Archive for the ‘healthcare’ Category

Obama 3000 percent gaffe

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

At a rally promoting healthcare reform, Obama said that with the reform legislation that employers could see a 3000% reduction in premiums enabling them to give you a raise.

Well, the conservatives have flooded the internet with all sorts of comments about this gaffe, really believing that Obama meant to say 3000%.

It is obvious that he meant dollars.If you think he really meant percent, you are an idiot and an example of what is wrong in politics.

Just sayin…

It is not Teddy’s seat!

Friday, January 15th, 2010

The election over the open Massachusetts Senate seat is coming into the final stretch and it is closer than perhaps many people would have thought. Conventional wisdom would seem to favor the Democrat (Martha Coakley) but Massachusetts has elected Republicans in statewide elections before (Mitt Romney anyone?). I believe that all of the Governors between Dukakis and Patrick have been Republicans.

Democrats in that election are making one huge mistake and I fear it could be costing them votes, if not the election*. They are trying to paint the seat as “Teddy’s Senate Seat” and that we cannot let the Republicans take it away so they can kill healthcare reform.

The Democrats seem to forget that Ted Kennedy did not have very long coattails. Besides all the GOP governors who won while he was in the Senate, Kennedy also endorsed Obama in the primaries and Clinton took the seat. While Senator Kennedy may have been very popular in Massachusetts, it doesn’t seem that he was really ever able to share that popularity with others. So what makes the Democratic Party think that it will be able to do what Teddy Kennedy could never do, which is to use the luster of Teddy Kennedy to help others win in Massachusetts?

Furthermore, Massachusetts is a state that already has healthcare reform with  universal coverage. Telling them that they need to support a Democrat to help with healthcare reform for other people doesn’t seem very smart at all. Perhaps they should have focused on Cap and Trade, or the Employee Free Choice Act, or that he once voted to allow for religious exemptions so that pro-life doctors and nurses could deny access to the morning after pill for women in the ER. (They did put that vote in an ad, but that is not the focus of the campaign).

Instead of trying to label this as being “Teddy’s seat”, perhaps the Democrats should be claiming that this is the “people’s seat” and that only by supporting the Democratic Candidate in this election will you elect someone who will stand up and fight for the people of Massachusetts in Washington D.C.

Just sayin…

*I really do think Coakley will win, but I really think the Democrats are not fighting this election in the right way.

Mary Landrieu’s words in support of the healthcare bill.

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

I LOVE the line in response to Senator McCain. This is very important to read, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you reside.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I have served in public office for 30 years as a State Representative, State Treasurer and a U.S. Senator. But it doesn’t take 30 years of experience to know that our health care system is entirely too expensive and does not adequately cover enough Louisianians. From my visits with doctors and nurses, to seniors on Medicare to recent college graduates struggling to afford coverage, it is clear to me that reform now is essential. 

In Louisiana, the average family spends more than $12,000 each year for health insurance, or almost 100 percent of earnings from a full-time job paying minimum wage. Since 2000, the amount that working families are charged for health insurance has risen by 91 percent. And if Congress stood by and did nothing, those costs would nearly double in the next 6 years, with economists predicting that Louisiana’s families will pay a whopping $23,133 for insurance in 2016 – an 85 percent increase. To state that in a different way, that means that if we do nothing, the average family in my state will be paying 60 percent of their income for healthcare – leaving only 40 percent of their wages to cover food, education of children, housing, transportation and everything else. This is not unique to Louisiana – these skyrocketing costs are burdening families in every state in the union.

Small businesses are also struggling to remain competitive and to turn a profit. In the face of highly unstable, unpredictable health care costs this gets harder and harder. As Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, I have held 23 hearings and roundtables this year and several of them have been focused on how the current health care system and volatile health care costs are hurting the nation’s small businesses. Today, small businesses are seeing their health care costs increase faster than the prices of the products and services they sell – four times faster than the rate of inflation since 2001. Premiums for single policies increased by 74 percent for small businesses in the last eight years, according to a 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Nationally, 40 percent of small businesses say that health care costs have had a negative impact on other parts of their business.

Even though families, businesses and government budgets are being mercilessly squeezed by unsustainable health care costs, Senate Republicans are doing everything they can to preserve the status quo. Why? Each day, they find a new excuse for their obstruction. I wish they had put the same amount of passion, energy and creative thinking into contributing policy ideas to this debate as they have into their delaying tactics. Every amendment they offered was to send the bill backwards, not forwards. They were hellbent on defeating, not improving, this bill.

