We have 60 votes in the Senate so emails from Democratic Senators blaming their inability to secure enough votes for a public option will not fly with anyone who has been paying attention to this debate.  The Democrats have the support and will of the majority of Americans behind them in this fight for the public option, sixty-five percent  to be exact, and a super majority in the Senate.  Therefore, naming the Republicans as the cause of the delay and inability to pass a public option effective day one is somewhat insulting to those who are keenly interested in a real health insurance reform bill.  Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln (ALL DEMOCRATS) voted against the Schumer public option amendment and that is why the amendment failed not for lack of Republican votes.  Sen. Schumer’s public option amendment was the most conservative public option offered yesterday.  Had the three named Democratic Senators voted for the Schumer public option amendment it would be in the Baucus plan.  However, they did not so it is not in the Senate Finance Committee plan.  The Conservadems must make a choice between their constituents and the special interest (insurance industry).  We already know that the GOP is in pocket of the insurance industry but we expect different, MUCH DIFFERENT, from Democrats.  So Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad, I really have no words.  Baucus claimed that he could not get 60 senators  to vote for a bill with a public option in it and because its his job to get a health care reform bill passed he must vote against any public option.  Newsflash Sen. Baucus, a super majority of Americans will not believe that we have health care reform if a public option is not included in the health insurance reform bill that is effective from DAY ONE.  Thus just passing anything with “reform” in its name is not going to cut it.  The problem with the Conrad and Lincoln vote against Schumer’s amendment is that the senators did not bother to give a reason for their opposition.  Conrad described his co-op idea as an alternative to the public option yet voted against the public option without explaining why not the public option.  Just because you prefer an alternative is not a reason to vote against another viable solution.  Sen. Lincoln voted no by proxy to the Schumer amendment….hmmmm we wonder why if she felt the need to vote against it why not do so in person.

The American people have spoken many times over.  They demand that a public option be included in the health care reform bill.  As warned by Sen. Rockefeller, we cannot allow the 483 billion dollar Baucus bill insurance industry subsidy to happen.   The public option, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will save the government a total of 50 billion dollars and that is a conservative savings estimate according to CBO practice.  So in the name of fiscal responsibility the public option MUST happen.  Sen. Snowe will offer her trigger amendment this week as a “compromise” to the public option.  There is no way that the threat of a “trigger” will do anything to bring down health insurance prices any more than the Prescription Drug bill “trigger” brought down prescription drugs prices.  A so-called “trigger” is not a compromise it is a COP OUT to the INSURANCE INDUSTRY and is unacceptable.  Because the the far left wants a government run single-payer system and the far right wants no government involved in the health insurance industry at all, the compromise is the public option.  Including a ”trigger” that will NEVER be pulled is a cop-out plain and simple.   The American people are not are not blind nor stupid.  It is up to the remaining Senators to make sure they do what their constituents sent them to Washington to do.  REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS.  If 65 percent of Americans want a public option then a public option must be in the bill effective at DAY ONE.    A STRONG and ROBUST PUBLIC OPTION must be in this bill from DAY ONE because that is what the American people want.  Your job senators is to represent the American people NOT the insurance industry.  Right now, Baucus, Snowe, and Lincoln appear to have their priorities twisted.  That NEEDS to change by the time the bill comes up for a vote on the floor WITH the PUBLIC OPTION effective DAY ONE or the American people and the Democratic Party specifically will bear the brunt of your twisted priorities.

We posted this action post last week but because the debate on the public option was postponed from Friday to today this post bears repeating especially in light of the latest CBS/New York Times poll released last Friday.  A whopping 47 percent of Republicans support the public option while only 42 percent oppose it.  In addition, 51 percent of Republicans say that they would oppose a bill without a public option.  Fifty-one percent of REPUBLICANS say that a health insurance reform bill MUST include a public option.  Are you listening Baucus, Nelson, Conrad, et al???  This is BIG NEWS for proponents of the public option and true believers of realhealth insurance reform.  The poll also found that 65 percent of Americans OVERALL want a public option and only 26 percent oppose a public option.  Also, 78 percent of Americans think that the health care system needs fundamental change or a complete overhaul.

