Mad as Hell Doctors in Chicago (Video)

Seniors....this is a must read

If a good Health Care Reform gets voted in, Seniors have more to win than lose. That won't be what happens if we don't get a good Health Care Bill.

Why seniors would be health reform winners, not losers

HOWARD GLECKMAN
Last updated: September 3rd, 2009 12:26 AM (PDT)

Opponents of health reform have targeted seniors with a blunt message: You will be big losers if “Obama-care” is enacted. In the words of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: “Senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed.”

Scary words. But, in truth, seniors are likely to be big winners if responsible health reform passes and prime victims if it fails. The casualties will not only be today’s elders, but the Baby Boomers, who are the next generation of seniors. They will all pay the price if the existing health system is allowed to fester.

It is true that, today, seniors have a pretty good deal. Nearly all those over 65 already have insurance through Medicare — a government program. Seniors and younger people with disabilities who are both very poor and unable to care for themselves are also eligible for long-term care benefits through Medicaid, which is run jointly by the federal government and the states.

So if seniors already have coverage, don’t they have everything to lose from change? Isn’t cost control just a fancy euphemism for cutting benefits? And what about those bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t?

These claims are both irresponsible and wrong. But their biggest flaw is that they ignore the real problem: Without fundamental changes, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. Like a poorly built house that has gone too long without repairs, they will soon collapse without major renovations. And seniors will face both massive tax hikes and huge increases in their monthly insurance premiums.

To understand why, remember that Medicaid and Medicare Part A hospital insurance are funded with tax revenues. Medicare Part B coverage for doctor visits and Part D drug coverage are financed through a combination of taxes and premiums. Many seniors also pay extra for Medicare Supplement (Medigap) insurance.

In just 10 years, according to the Medicare trustees, Part B premiums are expected to increase from about $96 a month to more than $130, while Part D premiums will rise to $50. Add a few hundred dollars more each month for Medigap coverage and many seniors will be spending $5,000 annually on Medicare. Higher-income seniors will pay far more — as much as $420 a month for Part B alone.

That is the future seniors face if we do nothing.

The pressure on taxes will be even greater. In a decade, nearly 30 cents of every federal tax dollar will go to Medicare and Medicaid. By 2035, these two programs will spend more than 40 percent of our taxes. That means we’ll need huge tax hikes to pay for these programs and keep the rest of the government running,

As for rationing, Medicare already decides what to cover. Nobody seriously expects it to pay for any treatment patients want. It also rations by deciding how it pays physicians and hospitals. For instance, doctors are paid more for tests than office visits, so patients get more MRIs and less face time with physicians.

Health reform is not about choosing between rationing or not. Rather, it is about whether we will continue to spend health dollars in the crazy way we do now or find a better way. Done right, it can mean less treatment but better health.

One example: Critics of reform call “comparative effectiveness research” a backdoor trick to deny care for the frail elderly. They are wrong. Done well, it can improve care at less cost.

Today we know very little about how medications affect seniors. So they often get too many drugs that can make them ill, or even kill them. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a research program to tell us what drugs work best for the elderly?

How about Medicaid? Today, because the program is required to pay only for nursing home care, beneficiaries are more likely to get their assistance in a facility than at home.

Health reform could give consumers more choice. Instead of a government bureaucrat saying you must move into a nursing home to get benefits, seniors would have more opportunity to decide where they want to live. It is hard to see how that makes them worse off.

Critics are right to say that poorly designed could put seniors’ health at risk. But with well-structured reforms, seniors would get better medical and long-term term care, and get it in a way they and the nation can afford. That’s why they, as much as anyone, should be supporting health reform.

Howard Gleckman, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, is author of “Caring for Our Parents” and a frequent writer and speaker on long-term care issues. He wrote this for the McClatchy-Tribune News Service.

So before you believe what one party or the other tells you, check for yourselves. Do the work of research! Don't just believe what you hear. Your life and health depends on it!

Robert Reich On The Public Option

h/t to 60th Street from the Sam Seder Show Blog

Robert Reich explains the Public Option in easy to understand terms and explains why we need it as an option.



I only hope that Pres. Obama can explain it as well in his speech to Congress tomorrow night!

GOP make it sound like they're all for Medicare

They are whipping up the simple people and the politically disengaged people to think that Obama and the Congress will take away or at the least weaken Medicare when they are putting together Health Care Reform.

But, like me, I bet you didn't know that as recently as this past April the GOP in the House tried to weaken Medicare by allowing private insurance companies to take it over. It was part of the GOP Health Care Reform bill they proposed.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

House, Senate budget plans boost Obama agenda but expose vulnerabilities
At the same time, the debate also exposed
political weaknesses in his House GOP rivals.
Republicans in the House had even more
defections on their alternative budget, losing
37 of the chamber's more moderate members
in a 293-137 tally that rejected cuts to
Medicare and the Medicaid health care
program for the poor and disabled.

What is more, GOP leaders are clearly
nervous that votes in favor of the GOP
alternative have exposed their members to
political danger.

The plan, drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House Budget Committee, called for eventually replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans. Current beneficiaries would keep their coverage and those 55 and older also would go into the current system.

Critics of the plan said the Medicare subsidies would inevitably not keep pace with inflation and that people in poor health might end up uninsured, while many needy people on Medicaid could lose coverage.

And from the Washington Monthly:

But did Republicans vote to "end," "abolish," and "kill" Medicare? It's provocative, but it's a supportable claim. In April, 137 Republicans voted in support of a GOP alternative budget. It didn't generate a lot of attention, but the plan, drafted by the House Budget Committee's Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called for "replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans."

The AP noted at the time that Republican leaders were "clearly nervous that votes in favor of the GOP alternative have exposed their members to political danger."

So as much as the GOP say they won't touch Medicare, they already tried to. So far it was a dirty secret that the Media hasn't put out there. But I'm passing this along and hope that others will too. Hypocrisy, they name is GOP!

The more Republicans press Dems on Medicare, the more we're likely to hear about the fact that a majority of the House Republican Caucus voted this year to kill Medicare as we know it, privatizing it out of existence.

Canadians Compare our Health Care to Theirs. They're Happy with Theirs

Canadian Doctors for Medicare hosted a celebration of Medicare in Canada. The speakers included Roy Romanow, former Saskatchewan Premiere and Commissioner on Health Care in Canada. They tell Americans that Canadian universal health care works and encourage Americans to implement a single payer universal health care systems.



Medicare for all would cost less in the long run and can be cost controlled much more easily than monitoring all the Insurance companies. Our health is not a commodity to be traded on the Market and it shouldn't be a for profit business to insure our health.

Why We Need Government Run Health Insurance

The Lion of the Senate. We will greatly miss you

My fellow Democrats and my fellow Americans, I have come here tonight not to argue as a candidate but to affirm a cause.