Senate Republicans have charged that we are rushing into voting for this bill. That is simply not true. We have been debating this issue for most of this year and on and off for the last 40 years.  

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt made national health insurance a plank in his party platform when he sought the presidency as a Bull-Moose Party candidate in 1912. President Harry Truman, in 1945 and then again in 1948, called on Congress to pass reform legislation that would expand quality health care coverage to more Americans. President Truman believed we needed a stronger system and that the federal government must play a role in establishing a more robust system of care. His critics called his approach “socialized medicine.” Sound familiar? Only in Washington would 87 years be considered rushing. 

Instead of coming to the table and working with Democrats to write a bipartisan health care reform bill, Republicans chose to put partisan politics first. Fabricating “death panels”, distorting Medicare cuts and undermining and disrespecting the role of government in protecting its citizens, they have engaged in a relentless misinformation campaign aimed solely at using fear to sway public opinion against this bill. Recently, Senator McCain has been claiming that the American people are opposed to reform and speaking about “the will of the majority.” I would remind my colleague from Arizona that the will of the majority was heard loud and clear last November.

While Republicans have tried to paint a picture of a nation opposed to health care reform, recent polls show otherwise and tell us a lot about the current “will of the majority.”  When we cut through all the misinformation and scare tactics and Americans hear what is in the bill, they overwhelmingly support it.  According to a recent CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans support expanding Medicaid to the poor.   That same poll showed providing subsidies for families that make up to $88,000 a year is favored by 67 percent of Americans.  Additional regulations on insurance companies, such as banning denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions are favored by 60 percent of the American people.   

A poll by the Mellman Group shows that this support exists in each state, as well.  In my own home state of Louisiana, when the provisions of the bill were actually read to voters, 57 percent of Louisianians supported the bill, with 43 percent strongly supporting reform.  And, most importantly, 62 pecent Louisianians oppose using the filibuster to stop health care reform.

            The American people elected President Obama to bring about change. A big part of the change President Obama and Democrats promised during the campaign was improving health care for all Americans. Thanks to the President’s leadership and the leadership of Senator Reid and many others, we are taking several meaningful steps toward fulfilling that promise.With the exception of our two colleagues from Maine, Republicans have failed to negotiate in good faith. I am disappointed that not a single Republican could support an end to the filibuster. I suppose it is easy to stay unified when the only word in your vocabulary is “NO”. Although Democrats did not initially agree on exactly how to get there, we were united in saying “YES” to the common goal of delivering meaningful health care reform to America’s families and small businesses. I do hold out hope that when we take our vote on final passage, they will recognize this historic opportunity and vote in favor of this bill that will reduce costs and increase access to health care for millions of Americans.

Last month, I stood here on the floor of the Senate to announce my intention to vote in favor of bringing Leader Reid’s melded bill to the floor. At the time, I was very clear that my vote was not an indication that I supported that particular version of the bill. My vote was to bring the bill to the floor so we could do the legislative work the American people sent us here to do. Through weeks of floor debate, amendments and round-the-clock negotiations, we have produced a health care bill that is significantly improved. 

            Through tough negotiations, Senate Democrats have developed a consensus that blends the best of private and public approaches to reduce cost, expand coverage and increase choice and competition for Americans, and have done so without a government-run public option. Since I continue to hear distortions from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and confusion from my constituents, let me be clear: There is no government-run public option in this bill. 

            Instead, we reached agreement on a provision to allow private health insurance plans to be sold nationwide. The Office of Personnel Management will negotiate lower premiums – just as they negotiate the plans currently available to Members of Congress. Importantly, we ensured that at least one non-profit plan will be offered in every state and that states cannot opt out of. These national plans will be available to every state in the nation, which is a monumental achievement and a reform asked for by my constituents, regardless of political ideology. For the first time in our nation’s history, Americans will have an opportunity to have the same kind of insurance that federal employees have, including members of Congress. That’s a promise the president made. And we’re keeping it.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost of this bill to the government and taxpayers. There have been a number of false claims about how this bill will add to the deficit and be a burden to our children and grandchildren. The fact of the matter is that the bill is completely paid for and will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years and as much as $1.3 trillion in the following 10 years. I joined almost 20 Democratic colleagues to insist on strong cost containment measures.

