After such a hard news day on healthcare with Reid apparently deciding to return to reform in September and the House waivering on when to act I thought good news should be highlighted ! ....
Obama gave a great town hall in OH today. MSM is not covering it much as they are distracted, but this event was full of passion with real folks telling their stories and Obama responding to their concerns. This is what he must do until this bill passes, esp. if there is a recess coming. Please watch it and rec it. fwd it on.
CPC issued a letter last night warning the Hill-if they screw the pub opt and the tri cmte orig proposal they wont help pass it. AND TONIGHT CBC ISSUES LETTER TO THE HILL W/A LIST OF PROGRESSIVE DEMANDS FOR THE BILL. See links below.
Also HCAN and AFSCME are launching waves of new ads-some you have seen before in 08 crucial races. They are about denial of coverage for pre-existing conditons. They are targeted at 7 GOPers who have posion pills planned for the final bill. Hopefully HCAN will move to Blue Dogs shortly. See press release and ads here also.
Pelosi talked to Ezra and her words are clear on reform. She is determined to pass this w/pub opt etc intact.. Vid from Sen Gillibrand and comment from Sen Cantwell also bring good news. And ECC likely to resume markup Sat. So we keep up the calls and fight-setbacks be damned. There is good going on!
----
Obama gave an energetic, inspired delivery today at a town hall for healthcare reform in Ohio. He needs to do more of these with real hurting Americans. Right before Obama spoke a Teamster gave an emotional talk about how his family lost their coverage. Having real folks ask the President questions is more insightful than a stuffy press conference. A shame that msm got absorbed by Obama's comment on Cambriidge last night. This town hall deserves more attention so spread it around! Parts 1-2:
CPC last night issued an open letter to Obama and the Congress with a threat: the bill must have an open access public option and must be similiar to what the tri cmte proposed. Read it here:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/...
CBC issues letter tonight demanding blue dogs not screw with programs essential to minorities. And yeah they got a list of what must be in that bill!-
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
In recent days, some within the Democratic Caucus have raised spurious claims that the cost of reforming health care in America is something our nation cannot afford. If we fail to act now, we do so at the peril of the American people .... Thus, we must act and we must – per the request of President Obama – act quickly, yet thoughtfully because the quality of life of millions of Americans and the health of our economy hang in the balance.
We are very concerned about the current negotiations and feel that it is necessary to restate our strong position on several issues and provisions going forward....
We are very concerned about the current negotiations and feel that it is necessary to restate our strong position on several issues and provisions going forward. In addition to ensuring that a strong public option remains intact, we also strongly support the following:
- We must continue to work within the timeline to which we already agreed.
- The Tri Com bill is budget neutral and we are concerned that efforts to cut more costs would mean cutting the vital services, like prevention and comparative effectiveness or disproportionate share.
- A previous letter also signed by the CHC and CAPAC included requests for health disparity provisions included in specific titles in H.R. 3090 to be included in the bill and we stand firmly behind that request.
- The children's health, prevention services and mental health and substance abuse provisions we also consider to be critical provisions in the bill and should not be compromised.
- Our hospitals depend on DSH payments and should not be cut in search of pay-fors that are not needed.
- Whether CBO agrees to score or not, we know that savings will come from many of the provisions of the bill. We strongly recommend a trigger that would allow these savings once realized be used to replace current pay-fors and/or add important services not now accepted because of our failure to fully score the bill.
http://www.politico.com/...
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/...
TV Ads Expose Votes Against Reform
As Votes For Insurance Companies
Saying No to Reform Means Saying
Yes to Denials for Pre-Existing Conditions
Watch the ads here: HealthcareforAmericaNow.org/Fighter
Washington, DC – On the heels of President Obama’s prime time press conference and continued push for comprehensive health care reform, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) have launched a $500,000 television advertising campaign in eight states targeting a Senator and seven members of Congress who oppose health care reform legislation. The ad points out that in voting against reform, the members of Congress would allow health insurance companies to continue to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions.
"Fighter" airs for five days starting today in Congressional districts represented by six Republican House members and one Republican Senator who voted against health care reform legislation last week: Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Representatives Dave Camp (MI-04), Pat Tiberi (OH-12), Mark E. Souder (IN-03), Dave G. Reichert (WA-08), Eric Cantor (VA-07) and Bill Cassidy (LA-06). HCAN is also running an ad against Arizona Representative John B. Shadegg (AZ-03) who has been the prime sponsor of legislation that would allow insurance companies to escape state regulation of denials for pre-existing conditions.
The "Fighter" ad proved effective last election cycle in educating people as to their candidates’ positions on health care. Health Care for America Now used the spot as part of a more than $3 million comprehensive campaign – which included TV, mail, and phone – in 6 Congressional districts and in New Hampshire. According to Lake Research Partners, the sophisticated campaign was extremely successful and "changed perceptions on health care had a significant impact on voter choice, increasing the margin for the pro-health care candidate by +13 points."
"Republicans intent on killing reform for political gain need to be held accountable for their actions," said Richard Kirsch, National Campaign Manager, Health Care for America Now. "Voting no on the House and H.E.L.P. bills is voting to let insurance companies continue to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. People need to know their elected officials are choosing to keep them trapped at the mercy of private health insurance companies to score political points in DC as opposed to doing what’s best for their constituents back home."