I'm asking you -- I am asking you to renew the commitment of the Democratic Party to economic justice.

I am asking you to renew our commitment to a fair and lasting prosperity that can put America back to work.

This is the cause that brought me into the campaign and that sustained me for nine months across a 100,000 miles in 40 different states. We had our losses, but the pain of our defeats is far, far less than the pain of the people that I have met.

We have learned that it is important to take issues seriously, but never to take ourselves too seriously.

The serious issue before us tonight is the cause for which the Democratic Party has stood in its finest hours, the cause that keeps our Party young and makes it, in the second century of its age, the largest political Party in this republic and the longest lasting political Party on this planet.

Our cause has been, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the cause of the common man and the common woman.

Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers." On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies, and refreshed our faith.

Now I take the unusual step of carrying the cause and the commitment of my campaign personally to our national convention. I speak out of a deep sense of urgency about the anguish and anxiety I have seen across America.

I speak out of a deep belief in the ideals of the Democratic Party, and in the potential of that Party and of a President to make a difference. And I speak out of a deep trust in our capacity to proceed with boldness and a common vision that will feel and heal the suffering of our time and the divisions of our Party.

The economic plank of this platform on its face concerns only material things, but it is also a moral issue that I raise tonight. It has taken many forms over many years. In this campaign and in this country that we seek to lead, the challenge in 1980 is to give our voice and our vote for these fundamental democratic principles.

Let us pledge that we will never misuse unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.

Let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy.

Let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work; and we will not compromise on the issues of jobs.

These are not simplistic pledges. Simply put, they are the heart of our tradition, and they have been the soul of our Party across the generations. It is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfill the aspirations of all Americans seeking a better life in a better land.

We dare not forsake that tradition.

We cannot let the great purposes of the Democratic Party become the bygone passages of history.

We must not permit the Republicans to seize and run on the slogans of prosperity. We heard the orators at their convention all trying to talk like Democrats. They proved that even Republican nominees can quote Franklin Roosevelt to their own purpose.

The Grand Old Party thinks it has found a great new trick, but 40 years ago an earlier generation of Republicans attempted the same trick. And Franklin Roosevelt himself replied, "Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight those leaders have suddenly become the friends of average men and women."

"You know," he continued, "very few of us are that gullible." And four years later when the Republicans tried that trick again, Franklin Roosevelt asked, "Can the Old Guard pass itself off as the New Deal? I think not. We have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus, but no performing elephant could turn a handspring without falling flat on its back."

The 1980 Republican convention was awash with crocodile tears for our economic distress, but it is by their long record and not their recent words that you shall know them.

The same Republicans who are talking about the crisis of unemployment have nominated a man who once said, and I quote, "Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders." And that nominee is no friend of labor.

The same Republicans who are talking about the problems of the inner cities have nominated a man who said, and I quote, "I have included in my morning and evening prayers every day the prayer that the Federal Government not bail out New York." And that nominee is no friend of this city and our great urban centers across this nation.

The same Republicans who are talking about security for the elderly have nominated a man who said just four years ago that "Participation in social security should be made voluntary." And that nominee is no friend of the senior citizens of this nation.

The same Republicans who are talking about preserving the environment have nominated a man who last year made the preposterous statement, and I quote, "Eighty percent of our air pollution comes from plants and trees." And that nominee is no friend of the environment.

And the same Republicans who are invoking Franklin Roosevelt have nominated a man who said in 1976, and these are his exact words, "Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal." And that nominee whose name is Ronald Reagan has no right to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The great adventures which our opponents offer is a voyage into the past. Progress is our heritage, not theirs. What is right for us as Democrats is also the right way for Democrats to win.

The commitment I seek is not to outworn views but to old values that will never wear out. Programs may sometimes become obsolete, but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue. It is surely correct that we cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but it is also correct that we dare not throw out our national problems onto a scrap heap of inattention and indifference. The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs. The middle class may be angry, but they have not lost the dream that all Americans can advance together.

The demand of our people in 1980 is not for smaller government or bigger government but for better government. Some say that government is always bad and that spending for basic social programs is the root of our economic evils. But we reply: The present inflation and recession cost our economy 200 billion dollars a year. We reply: Inflation and unemployment are the biggest spenders of all.

The task of leadership in 1980 is not to parade scapegoats or to seek refuge in reaction, but to match our power to the possibilities of progress. While others talked of free enterprise, it was the Democratic Party that acted and we ended excessive regulation in the airline and trucking industry, and we restored competition to the marketplace. And I take some satisfaction that this deregulation legislation that I sponsored and passed in the Congress of the United States.

As Democrats we recognize that each generation of Americans has a rendezvous with a different reality. The answers of one generation become the questions of the next generation. But there is a guiding star in the American firmament. It is as old as the revolutionary belief that all people are created equal, and as clear as the contemporary condition of Liberty City and the South Bronx. Again and again Democratic leaders have followed that star and they have given new meaning to the old values of liberty and justice for all.

We are the Party -- We are the Party of the New Freedom, the New Deal, and the New Frontier. We have always been the Party of hope. So this year let us offer new hope, new hope to an America uncertain about the present, but unsurpassed in its potential for the future.

To all those who are idle in the cities and industries of America let us provide new hope for the dignity of useful work. Democrats have always believed that a basic civil right of all Americans is that their right to earn their own way. The Party of the people must always be the Party of full employment.

To all those who doubt the future of our economy, let us provide new hope for the reindustrialization of America. And let our vision reach beyond the next election or the next year to a new generation of prosperity. If we could rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II, then surely we can reindustrialize our own nation and revive our inner cities in the 1980's.

To all those who work hard for a living wage let us provide new hope that their price of their employment shall not be an unsafe workplace and a death at an earlier age.

To all those who inhabit our land from California to the New York Island, from the Redwood Forest to the Gulf stream waters, let us provide new hope that prosperity shall not be purchased by poisoning the air, the rivers, and the natural resources that are the greatest gift of this continent. We must insist that our children and our grandchildren shall inherit a land which they can truly call America the beautiful.

To all those who see the worth of their work and their savings taken by inflation, let us offer new hope for a stable economy. We must meet the pressures of the present by invoking the full power of government to master increasing prices. In candor, we must say that the Federal budget can be balanced only by policies that bring us to a balanced prosperity of full employment and price restraint.

And to all those overburdened by an unfair tax structure, let us provide new hope for real tax reform. Instead of shutting down classrooms, let us shut off tax shelters. Instead of cutting out school lunches, let us cut off tax subsidies for expensive business lunches that are nothing more than food stamps for the rich.