Based on our efforts, the Congressional Budget Office and the nation’s premier economists have confirmed that premiums will go down or remain stable, so that wages for millions of Americans can increase. When this bill is passed, 31 million uninsured Americans will have access to quality health care coverage. This bill is a big step toward fiscal responsibility and a stronger economy.

The bill achieves this goal by streamlining the health insurance market, ensuring efficiency and limiting insurance company administrative costs and profits. It also imposes an excise tax on insurance companies with high-cost plans. This encourages employers to become more value-conscious purchasers of health-care insurance. Employers are expected to choose cheaper plans, and as less capital is spent on health care, wages will go up for hard-working families. Economists predict this gives American workers a $223 billion pay raise, amounting to $660 per household. We have also created administrative savings through the health insurance exchange, and during Senate consideration of the bill strengthened the Independent Medicare Advisory Board to find more ways to reduce cost growth and improve quality.

The bill has improved in several key ways since we voted to bring it to the floor. The final Senate bill includes a substantial investment in Community Health Clinics and will provide funding to expand access to health care in rural communities and underserved urban areas as well. In Louisiana, the federally supported health clinics have saved the state $354 million in emergency room visits by the uninsured. The legislation also expands access by funding for rural health care providers and training programs for physician and other health care providers. 

            There are many parts of the current bill that I am proud to have fought for.  The bill creates health insurance exchanges that will provide individuals, families, and small businesses with a wide variety of affordable choices and ensure that they will always have coverage, whether they change jobs, lose a job, move or get sick. These state-based exchanges will enable consumers to comparison shop online for health insurance which will drive down costs by increasing choice and competition. 

The exchange will help the uninsured obtain needed coverage and will also help the more than 200,000 Louisiana residents who currently do not have insurance through their employer to get quality coverage at an affordable price. Many of these Louisianians in the exchange will qualify for a tax credit to help them purchase the insurance of their choice.

For example, in Calcasieu Parish, the median household income is $39,713. In the exchange created by this bill, the average family in Calcasieu would receive an affordability credit that limits what they spend on their premium to around 5.6% of their income or $2,225. Considering, right now the average Louisiana family is spending up to 28 percent of their income on health care, this is a huge improvement. 

This version of the bill that we improved on the Senate floor now includes much-needed help for small business owners. While small businesses make up 74 percent of Louisiana’s businesses, only 37 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2008. Of those, 62 percent say they are struggling to do so. Of the 64 percent who do not provide insurance, 87 percent say they cannot afford it.

I worked closely with Sen. Stabenow to improve affordability and choices for small businesses and amended the bill to make the “Bridge Credit” available immediately to help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees, and improve the tax credits for small businesses. This means that small businesses who want to offer quality health insurance to their employees will get tax breaks right way, rather than waiting until 2011. I also worked with Senator Lincoln to expand the number of small businesses that will be eligible for tax credits so that more small businesses get help in offering health insurance coverage for their employees – allowing more small business workers to benefit. In all, these changes bring an additional $13 billion in tax relief — on top of the $27 billion already in the bill — to small businesses.

If you are a small business with 25 employees or less here is how reform will help you: Businesses with 25 or less employees whose average annual wages are less than $50,000 will get immediate help through a three-year bridge credit. The creation of exchanges and a two-year exchange tax credit will lift the burden of excessive paperwork and administrative costs. The exchanges will create more stable, secure choices for your employees. In Louisiana, more than 50,000 small businesses could be helped by this small business tax credit proposal.

            This will help small business owners like Mary Noel Black and her husband, who own a UPS franchise store in Baton Rouge. They offer their four employees group coverage and are willing to pay half the cost, but the premium rates have gone up so much that neither the workers nor the business can afford to pay the $3,600 a year per employee for insurance. To help Mary pay for the health insurance of each employee, beginning in 2011, Mary could get a $1,260 bridge credit per employee under this bill for three years. Then, in 2014, if she purchases coverage through the exchange, her business is eligible for an exchange credit of $1,800 per employee for an even more generous tax credit for another two years. This savings could mean the difference between offering insurance or dropping coverage because instead of costing her business $14,400 a year now for her four employees – a cost that is just unaffordable – the tax credit could initially bring her cost down to $9,360 and later to $7,200.