The SFC needs to hear from you.  It needs to hear from us that the only way to decrease premiums and provide true competition in the health insurance industry is to include a strong public option.  Don’t let the lobbyists win.  The resistance against the public option by blue dog House members is fading fast because they are hearing from their constituents….people like you.  Now the Senate Finance Committee must hear from you.  Tell them that you support a strong and robust public option and therefore urge [Senator] to vote yes on the public option amendments to the Baucus billfiasco proposed by Sens. Rockefeller and Schumer.  Not all public option amendments are the same.  The Schumer amendment is weaker than the Rockefeller amendment.  Senator Snowe is also proposing Amendment 356, the trigger amendment.  Not good as we have already experienced with the Prescription Drug bill trigger.  The trigger was never pulled and drug prices continue to rise. 

Call your Senate Finance Committee member regardless of whether he/she is a Republican or Democrat.  See full list along with contact information below.

Rockefeller Amendment 187 which creates a public option with rates tied to Medicare + 5 (first three years and then insists that the rates in the subsequent years are closely related to the original rates) and which creates a right to negotiate drug prices…..

Rockefeller Amendment 185 which creates one national exchange and strikes out state and regional exhanges. Again, more choices for consumers.

The second [public option amendment] is written by Senator Schumeralone is an “equal playing field” public option, ie much weaker.

See summary of the amendments here.

Call your Senate Finance Committee Member (especially those in bold and those representing Texas) that thousands of Texans showed up in hopes of receiving free health care last weekend.  The event was said to have been the “largest free clinic” ever to be held in the United States.  Texas has the largest population of uninsured in the country yet Sen. John Cornyn is one of the biggest and most vocal opponents of health care reform.  The Senators in bold have either not revealed their position regarding the public option or have gone on record opposing it.  These Senators must hear what Americans, especially their constituents, want included in the health insurance reform bill.

DEMOCRATS:

Max Baucus (Montana) - (202) 224-2651 or write: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Charles Schumer (New York) -  (202) 224-6542 or write: http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
John Rockefeller (West Virginia) - (202) 224-6472 or write: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ron Wyden (Oregon) - (202) 224-5244  or write: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) - (202) 224-2043 or write: https://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
John Kerry (Massachussetts) - (202) 224-2742 or write: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) - (202) 224-4843 or write: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) - (202) 224-4822 or write: http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
Maria Cantwell (Washington) - (202) 224-3441 or write: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/
Bill Nelson (Florida) - (202) 224-5274 or write: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Robert Menendez (New Jersey) - (202) 224-4744 or write:  http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Thomas Carper (Delaware) - (202) 224-2441 or write: http://carper.senate.gov/contact/
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) - (202) 224-5521  or write: http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/types/email-issue.cfm 

REPUBLICANS

Chuck Grassley, Iowa – (202) 224-3744 or write: http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Orrin Hatch, Utah - (202) 224-5251 or write: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Olympia Snowe, Maine – (202) 224-5344 or write: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Jon Kyl, Arizona -  (202) 224-4521 or write:  http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Jim Bunning, Kentucky - (202) 224-4343 or write  http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Crapo, Idaho – (202) 224-6142 or write: http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Pat Roberts, Kansas – (202) 224-4774 or write: http://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailPat

John Ensign, Nevada – (202) 224-6244 or write: http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Enzi, Wyoming – (202) 224-3424 or write: http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailSenatorEnzi

John Cornyn, Texas – (202) 224-2934 or write: http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

Senator Chuck Schumer reported last night that the Senate Finance Committee would be voting on the public option today.  The SFC needs to hear from you.  It needs to hear from us that the only way to decrease premiums and provide true competition in the health insurance industry is to include a strong public option.  Don’t let the lobbyists win.  The resistance against the public option by blue dog House members is fading fast because they are hearing from their constituents….people like you.  Now the Senate Finance Committee must hear from you.  Tell them that you support a strong and robust public option and therefore urge [Senator] to vote yes on the public option amendments to the Baucus bill fiasco proposed by Sens. Rockefeller and Schumer.  Not all public option amendments are the same.  The Schumer amendment is weaker than the Rockefeller amendment.  Senator Snowe is also proposing Amendment 356, the trigger amendment.  Not good as we have already experienced with the Prescription Drug bill trigger.  The trigger was never pulled and drug prices continue to rise. 

Call your Senate Finance Committee member regardless of whether he/she is a Republican or Democrat.  See full list along with contact information below.

Also, because Senate snail mail is often delayed for weeks for security reasons writing via email is the quickest most efficient way to get your voice heard.  Though all of the Senators must hear from those in support of the public option we bolded the Senators who have shown opposition to the public option thus must be a priority.