The tax cut of our Republican opponents takes the name of tax reform in vain. It is a wonderfully Republican idea that would redistribute income in the wrong direction. It's good news for any of you with incomes over 200,000 dollars a year. For the few of you, it offers a pot of gold worth 14,000 dollars. But the Republican tax cut is bad news for the middle income families. For the many of you, they plan a pittance of 200 dollars a year, and that is not what the Democratic Party means when we say tax reform.

The vast majority of Americans cannot afford this panacea from a Republican nominee who has denounced the progressive income tax as the invention of Karl Marx. I am afraid he has confused Karl Marx with Theodore Roosevelt -- that obscure Republican president who sought and fought for a tax system based on ability to pay. Theodore Roosevelt was not Karl Marx, and the Republican tax scheme is not tax reform.

Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.

The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

There were some -- There were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the heritage of the Democratic Party has been a history of democracy. We fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and purposes. We did not flee this struggle. We welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in Detroit where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent.

Democrats can be proud that we chose a different course and a different platform.

We can be proud that our Party stands for investment in safe energy, instead of a nuclear future that may threaten the future itself. We must not permit the neighborhoods of America to be permanently shadowed by the fear of another Three Mile Island.

We can be proud that our Party stands for a fair housing law to unlock the doors of discrimination once and for all. The American house will be divided against itself so long as there is prejudice against any American buying or renting a home.

And we can be proud that our Party stands plainly and publicly and persistently for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Women hold their rightful place at our convention, and women must have their rightful place in the Constitution of the United States. On this issue we will not yield; we will not equivocate; we will not rationalize, explain, or excuse. We will stand for E.R.A. and for the recognition at long last that our nation was made up of founding mothers as well as founding fathers.

A fair prosperity and a just society are within our vision and our grasp, and we do not have every answer. There are questions not yet asked, waiting for us in the recesses of the future. But of this much we can be certain because it is the lesson of all of our history: Together a President and the people can make a difference. I have found that faith still alive wherever I have traveled across this land. So let us reject the counsel of retreat and the call to reaction. Let us go forward in the knowledge that history only helps those who help themselves.

There will be setbacks and sacrifices in the years ahead; but I am convinced that we as a people are ready to give something back to our country in return for all it has given to us.

Let this -- Let this be our commitment: Whatever sacrifices must be made will be shared and shared fairly. And let this be our confidence: At the end of our journey and always before us shines that ideal of liberty and justice for all.

From Ted Kennedy's 1980 Democratic Convention Speech

In Loving Memory

Thank you Teddy

Things you need to know

Knowledge is Power. So here's a bit of education for you about Health Insurance Companies.

First, from NavyBlueWife at Fire Dog Lake telling me something I didn't know:

The Sunday morning political talk programs were filled to the brim with health care reform discussions, and central to these discussions is the idea that the insurance industry needs competition. Competition, in the form of a public option or in health care cooperatives, is supposed to level the playing field and bring down premiums for all Americans while providing as close to universal coverage as we can do right now.

There's just one itty bitty, teeny weeny problem. The insurance industry has federal IMMUNITY from competition!

The federal government has not been able to attack the insurance companies through federal anti-trust laws for over 60 years. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act passed in 1945, insurance companies (and Major League Baseball!) are specifically excluded from federal anti-trust laws as long as the state regulates in that area, and federal anti-trust laws will apply ONLY in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation.

Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Big Insurance is allowed to collect and SHARE data with each other about claims. With this information, Big Insurance can fix prices, set coverage requirements, outline conditions for coverage denials (like pre-existing conditions), and many, many more.

That's right, folks! Big Insurance can plot together to bring us all down!

This problem is one of the biggest when it comes to creating insurance industry competition, and not one single major news outlet, pundit or other talking head has covered it as of my publishing. In fact, the only time where I saw anti-trust regulation brought up was a minor squawking by Big Insurance. They claimed that they actually would be in trouble under the anti-trust laws if they were forced to work together to reduce costs to consumers. But the laws don't apply, so what's the problem, Big Insurance?? Read more at link

This is information on how Blue Cross/Blue Shield was formed and how it became a for profit company. h/t to Crank Bait at Sam Seder Show Blog:

Dr. Justin Ford Kimball, a Baylor University administrator, is generally recognized as the originator of Blue Cross. Kimball noticed that among the university hospital's unpaid bills were those of a disproportionate number of local school teachers. In 1929, he addressed this problem by organizing a plan in which teachers could be covered for a three-week hospital stay in a semi-private room by prepaying as little as 50 cents a month. The first group health plan was off the ground when 1,250 Dallas-area teachers enrolled at once.

Other groups of Dallas employees joined the program, and it began to attract attention across the United States. Similar plans sprang up in Iowa and Illinois. Like the Dallas prototype, those plans involved only one hospital. In the early 1930s, plans were created that offered customers a choice of different hospitals in their communities. California, New Jersey, and New York were among the first locations for programs of that type. The Blue Cross name and symbol were developed in 1934 by E. A. van Steenwyk, a pioneer of St. Paul, Minnesota's group health plan. By 1935, there were 15 Blue Cross plans in 11 states. The following year, the American Hospital Association (AHA) created the Committee on Hospital Services to oversee the growing batch of Blue Cross organizations nationwide. The Committee's early leader was C. Rufus Rorem, who had been involved with the AHA for several years. By 1938, there were 38 Blue Cross plans in the United States, with a total enrollment of 1.4 million. In comparison, only about 100,000 people were covered for hospitalization by private insurance companies at that time.

Meanwhile, a similar movement had begun for covering the costs of physicians' services. In the Pacific Northwest, a few lumber and mining companies had begun making arrangements to pay doctors a monthly fee for providing their employees with health care services. The first of these plans appeared in Tacoma, Washington, in 1917. The first modern Blue Shield plan was established in 1939 in California. Modeled on the earlier programs, the California Plan enabled its customers to receive physician services for $1.70 a month. Only those with income under $3,000 a year were eligible for the program. The medical societies of other states began to develop similar programs, and in 1946 the first handful of such plans banded into a national group called the Associated Medical Care Plans, overseen by the American Medical Association (AMA). This group informally adopted the Blue Shield as its symbol two years later, and it eventually became known as the Blue Shield Association.

Between 1940 and 1945, the number of Blue Cross plans operating nationwide grew from 56 to 80, and enrollment increased from 6 million to 19 million. Blue Shield's enrollment was approximately 3 million. This growth was largely due to the wartime emphasis on fringe benefits as a way to increase wages without boosting salaries. In 1946, Rorem resigned as executive director of the AHA commission overseeing Blue Cross plans, and was replaced by Richard M. Jones, whom Rorem had hired as head of public relations. The organization's name was then changed to the Blue Cross Commission.