Through our work on the Senate floor during this public debate, we have made this good bill better for small business.  Not only have we extended and expanded the small business tax credits, the legislation includes several amendments I authored to ensure small businesses continue to have a seat at the table once this bill is implemented.

The bill requires small businesses receive information regarding reinsurance for early retirees, small business tax credits, and other issues specifically for small businesses regarding affordable health care options. 

It lists Small Business Administration resource partners as eligible recipients of Exchange public awareness grants. And, it will include all Small Business Administration partners in the program, including: Women’s Business Centers, SCORE, Minority Business Centers, Veteran Business Centers, and others. 

The legislation now requires the Government Accountability Office to specifically review the impact of exchanges on access to affordable health care for small businesses to ensure that exchanges are indeed making a difference for small business owners. 

It also clearly states that agencies cannot waive the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which requires them to report small business contracting numbers and meet small business contracting goals of 23 percent. 

There is a provision that modifies the definition of a full-time employee to take into account fluctuation in employee hours, and reduce the impact of employer responsibility requirements for industries with high turnover and that rely on part-time employees.

The bill eliminates penalties for businesses that wait up to 60 days to provide health insurance to their full-time employees.

Finally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act establishes a national workforce commission to gather information on the health care workforce and better coordinate and implement workforce planning and analysis. The manager’s amendment ensures that small businesses and the self-employed will be represented on the commission.

These are important considerations for small businesses and I was proud to ensure these concerns were addressed through the amendment process.

            Despite claims from opponents of the bill, we have taken important steps to strengthen Medicare, not weaken it. The Senate health care reform bill creates an Independent Medicare Advisory Board to find ways to reduce cost growth and improve quality and moves to a system that rewards quality care over quantity. It reduces payments for preventable hospital readmissions in Medicare, and cuts waste, fraud, and abuse by screening providers, enhanced oversight, and identifying areas prone to fraud, and by requiring Medicare and Medicaid providers and suppliers to establish compliance programs.

            As much as Republicans have tried to scare seniors into opposing this bill, the fact is that Louisiana’s 650,000 Medicare beneficiaries stand to benefit from the Democrats’ health care reform bill. The bill lowers premiums by reducing Medicare’s overpayments to private plans. All Medicare beneficiaries pay the price of excessive overpayments through higher premiums – even the 78 percent of seniors in Louisiana who are not enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. Without reform, a typical couple in traditional Medicare would pay nearly $90 in additional Medicare premiums next year to subsidize these private plans.

Our bill extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 9 years and lays the groundwork for a more sustainable health system. Thanks to these reform efforts, there will be no additional cost for preventive services under the Medicare program. Beneficiaries will not pay anything extra for things like mammograms and colonoscopies. This includes a free wellness visit and personalized prevention plan designed to help give beneficiaries the resources they need to take better care of themselves in these important years.

This legislation puts taxpayers’ dollars above insurance company profits by forcing insurers to bid competitively for the business of Medicare beneficiaries and makes changes to the Medicare Advantage payment structure that will give insurers an incentive to deliver more value for taxpayers’ money. 

Another critical aspect of the bill is that it increases the amount of drug coverage for Medicare Part D beneficiaries before they have to begin to pay out of pocket for their prescriptions. Right now, roughly 116,000 Medicare beneficiaries in Louisiana hit a wall in Medicare Part D drug coverage that will cost some of them an average of $4,080 per year. This reform legislation will provide a 50 percent discount for brand-name drugs.

Some of the bill’s most important provisions will benefit the most important population – children.  I was proud that Leader Reid included a provision, at my request, that will ensure that youth who age out of the foster care system will be able to stay on Medicaid until the age of 26. Almost 30,000 young people age out of the foster care system every year, having never been adopted or reunified with their birth parents. The fact that they “aged out” is our failure as government. We have failed them once and we just cannot fail them twice. We must support their transition to adulthood. Guaranteeing quality health care will go along toward helping this transition.

When this legislation is signed into law, insurance companies will not be able to drop children for preexisting conditions beginning immediately. This is crucial for families with children who have battled cancer or diabetes. When a parent loses a job, they may struggle to get insurance when they find new employment. Once this bill becomes law, no insurance company will be able to deny a child with preexisting conditions.

Another critical provision is that this bill will require insurance companies to allow children to stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26. According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, in 2007 there were an estimated 13.2 million uninsured young adults. This provision will help reduce that number by allowing young people to stay on their parents’ coverage for a bit longer.