Rockefeller Amendment 187 which creates a public option with rates tied to Medicare + 5 (first three years and then insists that the rates in the subsequent years are closely related to the original rates) and which creates a right to negotiate drug prices…..

Rockefeller Amendment 185 which creates one national exchange and strikes out state and regional exhanges. Again, more choices for consumers.

The second [public option amendment] is written by Senator Schumer alone is an “equal playing field” public option, ie much weaker.

See summary of the amendments here.

DEMOCRATS:

Max Baucus (Montana) - (202) 224-2651 or write: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue
Charles Schumer (New York) -  (202) 224-6542 or write: http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
John Rockefeller (West Virginia) - (202) 224-6472 or write: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Ron Wyden (Oregon) - (202) 224-5244  or write: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/
Kent Conrad (North Dakota) - (202) 224-2043 or write: https://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
John Kerry (Massachussetts) - (202) 224-2742 or write: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) - (202) 224-4843 or write: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) - (202) 224-4822 or write: http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
Maria Cantwell (Washington) - (202) 224-3441 or write: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/
Bill Nelson (Florida) - (202) 224-5274 or write: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Robert Menendez (New Jersey) - (202) 224-4744 or write:  http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Thomas Carper (Delaware) - (202) 224-2441 or write: http://carper.senate.gov/contact/
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) - (202) 224-5521  or write: http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/types/email-issue.cfm 

REPUBLICANS

Chuck Grassley, Iowa – (202) 224-3744 or write: http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Orrin Hatch, Utah - (202) 224-5251 or write: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Olympia Snowe, Maine – (202) 224-5344 or write: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Jon Kyl, Arizona -  (202) 224-4521 or write:  http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Jim Bunning, Kentucky - (202) 224-4343 or write  http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Crapo, Idaho – (202) 224-6142 or write: http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Pat Roberts, Kansas – (202) 224-4774 or write: http://www.roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailPat

John Ensign, Nevada – (202) 224-6244 or write: http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Mike Enzi, Wyoming – (202) 224-3424 or write: http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.EmailSenatorEnzi

John Cornyn, Texas – (202) 224-2934 or write: http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

UPDATE:  The vote and debate on the two public option amendments was postponed until Tuesday Sept 29th so you have the three-day weekend to write your Senate Finance Committee member.  A new CBS/New York Times poll says that 65 percent of Americans want a public option and only 26 percent oppose.  Also, 78 percent of Americans think that the health care system needs fundamental change or a complete overhaul.  Write or call your Senate Finance Committe Member this weekend.

As lawmakers move toward the regulatory overhaul of the financial industry lobbyist have stepped up their efforts.  Millions are being spent to prevent the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency but the American people and Congress must remain vigilant. 

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is preparing a new draft of legislation that would set up a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) with broad authority to regulate consumer products such as home loans and credit cards.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is leading a coalition of 25 lobbying associations against the agency plans. The associations include: the Business Roundtable, Consumer Bankers of America, Financial Services Roundtable and National Association of Homebuilders, among others.

At the same time, a group of 15 law professors sent lawmakers a letter this week backing the new regulatory agency.

The proposal for a new agency has emerged as an early flashpoint in the broader debate over a series of new financial regulations that also include major changes to the regulation of banks and complicated financial derivatives

See remainder of article here.

Karen Ignagni, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans and the most powerful health care lobbyist in the country, recently sent a letter to Senator Baucus positively gushing over the so-called “reforms” that his plan proposed.  However, she, the health care lobbyist, would make a few changes just to make sure that the insurance industry isn’t in any way hit.

Ignagni admits that co-ops are useless as she argues against the creation of a public option and strikes down Baucus’ exchange idea.  In other words, allow us in the insurance industry to fix the problem…we’re trustworthy.

- ‘Government Created’ Cooperatives = ‘Slower March Toward A Government-Run Plan’:Ignagni argues that cooperatives will retain certain competitive advantages. The cooperative would receive start-up funds “it would not have to be repaid” and “the government would continue to act as a “player and referee” with the Secretary of HHS serving as Chair of the “advisory board.” However, despite insurers’ concerns of increased competition the bill’s ‘network of cooperatives‘ would be unable to compete in today’s concentrated health insurance markets. As the CBO has concluded, “the proposed co-ops had very little effect on the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or federal costs because, as they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments.”