In 1948, Blue Cross and Blue Shield agreed to merge. The move was blocked by the AMA, however, on the grounds that such cooperation between hospitals and physicians could lead to actions in restraint of trade. Nevertheless, the Blues began working together around that time on public policy issues, while remaining independent, competing entities. To facilitate their continued growth, both Blues set up nonprofit agencies to coordinate the activities of their member plans. The Blue Cross Commission established Health Services, Inc. (HSI), a stock insurance company, to coordinate national enrollment in Blue Cross plans and to act as an underwriter to make up for differences in benefits between member plans when national contracts made it necessary. The Blue Cross Association was created as a holding company for HSI stock, which was actually owned by the plans themselves. Blue Shield set up a similar structure, establishing Medical Indemnity of America (MIA) as its counterpart to HSI. Read more at link.

So the Insurance Companies have a law in place to help them take advantage of us. All of us!

And you learned how a non profit Insurance turned into a for profit.

So now you know a bit more to form a good decision about Health Care Reform.

Obama's Op Ed in the NY Times - Must Read

WHY WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM

By BARACK OBAMA

Published: August 15, 2009

OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.

I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.

There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.

We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.

Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.

The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.

I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing.In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

Two Issues hurting Health Care Reform

The first Issue is that we don't know what we are fighting for. There is no actual bill and we really don't know if we will like the bill yet.

Robert Reich points this out:

Why are these meetings brimming with so much anger? Because Republican Astroturfers have joined the same old right-wing broadcast demagogues that have been spewing hate and fear for years, to create a tempest.

But why are they getting away with it? Why aren't progressives -- indeed, why aren't ordinary citizens -- taking the meetings back?

Mainly because there's still no healthcare plan. All we have are some initial markups from several congressional committees, which differ from one another in significant ways. The White House is waiting to see what emerges from the House and Senate before insisting on what it wants, maybe in conference committee.

But that's the problem: It's always easier to stir up fear and anger against something that's amorphous than to stir up enthusiasm for it.

The White House has just announced a web page designed to rebut some of the insane charges that the right is instigating. That won't be enough. The President has to be more specific about what he's for and what he's against. Without these specifics, the right can conjure up every demon in its arsenal while the middle and left can only shrug their shoulders.

snip

Now's the time for specifics. It's impossible to fight fearmongering lies about specifics with nothing but positive principles.

And the second Issue is what Seniors are hearing about reform.

Rick Ungar from the Policy page explains:

A CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll published last week reveals that a majority of voters over 50 oppose the healthcare overhaul effort, while most voters under 50 support it.

No shock there. The reality of growing older is such that change becomes more difficult to assimilate- particularly when it involves the number one concern of the elderly, their health. As a result, they are highly unlikely to take a leap of faith without feeling comfortable that they understand what change means to them. Unfortunately, proponents of health care don’t seem particularly interested in telling them.

The White House has said that they are counting on about $500 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid to finance reform. The President claims this will be done by cutting waste out of these federal programs including getting rid of testing and treatments that don’t result in improving care.

What does a senior hear in all of this? They hear the word “cut” – and that means getting less.

Here is what seniors are not hearing because nobody is telling them. Hopefully, they will not suffer any reduction in available health care because we intend to succeed in more efficiently controlling these government programs. But, if we remain true to form and fail to better control the programs, the results may, in fact, lead to some lessening in health care benefits or cause seniors to pay just a bit more to effectively stay “even.” Not great news but a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Because if we don’t make changes in Medicare, it will run out of money and may very well do so during our current crop of seniors’ lifetime. It most certainly can happen to those over 50 who are not yet participants but are depending upon Medicare to get them through their sunset years.

Not only are we not explaining this to the elderly in a direct and honest fashion, we aren’t directing the conversation to them in any meaningful way whatsoever. Where are the Obama town meetings at a nursing home, or an assisted living center?

When there is a gaping void in the information flow, all our seniors can do is listen to the information that is being provided to them. And the opponents of reform have been all too happy to oblige. Do most of our 65 plus citizens believe that Congress and the President want to create death panels and euthanize people when we don’t want to pay for their care any longer? I doubt it. But when this is all they are hearing, they are highly likely to think that while it may not be death panels, there may very likely be things in the legislation that are not in their best interest.

If you think avoidance of the seniors is a political calculation, you would be wrong. The senior voting block is deeply significant and getting larger every day. They register and they vote!

This shows how much work is needed by Obama and the House and Senate. They must address these two issues if they want to pass a great Health Care Reform Bill. And at this point I don't find the need for it to be bi-partisan. It seems that the GOP doesn't want to reform health care at all. They are just giving lip service to what they see the nation wants.

The question is: Why don't we have Single Payer?

If Insurance Companies can do this, why are we allowing them to exist? Not to mention the billions of dollars they make from us.

From the Washington Post:

HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"

By David S. Hilzenrath

You might have known that insurers can deny health coverage based on preexisting medical conditions, but here’s something else to worry about: They can take away the coverage you thought you had when actually need it, the government says.

The Department of Health and Human Services put a spotlight on that practice Tuesday in its continuing campaign to build support for an overhaul of health insurance.

“When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire,” the HHS said in a posting at HealthReform.Gov. In most states, insurance companies can retroactively cancel individuals' policies if any condition was not disclosed when the policy was obtained, "even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time.”

“Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition,” HHS said.

The department cited recent research by the staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which found that three large insurers rescinded almost 20,000 policies over five years, saving $300 million in medical claims.

At least one insurer included such savings in an employee performance evaluation.

“Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage," HHS said. more at the link

It's time to educate yourselves instead of believing what you hear or read. Research!

China's doing it, why can't we????

China is overtaking our country in so many ways. Here's one more!

From the NY Times:

BEIJING — China announced that it intended to spend $123 billion by 2011 to establish universal health care for the country's 1.3 billion people.

The plan was passed Wednesday at a session of the State Council, the Chinese cabinet. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao presided.

Xinhua, the state news agency, said the authorities would "take measures within three years to provide basic medical security to all Chinese in urban and rural areas, improve the quality of medical services and make medical services more accessible and affordable for ordinary people."

Providing universal health care is seen by some economists as a way to stimulate domestic spending during the current economic downturn. The Chinese have a high savings rate, and one of the reasons usually cited is their concern about possible medical expenses.

Bai Zhongen, chairman of the economics department at Tsinghua University's School of Economics and Management in Beijing, said that establishing universal health care with government-financed insurance would increase general consumer spending. He said the school did a survey in 2007 about the effect of rural health insurance on consumer behavior and "found that in government-sponsored health insurance areas, people are spending more."

The government already gives many people a small subsidy to help pay for health care, but more government financing for individual health care would strengthen the economy, Bai said.

Xinhua reported that the plan approved Wednesday would aim to provide some form of medical insurance for 90 percent of the population by 2011. Each person covered by the system would receive an annual subsidy of 120 yuan, or more than $17, starting in 2010. Medicine would also be covered by the insurance, and the government would begin a system of producing and distributing necessary drugs this year.