This health care reform bill also holds insurance companies’ feet to the fire to ensure they are accountable to their customers. By 2014, insurers will not be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. That means they will not be allowed to drop you from coverage if you get sick or are in an accident. 

Because of Sen. Rockefeller’s and Sen. Ben Nelson’s work, this bill requires insurance companies to disclose the pricing of their benefits to ensure that premiums are spent on health benefits, not profits, and gives consumers rebates, putting the insurance companies’ excessive profits back into your pockets. It contains new requirements ensuring that insurers and health care providers report on their performance, empowering patients to make the best possible decisions. Under this bill, a health insurer’s participation in the exchanges will depend on its performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the exchanges begin will be excluded – a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable. 

Finally, I was also proud to work with Leader Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to address an inequity in the formula that determines the federal match of Medicaid dollars. As we all know, in 2005 Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the Gulf Coast and destroyed homes, neighborhoods, and even full communities throughout South Louisiana. In an effort to aid the recovery, Congress approved a much-needed aid package for Louisianans that infused grant dollars and direct assistance to speed our recovery.

Some necessary one-time recovery dollars, in addition to labor and wage costs going up because there was a constriction in the market, were calculated into our State’s per capita income. The result has been that Louisiana’s per capita income was abnormally inflated, and put us in a category with richer states like Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland

The result is that our federal match for Medicaid dropped pretty dramatically. I worked with my colleagues to correct this formula. I never asked for special treatment for Louisiana, but only for understanding of the unintended consequences of our state’s unique situation. We only wanted to be treated fairly and not to get penalized because we have been forced to rebuild following the worst natural disaster in the United States’ history. Our federal Medicaid match rates should reflect the reality on the ground in Louisiana, not the cold calculations of inflexible federal formulas.

An important note is that this Medicaid funding fix was supported by every member of our Congressional Delegation, and specifically and repeatedly requested by our Republican Governor Bobby Jindal. Some politicians in my state may run and hide when the heat gets turned up, but that is not the way I was raised. I never have and never will run from what I think is right. I was sent here to fight for my state and that is exactly what I am doing.

Those who have dubbed this provision the “Louisiana Purchase” know little about lawmaking and even less about my views on health care reform. This Medicaid fix alone would not have been enough to earn my vote on this legislation. This was one of literally a dozen priorities I had as the Senate considered health care reform. I am voting for this bill because it achieves the goals I laid out at the beginning of this debate: it drives down costs and expands affordable health care choices for millions of families and small businesses in Louisiana and around the nation. Any claim to the contrary, is a pathetic lie meant to derail this bill, a tactic that was all too common during this debate. 

These are just some of the ways that this bill will reduce costs and expand access to health care for millions of Americans. Today, we stand on the verge of history, with an opportunity to support a bill that will provide health insurance to 31 million more Americans, reducing the deficit by $132 billion over the next 10 years.

 The bill is not perfect. It is not the exact health care bill that I would have written. I think the same could be said for each of my colleagues. It was a long, difficult process and during the course of completing this landmark bill there were a lot of twists and turns. But, as former President Clinton was fond of saying, we should never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. 

And, this is a good bill that will improve health care for the local grocery store owner in Jennings, the 22-year old in Lake Charles who has just left the foster care system, the single mother of three in Monroe, the nine year old boy in Natchitoches who was just diagnosed with diabetes and the 70 year old Medicare recipient in Houma who worked for three decades in the offshore oil industry. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes a difference in these lives and millions more across America, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Reasons why Firedoglake and Jane Hamsher are wrong on killing the Senate bill

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Jane Hamsher and the folks over at Firedoglake are proposing that we kill the bill if it is anything like the Senate bill. I have a youtube video that discusses what I feel about those people and I also blogged about it in a recent post. But let’s go over their 10 reasons to kill the bill and see if anything they have to say has any merit:

“Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not”

If you eliminate the pre-existing condition clause, you have to mandate coverage. Otherwise you get anti-selection. And it is up to 8% because some people will have theirs mostly subsidized. And those subsidies are available to be paid into a not for profit insurance plan, so you are not putting your money into an insurance policy with a medical loss ratio of 70%.

“If you refuse to buy the insurance,  you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS”

There has to be penalties when you do something that is mandated. When the Senate bill dumped the criminal punishment for failing to have coverage, it also made it so that they only way the government can collect that fine would be for them to keep excess withholding.

