there were 12 total).

"Future of American Health Care Survey" by the RNC
Question #1: Do you believe that the state of America’s health care system is in crisis?
Yes
No
Undecided

There's some good, recent (June '09) Pew Research Polling data on this general issue here. My sense is that most people recognize there's a problem with the current system that affects them or someone they know. At the same time, people who can afford good coverage are probably afraid of what "change" might mean. Still, even among Republicans, I think everyone senses that healthcare is getting unsustainably expensive--for everybody--and something has to be done about that. I bet they'll get a lot of "Yes"'s on this question.

Question #2. What is your biggest concern regarding health care in America as it is today?
Cost
Quality
Availability
Other: ___

I expect this is an easy question for someone without insurance: they would choose "availability," while those with insurance will probably choose something else. I expect there will be a lot of people choosing "Cost" here. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Question #3. Do you believe that your health care decisions should be made by you and your doctor, and not government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.?
Yes
No
Undecided

Dear RNC: I would love for my health care decisions to be made by me and my doctor. And if I had unlimited cash to spend, then decisions would always be made by me & whatever doctor I wanted. But when a third party (of any kind) is paying our bill, they get a say, too. And that third party is either going to be a private insurance company or a public entity. (Or a very rich uncle.) So this question should really ask whether decisions should be made by a private or public entity. I think, at the very least, you would get different answers to your question.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Surprise! Medicare Ranks High in Consumer Satisfaction

CSCC is considering partnering with a local university to co-sponsor a poll of the PA-10 District about healthcare reform and a "public option" for health insurance. The results, regardless of what they show, would be published for all to see and shared with our local lawmakers.

This article from the National Journal Online is definitely worth reading, and may be important in informing the type of poll we want to do. It shows two important things:
  • When asked if they support "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans," 62% of Americans supported that. Describing the plan as "government administered" and "similar to Medicare" resulted in even more positive reactions: 67% and 72% support in two other polls.
  • Even more encouraging is the data from the Dept. of Health & Human Service's CAHPS survey which gauges consumer satisfaction with their current health insurance. 51-60% of people who have government insurance (Medicare or Medicaid) give their health plan a 9 or 10 rating (out of 10), whereas only 40% of people with private insurance do. What's driving this difference is that Medicare patients perceive they have better access to care, with 70% saying they "always" get access to needed care (vs. only 51% of those with private insurance).

I think the people arguing that "Americans are afraid of government-run health insurance" don't want us to look at this type of information. So take a look. And if you favor a public option, make sure your representatives know it.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

PA Healthcare Statistics

(This is taken from HealthReform.gov, with just a little editing by me, but I thought this was an appropriate forum for repeating the information. Hopefully, some of these facts may be useful to people when writing Carney, Casey and Specter to keep the pressure on them for meaningful healthcare reform.

The two items that I put in bold below highlight why having a public option is such a critical component. The issue is that the free market is not offering consumers a wide array of marketplace choices; two companies basically control the insurance market in PA. Instituting a public option that would be available everywhere would break that stranglehold and lead to real choice and competition.)

-JG)

PENNSYLVANIANS CAN’T AFFORD THE STATUS QUO
  • Roughly 7.9 million people in Pennsylvania get health insurance on the job[1], where family premiums average $13,646, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.[2]
  • Since 2000 alone, average family premiums have increased by 103 percent in Pennsylvania.[3]
  • Household budgets are strained by high costs: 19 percent of middle-income Pennsylvania families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care.[4]
  • High costs block access to care: 10 percent of people in Pennsylvania report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.[5]
  • Pennsylvania businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $900 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.[6]

AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE IS INCREASINGLY OUT OF REACH IN PENNSYLVANIA

  • 10 percent of people in Pennsylvania are uninsured, and 65 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.[7]
  • The percent of Pennsylvanians with employer coverage is declining: from 71 to 64 percent between 2000 and 2007.[8]
  • Much of the decline is among workers in small businesses. While small businesses make up 71 percent of Pennsylvania businesses[9], only 51 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006 -- down 7 percent since 2000.[10]
  • Choice of health insurance is limited in Pennsylvania. Highmark and Independence Blue Cross alone constitute 72 percent of the health insurance market share in Pennsylvania.[11]
  • Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Pennsylvania, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely.