Ignagni also proposes the following:

- Benefit Flexibility To Allow Insurers To Design Policies That Attract Healthier Enrollees:“This means that benefit packages should give consumers flexible options to meet diverse needs and be aligned with the level of premium subsidies provided by Congress, and that the coverage requirement needs to avoid creating incentives for healthy people to forego the purchase of coverage,” Ignagni writes. The letter also expresses concerns about the new national benefit standards.

Definition:

In other words, insurers want to design packages that attract healthier applicants and deter “enrollment by those in poorer health.” “For example, insurers could offer a benefits design that omits or severely limits services needed by people with serious medical conditions, while offering richer benefits in other areas such as vision care or health-club memberships.” Well-defined standard benefit packages could preclude the industry from slowly moving everyone into high deductible policies.

Anyone who believes big insurance will heal itself is smoking something.  Without a strong and robust public option that will provide REAL competition to the insurance industry it will continue to price gouge customers and monopolize the market by inhumanly denying claims and perpetuating the continuing loss of 45 thousand American lives each year. 

We need a a strong and robust public option to provide a REAL choice for health care for all Americans.

Thank you Congress for forcing the insurance companies to cover people with “pre-existing conditions.”  However, there is still a major concern with this aspect of the bill and your efforts will be in vein if the concern is not addressed.   The primary concern is cost containment and a need for a regulatory definition of “pre-existing conditions.”  Lets address the first concern:  what cost control mechanism is being included in the reform bill that will prevent insurance companies from price gouging customers who have a so-called “pre-existing condition?”  The second concern is defining “pre-existing condition.”  Congress must define this industry created term in the reform bill unless it wants the insurance companies to define it which may be something as insignificant as a hang nail. 

The last thing we want are insurance companies price gouging customers in the name of “pre-existing conditions” if we are trying to get true reform.  To prevent the industry from charging customers exhorbitant prices for “pre-existing conditions” Congress must cap it and define it.   We  do not deny that insurance companies should be able to charge a small premium amount for folks with pre-existing conditions but the fact that the industry is getting 47 million new customers will far exceed, probably as much as six times over, any additional cost that the industry would incur by insuring those with “pre-existing conditions.”  The maximum premium and the definition of pre-existing condition needs to be be spelled out and defined in concise and clear language to prevent any wiggle room by the industry.  Otherwise we have the insurance industry excluding firefighters, policemen, and pregnant women from coverage through price gouging.  And if that isn’t enough, the federal government is then fining these same people for not having insurance even though they cannot afford it only because the industry has set the price of insurance too high for those afflicted.   Take a look at what the insurance industry is currently doing under the guise of “pre-existing condition” as reported by Consumer Wathdog.org:

The internal insurance company documents – known as “underwriting” guidelines – reveal that insurers deny applicants based on occupation, age, weight, use of a wide range of common prescription drugs, minor health conditions or mere “symptoms” that have not been reported to a physician.  In some cases, instead of denying coverage outright insurance companies will sell policies to these applicants but only at exorbitant costs.

“These documents show why health care reform must include serious curbs on insurance companies including regulation of rates and practices so insurers can’t continue to price gouge or find new ways to refuse customers as part of their business model,” said Carmen Balber, Consumer Watchdog’s D.C. Director.

Download the underwriting documents for PacifiCare (subsidiary of United Health Group), Blue Cross of California (subsidiary of WellPoint), Blue Shield of California,  and HealthNet  here.

Elizabeth Warren, the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel and the person who originally proposed the idea of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in the 2007 said the following during a Congressional hearing regarding TARP funds: “People are angry that even if they have paid their bills on time consistently and never missed a payment, their TARP-assisted banks are unilaterally raising their interest rates or slashing their credit lines,” said Warren, who elaborated further about the populist anger over foreclosures and the lack of small business financing.

And in terms of decreasing credit lines the banks are doing just that.  One particularly notable dirty trick the industry is using is slashing credit lines of their customers so that the customer then ends up over their credit limit.  The banks then charge over-limit fees and/or raise the customer’s interest rate even though the consumer is only over his/her credit limit because the bank lowered the customer’s limit after the purchases were made.  Very unscrupulous.  Another trick the industry is trying as a way to increase your promotional interest rate is by attempting to negotiate your payment each month from a higher percentage of your balance to a lower percentage of your balance if you accept a higher interest rate.  Though industry practice prior to the new regulations was three percent, the rule is that banks can charge you between three and five percent of your balance as a monthly payment.  This is a trick on the consumer because there is nothing in place to prevent that same credit card company from coming back to you the following month to negotiate with you to accept and even higher rate in exchange for a lower payment.  Don’t fall for it.  All of these deceptive tactics are being utilized to take full advantage of the non-existent laws before the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights goes into full effect in February 2010 and because there is no consumer protection agency.  The credit card companies are attempting to gouge consumers by any means necessary which is why consumers need a protection agency whose sole focus is to prevent such practices.   