“After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses”

How many people who currently lack insurance are going to be “forced to pay thousands”? Remember, the people we are fighting for to have access to affordable insurance are those who lack the funds to pay for insurance now. Those people will get their access to healthcare on a largely subsidized basis.

If the plans have a standard 80/20 cost sharing mechanism, the only way you pay $11,900 towards your medical expenses would be if you had a catastrophic illness costing $59,500. If you kill the bill, like Hamsher wants, that same person would be on the hook for all $59,500. Now, if you are the hypothetical person in that petition, would you rather have the healthcare plan that allowed you to be on the hook for just under $12K or would you want the bill killed so you will now be on the hook for just under $60K. (And you wonder why some times liberals have a problem with others taking them seriously… sheesh).

“Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court”

Even if the plan didn’t include any abortion language, any plan funded by taxpayer dollars as a subsidy would be unable to cover abortions because of the Hyde amendment.

“Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins”

Would I rather they start immediately too? Of course! But fighting the bill because it takes 4 years for some benefits to kick in is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

“Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market”

I am all for safe drug re-importation. But if everyone has insurance, the cost of purchasing an expensive biotech drug should only be what the highest tier co-pay is. So fighting over this is silly. Let the insurance companies work it out with the drug manufacturers. The insured will be paying their co-pay for the drug.

“No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years”

Why they made this second point is beyond me. It is redundant. The only entities that would benefit from drug re-importation rules if everyone is universally covered are the insurance companies.

“The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now”

Actually, the cost for my insurance went down this year. You know why? Because I have a low premium/high deductible plan. This plan was so attractive to my employer (as opposed to the other two plans my employer offers) that they contribute more money into your HSA account than I pay for a premium. So my premium costs are eliminated and my maximum out of pocket next year is $5K (as opposed to $10K+ in the new government regulation and compared to my $6K out of pocket this year). And I am willing to bet that Ms. Hamsher is opposed to me having this plan because for some reason many liberals (including my former co-host) are opposed to these kinds of plans. I will be honest, these plans are not a good fit for everybody. Unless the HSA accounts are subsidized, they are not good at all for low income families. But they fit perfectly with my situation. And I paid less money this year in overall healthcare costs than I would have in premiums had I stayed on my old high premium/low deductible plan.

But you know what? The bill is good for this country and is MUCH better than keeping the status quo. It seems to me that liberals like Ms. Hamsher are just calling for the Democrats to take their ball and go home instead of making sure a good bill comes out of the conference.

Are there things I would like to see change in the Senate bill? Of course! But as many liberals have said in this debate: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. And as I say, don’t cut your nose off to spite your face. Because at the end of the day, the family who is currently uninsured that gets subsidized access to a nationwide plan backed by a non-profit company is not going to care that the plan is not a public option. However, that same family that came out and voted for Obama and Democrats because they wanted to be able to get healthcare for themselves and their children will ABSOLUTELY remember any liberal who voted to kill their access to healthcare because those liberals couldn’t get their way with a public option and didn’t think that the nationwide non-profit plan was “good enough” for other people to have.

Here is another video, just in case you need to hear what I just said in order for it to sink in.

Get it now? If people like Hamsher kill this bill because it doesn’t reach their standards and millions go without coverage because the non-profit option wasn’t good enough and was not the “public option”, those people will turn around and vote out the liberals in 2010. See, most of the people who participate in these tea-bagging parties are likely people who never supported Obama in the first place. However, if you vote to kill a bill that would have granted lower to middle class people access to affordable health coverage over an issue as petty as “it didn’t have the public option, even though it had the non-profit option”, those people (who did support Obama because they listened to his campaign platform, heard about his healthcare plan, and gave him the majorities needed in both house to get it done) are going to vote against the liberals and we could see at least a conservative majority in the house. It wont matter that the GOP and teabaggers are going to target the RINO in moderate districts. We will still lose. And good luck getting any sort of healthcare bill passed with a GOP majority.

*And as a side note. Louisiana ranks dead last in many healthcare statistics. One would think that they would be much more supportive of healthcare legislation that would absolutely benefit them (especially the large portion of Louisiana who is uninsured).

Bobby Jindal does what he does best…

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

cut healthcare spending!

We shouldn’t be surprised. And by now, neither should you.  Good ole Bobby Jindal loves to take the scalpel to healthcare. It is why we were dead last after he ran the Department of Health. It is why we are still in dead last after he became governor.