PENNSYLVANIANS NEED HIGHER QUALITY, GREATER VALUE, AND MORE PREVENTATIVE CARE

  • The overall quality of care in Pennsylvania is rated as “Average.”[12]
  • Preventative measures that could keep Pennsylvanians healthier and out of the hospital are deficient, leading to problems across the age spectrum: 15 percent of children in Pennsylvania are obese[13], 21% of women over the age of 50 in Pennsylvania have not received a mammogram in the past two years, 37% of men over the age of 50 in Pennsylvania have never had a colorectal cancer screening.[14]

The need for reform in Pennsylvania and across the country is clear. Pennsylvania families simply can’t afford the status quo and deserve better.

References:

  1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. HIA-4 Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State--All Persons: 1999 to 2007, 2007.
  2. Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2006, Table X.D.Projected 2009 premiums based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "National Health Expenditure Data," available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/.
  3. Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2000, Table II.D.1.Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2006, Table X.D.Projected 2009 premiums based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "National Health Expenditure Data," available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/.
  4. Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006.
  5. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.
  6. Furnas, B., Harbage, P. (2009). "The Cost Shift from the Uninsured." Center for American Progress.
  7. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Annual Social and Economic Supplements, March 2007 and 2008.
  8. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. HIA-4 Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by State--All Persons: 1999 to 2007, 2007.
  9. Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2006, Table II.A.1a.
  10. Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component, 2001, 2006, Table II.A.2.
  11. Health Care for America Now. (2009). "Premiums Soaring in Consolidated Health Insurance Market." Health Care for America Now.
  12. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. 2007 State Snapshots. Available http://statesnapshots.ahrq.gov/snaps07/index.jsp.
  13. Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health.
  14. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Tell Carney "No" to Healthcare Trigger

(This message originated from Moveon.Org, but Joe & I thought it was worth repeating here. I have edited it a tiny bit. -JG)

The Huffington Post is reporting that the Blue Dog Coaltion says it will "only support the public health care option as a fallback measure that would be triggered sometime down the road." If you're following the current healthcare reform debate, you know that a "trigger" means the creation of a public health insurance option would be delayed for years until certain criteria were met. This is a bad idea, and threatens to undermine any real "reform" by ensuring that it "may happen someday, but not now."

President Obama and 73% of Americans think every American should have a choice between keeping their insurance or opting into a quality public health insurance plan. But the concern is that the Blue Dog Coalition and Rep. Carney seem to be siding instead with Republicans and the insurance industry over the voters.

Please call Rep. Carney, and tell him: "We need a public health insurance option immediately. The 'trigger' plan is unacceptable."

The public health insurance option would allow you to keep your current insurance, if you like, or switch to a public health insurance plan. In the absence of "single-payor" reform, it's the key to lowering costs and making sure all of us have guaranteed access to health care. But some Blue Dogs, like Newt Gingrich said the other day, seem to be more concerned that "a public option stacks the deck" against insurance companies than actually being concerned about Americans' healthcare. Don't be fooled: The trigger proposal is an attempt to defeat the public health insurance option. It would delay a public health insurance option for years. But we know there's already a crisis: high costs, millions of uninsured, and a lack of choice for all of us. We cannot afford to wait. Please call right now.

Sources:
1. "Blue Dogs Backsliding on Health Care," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51485&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=4
2. Ibid.
3. "Fixing Health Care Does Not Require a 'Bi-Partisan' Bill—It Does Require a Public Health Insurance Option," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51486&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=5
4. "Blue Dogs Backsliding On Health Care," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51485&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=6

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

A Unifying Issue: Save PA's Parks

I don't for a moment believe that the state will close R. B. Winter State Park. I do think it's a sign of dysfunctional politics in this state that DCNR put it on a list for possible closure and that the Daily Item put the story on the top of page 1. The park reportedly gets 140,000 visits per year and is a very important recreational destination for the entire region. If any issue could unify citizens across the political spectrum (with the possible exception of a certain branch of libertarians) it's this one.

Given the looming budget problems, we are sure to see more political posturing and testing. The knee-jerk response is to say, "Hey, don't touch my park." A more political savvy response is to ask our politicians why they are forcing DCNR to make such radical proposals that alarm the public. Where are the political leaders to talk to us about what options are available and to plan for the future?

For example, we might start talking about some of these ideas: instituting user fees, changing the way some of the less-used state parks are managed, cutting some park services, figuring out how to raise donations in support of the park system (is there a state park endowment?). We might also reprioritize some new spending to maintain what we have. But the idea that it's a good idea to close an important place for low-cost family entertainment in the midst of recession, a park that is our legacy from past generations--that's just asinine, and everybody knows it.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Arlen Specter is Really a Democrat!