The plan also aims to improve health centers in rural and remote areas as well as equalize health services between urban and rural areas, Xinhua reported. Furthermore, the government would begin this year to reform the operations of public hospitals.

"Growing public criticism of soaring medical fees, a lack of access to affordable medical services, poor doctor-patient relationship and low medical insurance coverage compelled the government to launch the new round of reforms," Xinhua reported.

If they can do it with Billinons of people, we can do it with Millions of people, and we should be able to do it better.

I'd like some comments on this one on why we are now lagging on this.

The Danger of the Health Care Protesterss

Rachel Maddow had Frank Schaeffer on her show to talk about these protesters and the people behind them.

Watch:

Rick Scott, the man behind the Town Hall Teabaggers

Rick Sanchez of CNN takes on Rick Scott.

Watch it:



Rick Scott, from the Nation:

A Texas lawyer who shared a business partner with George W. Bush, Scott started his health company, Columbia Hospital Corporation, in 1987. Its growth was meteoric, expanding from just a few hospitals to more than 1,000 facilities in thirty-eight states and three other countries in 1997. As his firm gobbled up chains, like the Frist family's Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), it became the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country. By 1994, Columbia/HCA was one of the forty largest corporations in America, and Scott had acquired a reputation as the Gordon Gecko of the healthcare world. "Whose patients are you stealing?" he would ask employees at his newly acquired hospitals.

He promised to put nonprofit hospitals--which he insisted on referring to as "nontaxpaying" hospitals--out of business and touted his company's single-minded pursuit of profit as a model for the nation's entire healthcare system. "What's happening in Washington is not healthcare reform," he told the New York Times in 1994. "Healthcare reform is happening in the marketplace."

The press portrayed Scott as a guru to be admired and feared, "a private capitalist dictator," in the words of one Princeton health economist. "Probably the lowest body fat of anybody I've been in business with," his partner told the Times.

"Other hospitals were intimidated," recalls John Schilling, who worked for Columbia/HCA in the 1990s. Scott was "like the bully that would come into town and if you didn't sell to him or partner with him, he would open up shop across the street from you and put you out of business."

Not long after joining the company in 1993 as the supervisor of reimbursement for the Fort Myers, Florida, office, Schilling noticed things weren't quite kosher. "They were looking for ways to maximize reimbursement...which ultimately would improve the bottom line."

One way they did this was to fudge the costs on their Medicare expense reports. They were "basically keeping two sets of books," says Schilling. The company would maintain an internal expense report, what it called a "reserve" report, which accurately tallied its expenses. "And then they would have a second report, which...they would file with the government, which was more aggressive." That report would "include inflated costs and expenses they knew weren't allowable or reimbursable. The one they filed with government might claim $5 million and the reserve would claim $4.5." Columbia/HCA would pocket the difference.

It wasn't just happening in Florida, and it wasn't just fraudulent Medicare expense reports. Around the country, dozens of whistle-blowers like Schilling stepped forward to file lawsuits under the False Claims Act, charging the company with sundry forms of chicanery: kickbacks to doctors in exchange for referrals, illegal deals with homecare agencies and filing false data about the use of hospital space.

By 1997 the FBI was investigating Columbia/HCA. Days after agents raided company facilities armed with search warrants, Scott was forced to resign. In 2000 the company pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to pay the government $840 million. Other civil settlements would follow, ultimately totaling a staggering $1.7 billion, making it the largest fraud case in American history.

(Scott was never criminally charged and continues to deny wrongdoing. His spokesperson did not respond to repeated interview requests.)

And this is the man behind the organization to disrupt these Town Hall meetings. What surprises me are all the people falling all over themselves to come to these town hall meetings from other areas to disrupt them. Why? What is the real reason?

For Mr. Scott, it's to protect his Business which is walk-in Health Clinics, most of which are in Wal Marts. For the people he's recruiting? With a true bill from Congress not even out yet, people like Scott are scaring these simple people with all kinds of misinformation. And these simple people, deep down, don't trust a Black President. That's the whole thing right there. They want to believe that this president will do them wrong. What a sad world we live in!

Rachel Maddow Exposes Fake Protesters at Town Hall Meetings

Rachel, as usual, does a great job exposing who is really behind these Fake Town Hall meeting protesters.



The rich want to remain rich and will do anything to stay that way. Open yours eye people and see what is really going on. These people don't want you to have good, affordable health care!

Denied Health Care by Insurance Companies?

Watch this and tell me if there is any morality left in the United States of America:



How do they sleep at night? It's easy when you are filled with greed and have no soul!

But answer me this, why do people keep voting against their best interest and how can they believe that these corporations, be it health care or financials or telecoms, will treat them fairly?

Please people, open your eyes, get answers, seek information so that you are not fooled by those who want to scam you. You are easy prey to them.

I was on Humana Advantage and dropped it

My Insurance kept going up every year. But they are making money hand over fist with the Medicare Advantage programs because the Government subsidies it but you still have to pay your share that goes up every year.

Humana Second Quarter profit jumps 34% as premiums rise

Health insurer Humana Inc. said Monday its second-quarter profit rose 34 percent on the strength its robust government business, led by Medicare Advantage offerings, easily offsetting a sluggish commercial segment hamstrung by the recession.

The results for the three months ended June 30 beat Wall Street estimates. The Louisville, Ky.-based company stuck with its previous projection of a full-year profit between $6.10 and $6.20 per share, while analysts expect $6.12 per share.

Its shares rose 91 cents, or 2.8 percent, to close at $33.76.

Humana posted net income of $281.8 million, or $1.67 per share, for the quarter, compared with earnings of $209.9 million, or $1.24 per share, a year ago.

Revenue jumped 8 percent to just under $7.9 billion from $7.35 billion.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected profit of $1.64 per share on $7.77 billion in revenue.

"Our second quarter results confirm our 2009 financial performance is on track despite pressures from the overall economy," Humana President and CEO Michael B. McCallister said in a statement. "We're making progress reducing costs and investing in improved health outcomes for our members while we closely monitor events in Washington."

Humana's pretax income from its vast government segment surged by 62 percent to $404.7 million in the second quarter. The company attributed the upswing to lower claim expenses in its Medicare drug plans, a 13 percent increase in average Medicare Advantage membership and the introduction of member premiums for most of the company's Medicare Advantage products.

Medicare Advantage plans are government-sponsored, privately run programs for seniors that offer comprehensive health coverage.

The company said its Medicare Advantage membership grew to nearly 1.5 million members as of June 30, up 12 percent from a year ago and a 4 percent increase since the end of 2008. The year-over-year increase included 54,200 members added through acquisitions completed during the second half of 2008.

Medicare Advantage premiums of $4.15 billion rose 19 percent in the quarter versus a year ago.