"These Republicans on Capitol Hill are fighting for the insurance industry, not the American people," said AFSCME International President Gerald W. McEntee. "We’re not going to let them get away with it. They are putting profits ahead of people, and the voters need to know it."
HCAN is striking at the Blue Dogs' actions:
Why do Blue Dogs want you and me to pay three times more than they do for health care?
Posted on July 23rd, 2009 by Jason Rosenbaum in Profits Before People
The Blue Dog negotiating list for health reform has been floating around for days now. Here's the list:
–Effectively bend the cost curve
–Realign incentives to reward high quality, efficient health care; include value-based purchasing, value index, innovation center for Medicare and Medicaid, and other delivery system reforms
–Increase small business exemption and adjust for inflation
–Address end-of-life care
–Adjust the value and cost of subsidy levels
– Provide affordability credits on a sliding scale from 100-300 percent FPL
– Public option must negotiate rates with providers, provide greater clarity on opt out, compete on a level playing field, and be available as a fallback
–Establish consumer-driven, state-based co-ops
–Create state-based exchanges with a federal fallback
–Maintain current state-federal partnership with Medicaid, while implementing reforms that increase its value and effectiveness
I've emphasized the two in the middle, because those are the two we hear are highest on the Blue Dog list right now. They are also the ones that cut to the heart of health reform. In short, the Blue Dogs want to keep health care unaffordable for you and your family.
Right now, the House bill protects families up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The Blue Dogs want to cut that back to 300%. That would cut millions of people out and leave them on their own, paying full price for health care.
What's full price?
The average family health care plan costs $12,680 per year, which comes out to $1,056 per month. For someone making 350% FPL, that's 16% of their income going to health care costs. Meanwhile, Blue Dogs - who get health care paid for by you and me through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan - pay an average of just $357 per month [pdf] for health care, or $4,284 per year. They pay three times less, and they make $174,000 per year.
That's just not fair, and more importantly, Blue Dogs want to weaken the main goal of health care reform - to make it truly affordable to families.
Instead of asking families to pay huge portions of their income for health care costs, they should agree with leaders in the House and ask those in our society who can most afford it - those families making over $350,000 per year - to chip in their fair share by starting to roll back the tax breaks the wealthy got under George Bush.
To do any less would be to deny the crisis going on Blue Dog districts, where health care is unaffordable and uninsurance rates are sky high. It would be a dereliction of duty, it would keep health care out of reach for millions of families, and it would be shockingly unfair.
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow....
HCAN/Dean/FDL are pushing for answers from senators on a pub option that meets this critieria:
-Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
-Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
-Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
-Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?
Sen Gillibrand, who was endorsed by Howard Dean for her strong stance on a medicare public option has this to say:
Sen Cantwell has responded in favor of a strong public option with medicare like negotiating ability:
Senator Cantwell from Washington has also sent a letter back to a constituent, answering three out of four questions. Here is the relevent paragraph:
Let me be clear: a public option needs to be part of health care reform. I am pushing for a public option that will keep insurance companies honest by competing to drive down costs and improve quality nation-wide. This plan needs to be accountable to the people and must work to provide the best coverage for the best price.
She supports a national public option that can establish rates, thus providing the "best price" for health coverage.
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow....
I feel it important to note an interview nancy pelosi had with Ezra today on reform. She was very reassuring and is holding her ground on a pub option etc.. Key excerpts here:
Earlier today, in an interview with three reporters, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said health-care reform would pass the House and that it would include a public plan. She also said the Blue Dogs were basically resigned to this prospect, and that the Republicans "will do everything they can to stop it, not only because they disagree philosophically, but because they know politically that this is so very powerful" politically. The discussion was a bit disjointed for a straight transcript, but selected excerpts follow.
On the need for a public plan.
We have been very clear about the fundamentals. We do not see real, systemic change in the health-care system if there is not a robust public option. We see that as the way to quality, affordability, accessibility, and universality in health care. If someone has another way, show us, but until that time comes, this is the way we see it.
On the co-op compromise.
I think it might be something additional. I don't see it as an alternative to the public option.
On the Blue Dogs.
Some of the concerns the Blues have raised are concerns others have raised as well. The public option is going to happen. They recognize that. They may want to put it on their list of concerns about how it will work. But part of what this is is removing misconceptions. One of the misconceptions was that the public option would be funded by the federal government, wouldn't have to pay back its start-up costs. And that has never been the case. To be a competitor, it will have to be able to compete, be fiscally sound, and be responsible for its administrative costs. It will have advantages, but it has to compete.
On the Congressional Budget Office.
We do have to be fiscally responsible. We will live by the rules of the CBO. But it's also true that the CBO doesn't count things that we know will save money, like prevention, wellness and end-of-life issues. You don't need to be a congressional accountant to know those will save money. We are very confident that this bill will have savings, and many of them will not be counted by the CBO. But they will save money. Outside groups can document them. We will live by the rules so we are fiscally sound and all the rest. But that doesn't mean we won't have other provisions that save money, but won't be scored.
One last imp. quote from the Speaker:
Do you need more time?
You don't need more time. The time is now. People have been waiting so long for this. I had a friend who was getting married, I said "You're getting married, I didn't know about all this!" She said, "I need health benefits."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...
I bet msm didnt tell you this-House leaders may toss that bill to the floor and vote. Also Rep harman seems sure markup will resume Sat on ECC.
http://thehill.com/...