Why doesn’t he first try to save money but stopping his helicopter trips to Louisiana churches to campaign worship. He could then cut back on all that campaigning for President for reelection he does outside the state (that use, in part, Louisiana tax dollars to pay for security). Or maybe he could contact one of his Florida supporters who seems to have an ability to raise a lot of money for people (as long as you don’t ask too many questions).

Just sayin…

Idiots on the left and right in this healthcare debate.

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

The Senate bill is getting raped and pillaged to the point where it is no longer a viable healthcare bill. With all respect to Senator Harkin who is using the “we will build an imperfect house and add on to it later” argument, passing this bill into law would be like building a house that lacked plumbing and electricity. Sure you can live in it, but why would you want to?

Unfortunately, people like Howard Dean are suggesting that we just “kill the bill” and vote against it. But that would absolutely be the most idiotic thing that we could do on this legislation. Why? If nothing passes the Senate then there will be no conference committee to fix the problems in the Senate bill before sending it back to each house for passage.

Why is this Senate bill so horrible? Well, it mandates that everyone purchases health insurance without putting in any sort of plan that can be placed in there to help keep costs down. It will subsidize those people who cannot afford to pay for that plan by themselves. However, this just means that the insurers can charge what they want and profit off of those subsidies.

But that is not the only problem with the bill and this is where the conservatives come in. As I described in my article on Bayou Buzz, we already allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, so the argument that conservatives make must be to allow individuals to circumvent their own state laws by purchasing insurance from other states. These states could have much weaker regulations as compared to the state of the purchaser. Of course, they all would have to follow the federal guidelines but states can always add additional regulations. If the Senate bill passes, this is exactly what would happen. How the conservatives could support something so against the 10th amendment is just baffling.

Here is what the Democrats should do. They need to just pass a one page Senate healthcare bill. Get anything passed. Then they will go to conference with the House. You can then get a conference bill together with what will absolutely be needed to have true reform and have that bill voted on by both houses. And when you do come out of committee with the bill, schedule at least two weeks of debate so the GOP can’t go crying that we are not giving people enough time to read the bill.

I debunk conservative lies on healthcare reform on Bayou Buzz

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Link

This is also the subject of the current two minute drill (that ran on Thanksgiving and will also run this Thursday) for Dan and Dave on the Air.

Mutually Assured Distractions

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

During the Bush Presidency, Republican Senators threatened the use of the “nuclear option” to end potential filibusters by the Democrats on Bush judicial nominees. Basically the way it works is that the President of the Senate would rule that judicial nominations can be the subject of the filibuster, someone GOP Senator would challenge the ruling of the chair, and then it would go to an immediate vote without debate (so you cannot filibuster that vote). The filibuster would be stopped and the vote could take place.

Now, the nuclear option was never used during the Bush Presidency. However, the threat of it was enough to cause the formation of the “Gang of 14″, a group that limited filibusters of judicial nominees to extreme cases.

Personally, I don’t like the use of parliamentary trickery in order to circumvent the rules and get your way. However, I think the door has been blown wide open with the passage of the House healthcare bill for the Democrats to start flying the political Enola Gay. Fox News wrongly calls reconciliation the nuclear option. But reconciliation is a whole different animal.

If the Senate wanted to, it could just introduce the House version of the bill and threaten to use the nuclear option to eliminate any filibuster. If the moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats really thought that the Democrats seriously would use the nuclear option, perhaps it would get them to the table to negotiate something reasonable so this needed reform could pass without the need of either a filibuster or the nuclear option.

My first article on Bayou Buzz!

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

Link 

Women and healthcare reform.

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

This was discussed on Dan and Dave on the Air but it needs to be repeated, over and over.

There are some states where it is legal for a health insurance company to consider a battered woman as someone who has a “preexisting condition”.

Anybody who has been paying attention to this healthcare debate has to have heard about the woman who was denied breast cancer treatments because she was found out to have made a material misrepresentation on her insurance application… she failed to disclose that she once had acne.

Many in the GOP want to defeat health reform legislation. To the women who support the GOP on this issue I say this. If you fight to keep the status quo, knowing what you know about these cases and others, you are not only signing a death warrant for yourself if you come down with a serious condition, you are signing a death warrant for your mothers, your sisters, your daughters and your friends. Remember that.