Wait til these people that have Humana have to use this insurance. The next year their insurance rate will go up and they will be turned down on needed tests and procedures.

Letters to the President

Here's a video that describes the amount of mail the White House gets. A lot of it about Health Care Reform and the problems people have been having with Insurance Companies.

Pres. Obama reads 10 letters a day about these problems. The video is about how they are chosen.

What To Do About The Enemy Within-- Conservatives Wrecking Progressive Initiatives In Congress

Of the 51 Blue Dogs, only 19 represent districts that Obama won in 2008. Most of those 19 are not among the really outright reactionary neo-Confederates and Republican-oriented, anti-family Blue Dogs making all the trouble, your Mike Rosses, Baron Hills and Heath Shulers. Most but not all. Below is a list of all the Blue Dogs, starting with their 4 right-wing leaders, that shows which presidential candidate won each of their districts in 2008:

• Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)- McCain 53%
• Rep. Baron Hill (IN)- McCain 50%
• Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)- McCain 61%
• Rep. Heath Shuler (NC)- McCain 52%

• Rep. Jason Altmire (PA)- McCain 55%
• Rep. Mike Arcuri (NY)- Obama 51%
• Rep. Joe Baca (CA)- Obama 68%
• Rep. John Barrow (GA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Marion Berry (AR)- McCain 59%
• Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Dan Boren (OK)- McCain 66%
• Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)- McCain 54%
• Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)- McCain 63%
• Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA)- Obama 59%
• Rep. Chris Carney (PA)- McCain 54%
• Rep. Ben Chandler (KY)- McCain 55%
• Rep. Travis Childers (MS)- McCain 62%
• Rep. Jim Cooper (TN)- Obama 56%
• Rep. Jim Costa (CA)- Obama 60%
• Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX)- Obama 56%
• Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)- McCain 64%
• Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN)- McCain 51%
• Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)- McCain 62%
• Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)- McCain 61%
• Rep. Jane Harman (CA)- Obama 64%
• Rep. Tim Holden (PA)- McCain 51%
• Rep. Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD)- McCain 58%
• Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)- McCain 56%
• Rep. Jim Matheson (UT)- McCain 57%
• Rep. Mike Michaud (ME)- Obama 55%
• Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)- McCain 62%
• Rep. Harry Mitchell (AZ)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Dennis Moore (KS)- Obama 51%
• Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)- Obama 51%
• Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)- McCain 50%
• Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND)- McCain 53%
• Rep. Mike Ross (AR)- McCain 58%
• Rep. John Salazar (CO)- McCain 50%
• Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA)- Obama 60%
• Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)- Obama 68%
• Rep. David Scott (GA)- Obama 71%
• Rep. Zack Space (OH)- McCain 52%
• Rep. John Tanner (TN)- McCain 56%
• Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)- McCain 68%
• Rep. Mike Thompson (CA)- Obama 66%
• Rep. Charles Wilson (OH)- McCain 50%

This is just a piece of the story from downwithtyranny. The story is not that old but that blog is quick to load new posts so you might have to scroll a bit to find the title (same as this post). Really makes you wonder how BlueDogs from districts that voted heavily for Obama would not be on board with a strong public option bill. Hint: Follow the money.

From the Gavel - Speaker of the House - Fact Check

Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: Impact on Seniors

July 29th, 2009 by Karina

Myth: “Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require, that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” – Betsy McCaughey, former Republican lieutenant governor of New York

Fact: The provision extends Medicare coverage to cover the cost of patients voluntarily speaking with their doctors about their values and preferences regarding end-of-life care—empowering older Americans on this critical issue. These are deeply personal decisions that take thoughtful consideration, and it is only appropriate that doctors be compensated for their time.

Independent analysis by Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com judged the comment a “Pants on Fire” “outright distortion”, writing:

McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would “tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner” is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn’t just wrong, she’s spreading a ridiculous falsehood.

More on the provisions:

Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary.
The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if – and only if – a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes.

There is no mandate in the bill to complete an advance care directive or living will.
If a patient chooses to complete an advance directive or order for life sustaining treatment, these documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from full and aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only. Patients that choose to have these documents and can customize them so that their wishes are appropriately reflected.

There are no government-chosen professionals involved.
The legislation simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patient and their doctors.

Doctors trying to Bilk Medicare

Dozens arrested in health care fraud scheme

Doctors among those accused in scam to bilk Medicare through false claims

MIAMI - Federal authorities arrested 32 people, including doctors, in a major health care fraud bust Wednesday in New York, Louisiana, Boston and Houston, targeting scams such as "arthritis kits" — expensive braces that many patients never used.

It's the third major sweep since Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced in May they were adding millions of dollars and dozens of agents to combat a problem that costs the U.S. billions each year.

Using about a dozen agents in targeted cities, including Miami, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, has recovered $371 million in false Medicare claims and charged 145 people across the country in just two months. Medicare is the federal health care program for the elderly. More at link.

How long has this been happening and who is the watch dog for this program?

The first task force started in 2007 in Miami, a city authorities say alone is responsible for more than $3 billion a year in Medicare fraud. Clinic owners there would bill Medicare dozens of times for the same wheelchair, while never giving the medical equipment to patients.

Here's an article from 2008. The problem was the same then but nothing was done.

Congress tight with Medicare anti-fraud funds

For years, Medicare has begged Congress to help stop the loss of billions of dollars to healthcare scams from Miami to Los Angeles.

Congress' blunt response: Forgetaboutit.

Since 2006, Medicare administrators have asked Congress for $300 million to fight fraud, but Congress has refused to give them any money.

Why? Distrust of the agency that runs the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Political indifference to the Medicare fraud crisis itself. Plus, influential lobbyists and campaign donors who dislike government meddling in the huge healthcare industry.

All have undermined any attempts to cure what ails Medicare -- a 43-year-old program threatened by not only runaway costs but also unbridled fraud, as a Miami Herald series documented last week. It exposed rampant corruption in two regional healthcare fields -- medical equipment suppliers and HIV-infusion clinics -- which fuels South Florida's reputation as the nation's capital of Medicare fraud.

The fraud has to be addressed in Health Care Reform. How much of the increases in Medicare are do to fraud? Double and triple billing! And I blame both parties for this. They dropped the ball here!

Paul Krugman ...

"We don’t have a Medicare problem — we have a health care problem."

Medicare versus insurers

I notice from comments that a fair number of readers think that Medicare has had runaway costs. What you need to ask is, runaway compared to what?

Here’s the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.

Of course rates go up when expenses increase. The idea is to cut expenses and eliminate the cheats which are the providers who are double billing and charging more for test and proceedures.

I'm on Medicare and my rate has gone up each year since I've had it. The next to years my Social Security will remain the same, no cost of living increase but my monthly will be lower because Medicare will go up. Which means Medigap insurance which covers "some" of the 20% that medicare doesn't pay will also go up.