Nate Silver looks at Specter's voting record since nominally converting to the Democratic Party, and, surprise, he's not doing too bad. He's voted with the Democrats 10 out of 15 times, not up to Casey's rate (14 out of 15), but well above supposed Democrats Evan Bayh (8 out of 14) and Ben Nelson (7 out of 15).

I'm still in favor of a strong primary challenge, if for no other reason to keep some pressure on Specter to play nice with the Democrats.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Gillibrand supports public option

Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to the senate with a background of being a centerish Democrat. In principle, this was a shame, because the seat from NY would be pretty safe for a genuine progressive, so it was a lost opportunity. However, there was some speculation that maybe she'd tack to the left once she was representing the whole state rather than her centerish district.

It appears that she has. On Monday she came out forcefully in favor of a public option on the healthcare initiative, using the effective and accurate phrase "Medicare for all."

Good for her, and good for us.

Monday, May 4, 2009

CSCC Healthcare Event ***This Thursday***

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CSCC Healthcare Event This Thursday, May 7 @ 7:00pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Central Susquehanna Citizens Coalition will present a public forum titled "Re-Imagining Healthcare in PA: The Next Five Years and Beyond" on this Thursday, May 7 at 7:00pm at the Union County Government Center located at 155 N 15th St., Lewisburg. A panel of five healthcare professionals will present their perspectives on the current state of healthcare in Pennsylvania, its challenges, and proposed solutions for the future, to be followed by interactive discussion with the audience. No tickets are necessary; this event is free and open to the public.

The panel will feature five distinguished healthcare professionals from across Pennsylvania. Allison Clark is the Executive Director of ACTION Health, a collaborative partnership among six hospitals in the Central Susquehanna Valley that provides community health outreach and education. Jill Fecker is the Community Liaison for A Community Clinic, Inc., a non-profit agency that assists the uninsured population gain access to high quality healthcare through a network of volunteer physicians and services provided by area hospitals. Chuck Pennacchio is the Executive Director of Healthcare for All Pennsylvania, anorganization founded to educate the public and government officials in support of legislation that achieves comprehensive and fair healthcare coverage for everyone in Pennsylvania through a single-payer system. Andrew Sandusky is the Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the Pennsylvania Academy of Family Physicians, a group that supports family physicians through advocacy and education to ensure a patient-centered physician-coordinated medical home for residents of PA. Amy Wolaver, Assistant Professor of Economics at Bucknell University, is a leader in the field of employer-provided health insurance policy research and teaches courses in health policy and health economics.


The format of the panel discussion will be 10-minute presentations by each of the five panelists, followed by over 30 minutes of interactive discussion where audience members are encouraged to ask questions and participate in the conversation.

For more information,
click here for our press release, or call 523-0659. Please spread the word, and we hope to see you there!

Thoughts on the 2010 Senate Primary

I understand Pres. Obama's decision to welcome Arlen Specter into the Democratic Party. And I would have no problem with a promise from the president to support him in the Senate election if he is the nominee of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, that's not what the president said. He promised to support him and raise money for him in the primary, and all appearances indicate that Gov. Rendell will do so as well. What happened to small d democracy? Or is this just how politics works?

The whole argument of the Obama campaign was that the voters ought to make decisions--not some party machine. It's up to us to remind the voters to make up their own minds--no matter what the party leaders may say. In a campaign between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey, I would have no trouble supporting Arlen Specter, but I wouldn't mind having another choice. In fact, I looking for a progressive alternative in the Democratic primary about a year from now.



Comments elsewhere:

DailyKos

Open Left

Friday, April 24, 2009

MoveOn Torture Petition

In case you want to sign the petition demanding investigation of alleged torture.

Check out this powerful video about the campaign, and sign the petition, at this link: http://pol.moveon.org/investigate

Monday, April 20, 2009

Pretty Coherent Summing up of Tea Party 09

Devil's Tower says it much better than I could.

The teabaggers were mostly the next iteration of the off-the-reservation and pissed at someone voters who propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Link.

Friday, April 17, 2009

TEA Day protester saved by hand she is biting

Jim Buck gets all the credit:

Woman okay after falling into Susquehanna River
A quiet, solo protest against massive federal government spending ended in a city woman being rescued from the cold waters of the Susquehanna River on Wednesday morning.
Joanne Millard, 68, a resident at Riverfront Apartments, slipped on a rock and then fell into the water while dumping tea leaves from a plastic bag into the river to protest the recent trillions of dollars in government spending.


The sender says:
Jordi,
Tax protester falls in river and must be rescued by govt. she doesn't want to pay for. Thought you might want to post this at Daily Kos or something :)

Well, I got as far as this blog.

Democratic Underground already found it.