If Health Care is fixed, it will also help Medicare.

Step it up, Obama!

Senator Durbin asks Obama to get involved while Congress is in recess.

"I say this as a member of Congress who's been an observer: The president is in the driver's seat in August," Durbin told reporters Wednesday. "Congress is gone and scattered to the winds with personal family and constituent service. And the White House is still there, generating a message and activity. So I think the president will have a chance to tell the American people a little bit more about why this process is so important."

Progressive Obama supporters are beginning to worry that a public health care option is doomed. Democratic senators have begun voicing skepticism about the direction the debate is going.

But some liberal Democrats, like Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, expressed reservations about concessions being made by Democrats to keep a few Republicans on board.

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children's Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. "Can't you see the joy on my face?" he asked.

The president had wanted legislation before recess, but negotiations in the Senate have made it unlikely. And in the House, conservative Blue Dogs made a deal with leadership that there will not be a vote until after the break.

From the NY Times:

Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.

Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. “Can’t you see the joy on my face?” he asked.

snip

Democrats in Congress plan to finance about half the cost of the legislation by squeezing savings from Medicare. The White House says benefits will not be cut and beneficiaries will not be hurt.

“Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Mr. Obama said.

But Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, said he heard many expressions of concern from constituents when he answered telephone calls to his office on Tuesday.

“The longer we wait to vote,” Mr. Butterfield said, “the more opportunity our opponents have to put out false messages. Seniors fear they will lose Medicare. They worry they will have to discuss plans for end-of-life care every five years.”

A provision of the House bill would provide Medicare coverage for the work of doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care.

Conservative groups have seized on this provision as evidence that the bill could encourage the rationing of health care. The Family Research Council, for example, said the bill would “limit end-of-life care.”

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, said, “I have met seniors who think their Medicare will be taken away, which is false.”

So the Republicans, like the Iraq war, are trying to scare people into voting against theor best interest again. Why do people still believe these Republicans after all that has happened in the past 8 years. Everything they put in place or took away, like regulations for our banks and financial, have crashed. And yet these people still believe these idiots!

Blue Dogs were able to Water Down House Health Care Bill

From Jeff Muskus at Huffungton Post:

Conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are celebrating their success in delaying a full floor vote on health care legislation past the August recess and in weakening two key provisions during their negotiations with committee Chairman Henry Waxman.

"We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September," Mike Ross (D-Ark.) told reporters Wednesday afternoon. "The American people want us to slow down, and that's what we're doing here."

The Blue Dogs wrestled major concessions out of Waxman (D-Calif.), particularly related to a public health care option and employer mandates. The committee's current version of the public option now more closely resembles that of the health committee in the Senate, Ross proudly announced.

For instance, rather than linking the public option to the rates enjoyed by Medicare, the new language would require a separate agreement with significantly higher charges, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius would also have to sign off on any deal between the public option and service providers, while the plan would lack Medicare's bargaining power.

"The public option must go out and negotiate with providers, just like private health insurance companies do," Ross said. "It's strictly optional. It won't be mandated on anyone. It will not be based on Medicare rates."

Close to 86 percent of small businesses -- those with an annual payroll of $500,000 or less -- will be exempt from the mandate to provide employees with health insurance, according to the terms of the compromise. Those with an annual payroll between $500,000 and $750,000 must provide graduated partial assistance.

"That's as close as you can get to totally removing the mandate without removing it," Ross said. "Quite frankly, once you get up to three-quarter million a year in annual payroll, as a former small business owner myself, most of them are already providing health insurance, and if they're not, they should."

Under the original draft legislation, Ross said, barely one-fifth the number of businesses would have been exempted.

The Blue Dog negotiators -- Ross, Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) -- account for a majority of the seven swing Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and their approval marks a big step toward passing the bill out of committee and onto the floor, where it will be reconciled with the two other health reform bills from the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees.

Ross said he and the other committee Blue Dogs are determined to keep the cost of the final bill under $1 trillion over 10 years. He stumbled a bit, however, on the question of how many Americans he expects a weaker bill to cover.

"As many as when we went into these -- our objective has always been to make health insurance affordable for as many people as we can in this country," he said, but estimated another 10 steps between the current bill and the one that will reach President Obama's desk. "There's going to be a lot of changes between now and then." more at link.

Lets hope there will be alot of changes for the better because we can't afford not to have a good bill with a good Public Option. I am hoping more people will demand that of their Senators and Reps. If not, we are doomed to a bad bill like Medicare part D.

Hope for Health Reform? Push Single-Payer Now

posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 07/26/2009 @ 9:11pm

The Nation

It is unsettling to listen as President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi talk up a health-care reform "plan" that has yet to take shape in any realistic form.


The vagueness on the part of the president and the speaker is, of course, intentional.

Obama and Pelosi are still pushing the notion that they can get some version of their public-private stew cooked up before the year is done -- although not, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, before the president and the Congress take the extended summer vacations that will kill whatever sense of official urgency might have existed.
Reid has taken some hits for suggesting that it would be a good idea to try and get health-care reform right, rather than just rush through a plan that fails to cover all Americans or control costs.

But that requires details. And neither Obama nor Pelosi is dealing in details right now because that's where the devil resides.
Here is the truth they tend to avoid mentioning: A robust public plan, with the quality and flexibility that is required to make it appealing to all Americans, would wipe out its insurance-industry competitors in short order. Why would anyone opt for more of the profiteering, restrictions and actual denials of needed treatment -- especially for people with pre-existing conditions -- that the insurance industry uses to make money rather than provide Americans with the medical care they require? And why would any employer choose to subsidize the stock value of health-care conglomerates when it is possible to opt for the better care and controlled costs of a public plan?

Unfortunately, the creation of a robust public plan, one that can compete on the basis of quality and affordability, will require a significant federal expenditure in the form of start-up money as well as regulatory protection for the program. That's where the devil comes in.

The powerful insurance and private health-care lobbies, which fear honest competition as the vampire does the stake, are going to do everything in their power to accomplish three things:

...continued here

2 Great Articles on Health Care and Blue Dogs

The first is from one of my favorite economists, Paul Krugman of the NY Times. He titles this article An Incoherent Truth....

Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.

But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)

Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.

Read more at the link

And the second article is by Harold Meyerson of the Washngton Post who titles his article
The Can't-Do Blue Dogs:

Watching the centrist Democrats in Congress create more and more reasons why health care can't be fixed, I've been struck by a disquieting thought: Suppose our collective lack of response to Hurricane Katrina wasn't exceptional but, rather, the new normal in America. Suppose we can no longer address the major challenges confronting the nation. Suppose America is now the world's leading can't-do country.

Every other nation with an advanced economy long ago secured universal health care for its citizens -- an achievement that the United States alone finds beyond the capacities of mortal man. It wasn't ever thus. Time was when Democratic Congresses enacted Social Security and Medicare over the opposition of powerful interests and Republican ideologues. In fact, our government used to actually pave roads, build bridges and allow for secure retirements by levying taxes on those who could afford to pay them.

To today's centrist Democrats, this has become a distant memory, a history lesson they cannot grasp. The notion that actual individuals might have to pay to secure the national interest appalls them. In the House, the Blue Dogs doggedly oppose proposals to fund universal coverage by taxing the wealthiest 1 percent of the nation's households. Their deference to wealth -- whether the consequence of our system of funding elections or a byproduct of the Internet generation's experience of free access to information and entertainment -- is not to be trifled with.

Meyerson goes even further in his article to address Manufacturing:

But the big picture here, of which the resistance to reforming health care is just one element, is our growing inability to meet our national challenges. Almost all of the major nations with which we trade, for instance, have quasi-mercantilist policies that lead them to champion their own higher-wage growth industries, often in manufacturing. In America alone are such policies considered anathema. In consequence, as the Alliance for American Manufacturing reports in a new book, we shuttered 40,000 factories from 2001 through 2007 -- the years, ostensibly of prosperity, between the past two downturns. The diminution of manufacturing, which employs just 11 percent of the U.S. workforce, may please Wall Street, which looks with disfavor on decent-wage domestic production, and Wal-Mart, which tripled its purchases from China (from $9 billion to $27 billion annually) during roughly the same years those American factories closed, but it poses a clear threat to the nation's economic, and even military, power.

Meyerson brings up the major problem in the United States that is the crux of our economic problems and that is our loss of manufacturing. Most economists say we have been running our country on borrowed money because of this shrinking manufacturing base since the Reagan years. We are now buying things we used to manufacture from other countries that can produce it for less money than we can and one of the main reasons is that our health care is so expensive.

Salaries have stayed stagnant because employers are having to pay more to provide health insurance and even they have passed alot of the expense on to the employee. The problems are deep and the Blue Dogs seem to want to sit back and collect the lobbyist funds and everyone else be damned.

Watch the New Ad for a Public Option by Act Blue

If you're interested in putting your name--literally--on this ad, please go to WeWantThePublicOption.com and add your name to the list. The people need all the voices we can get on the public option and I applaud BoldProgressives for making this great ad and allowing citizens to get involved.

The Great Preventer

By NOURIEL ROUBINI
Published: July 25, 2009


LAST week Ben Bernanke appeared before Congress, setting off a discussion over whether the president should reappoint him as chairman of the Federal Reserve when his term ends next January. Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed. Both the conventional and unconventional decisions made by this scholar of the Great Depression prevented the Great Recession of 2008-2009 from turning into the Great Depression 2.0.

Mr. Bernanke understands that in the Great Depression, the collapse of the money supply and the lack of monetary stimulus during contractions worsened the country’s economic free fall. This lesson has paid off. Mr. Bernanke’s decision to keep interest rates low and encourage lending has, for now, averted the L-shaped near depression that seemed highly likely after the financial collapse last fall.

To be sure, an endorsement of Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment comes with many caveats. Mr. Bernanke, a Fed governor in the early part of this decade, supported flawed policies when Alan Greenspan pushed the federal funds rate (the policy rate set by the Fed as its main tool of monetary policy) too low for too long and failed to monitor mortgage lending properly, thus creating the housing and credit and mortgage bubbles.

He and the Fed made three major mistakes when the subprime mortgage crisis began. First, he kept arguing that the housing recession would bottom out soon (it has not bottomed out even three years later). Second, he argued that the subprime problem was a contained problem when in reality it was a symptom of the biggest leverage and credit bubble in American history. Third, he argued that the collapse in the housing market would not lead to a recession, even though about one-third of jobs created in the latest economic recovery were directly or indirectly related to housing. Mr. Bernanke’s analysis was mistaken in several other important ways. He argued that monetary policy should not be used to control asset bubbles. He attributed the large United States current account deficits to a savings glut in China and emerging markets, understating the role that excessive fiscal deficits and debt accumulation by American households and the financial system played.

Still, when a liquidity and credit crunch emerged in the summer of 2007, Mr. Bernanke engineered a U-turn in Fed policy that prevented the crisis from turning into a near depression. He did this largely with actions and programs that were not in the traditional toolbox of monetary policy. The federal funds rate was effectively pushed down to zero to reduce borrowing costs and prevent the collapse of consumer demand and capital spending by business. New programs encouraged skittish institutions to resume lending. For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed’s role as lender of last resort was extended to investment banks.

Mr. Bernanke also introduced a wide range of other programs, like those to maintain the functioning of the commercial paper market (which makes short-term loans to companies so they can cover operating expenses like payrolls). The Fed was involved directly in the rescue of financial institutions like Bear Stearns and American International Group. It lent money to foreign central banks to ease a global shortage of dollars. The Fed even committed to purchasing up to $1.7 trillion of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities and agency debt to reduce market rates. These are all radical actions that had almost never been undertaken before.

Some of these moves have raised important questions: Did the Fed help bail out institutions that should have been allowed to fail? Did it cause moral hazard as reckless lenders and investors were effectively bailed out? How and when will the Fed mop up the excess liquidity that its actions have created? Will these actions eventually cause inflation and a sharp fall of the value of the dollar? Has the Fed lost its independence as it has accommodated the fiscal needs of the government by bailing out banks and printing money to cover large fiscal deficits?

Still, the basic point remains: The Fed’s creative and aggressive actions have significantly reduced the risks of a near depression. For this reason alone Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed so that he can manage the Fed’s exit from its most radical economic intervention since its creation in 1913.

Nouriel Roubini is a professor of economics at the New York University Stern School of Business and the chairman of an economic consulting firm.

Hey Blue Dogs: It's Time For The Rich To Pay Back Those Tax Loans

By: masaccio Sunday July 26, 2009 10:30 am


The whiny rich and their toadies, especially the Blue Dogs, don’t want a tax increase. I say it’s time for them to pay back the enormous loans they have gotten over the last 30 years. Everyone knows that tax cuts in times of deficits are just loans. Eventually they have to be paid back. We can do it with tax hikes, or by running surpluses, or by cutting expenditures, but they have to be paid. Otherwise, we run up our interest expense, and crowd out private borrowers. For years, the US has been running huge deficits (except for a year under Clinton), all the while cutting taxes for the rich.

The rationale for those tax cuts was that rich people would use that money for investment in productive enterprise, directing it as only they with all their personal brilliance and their genius advisors can do. Then there would be all these new jobs in these new industries, ordinary people would have income and there would be capital gains and more taxes paid, so the tax cuts would pay for themselves. This absurd theory had the obvious outcome: staggering increases in the national debt.

...Read the rest at FDL and don't skip the links! Great stuff