Some of the reasons cited by Warren as to why it’s vital that we have  Consumer Financial Protection Agency:

• It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the street — and the mortgage won’t even carry a disclosure of that fact to the homeowner.
• Consumers would greatly benefit if an independent commission existed to create safe harbors for credit card agreements or ensure that mortgages didn’t keep individuals confused about interest rate hikes.
• It can be proactive rather than reactive.”Three or four years down the line firms will come up with some new idea that they haven’t thought of yet that will have some destabilizing impact on the market,” said a Warren confidant. “Rather than waiting for Congress to come back and take action, you would have a regulatory agency already set up.” 
• Sens. Durbin, Schumer and Kennedy wrote to Treasury Secretary Geitner urging the creation of CFPA because ”we cannot effectively manage systemic risk and restore the confidence of American families in the financial system without making sure that the financial products themselves are safe.”

The Americans for Fairness in Lending has cited the top six reasons for having the Consumer Financial Protection Agency:

• Consumer protection would be the CFPA’s only mission, so consumer interests would not be subordinated to other concerns.
• The CFPA would regulate all companies that are involved in consumer lending, so that companies would not be able to seek out a regulator with looser standards or to avoid regulation entirely.
• The CFPA would impose the same rules on all companies offering the same products, regardless of their charter or corporate form, so all consumers getting the same type of loan would receive the same protections.
• The CFPA would have the authority to both write and enforce rules, thus eliminating the disconnect that can lead to gaps in the current system.
• As the single agency charged with consumer financial protection, the CFPA would have the motivation and the resources to be able to collect the data, carry out the research, and develop the expertise that are needed to regulate effectively.
• With its data, expertise, and unified authority, the CFPA would be able to respond to new abusive practices and products promptly and effectively.

Americans for Financial Reform sums it up:

• A strong federal commitment to robust consumer protection is central to restoring and maintaining a sound economy.  The nation’s financial crisis grew out of the proliferation of inappropriate and unsustainable lending practices that could have and should have been prevented.  That failure harmed millions of American families, undermined the safety and soundness of the lending institutions themselves, and imperiled the economy as a whole.

This is the percentage of claim denials by the the top six insurance companies in California within the first SIX MONTHS of 2009.

* PacifiCare — 39.6 percent
* Cigna — 32.7 percent
* HealthNet — 30 percent
* Kaiser Permanente — 28.3 percent
* Blue Cross — 27.9 percent
* Aetna — 6.4 percent

*Data compiled by California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee

The numbers add up to 47.7 million claims that were denied by the top six insurance companies in California in the first half of 2009.  “Every claim that is denied represents a real patient enduring pain and suffering. Every denial has real, sometimes fatal consequences,” said Deborah Burger, RN, CNA/NNOC co-president.

Claim denials equal big profits for big insurance.  Read what Angela Braly, CEO of WellPoint, was taped saying:  ”We will not sacrifice profitability for membership.”  While the rest of the country spiraled into a recession the big insurance giants boasted $15.9 billion in profits last year. 

Lets look at PacificCare and Cigna a little closer:

PacifiCare, for example, denied a special procedure for treatment of bone cancer for Nick Colombo, a 17-year-old teen from Placentia, Calif. Again, after protests organized by Nick’s family and friends, CNA/NNOC, and netroots activists, PacifiCare reversed its decision. But like Nataline Sarkisyan, the delay resulted in critical time lost, and Nick ultimately died. “This was his last effort and the procedure had worked before with people in Nick’s situation,” said his older brother Ricky.

Cigna gained notoriety two years ago for denying a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan of Northridge, Calif. and then reversing itself, tragically too late to save her life.

If you want a public option FireDogLake has put together a fundraising effort to kill the “trigger” option and replace it with the public option.  Please donate  here to make health care affordable for all Americans.  We need a  Strong and Robust PUBLIC OPTION!

Good news for the American economy! 

• American’s net worth grew by $2 trillion in the second quarter of this year for the first time since 2007 that we have seen such growth.
• Home prices are up.  Real estate values rose 1.8 percent for the first time since 2006

WASHINGTON – Americans’ wealth rose this spring for the first time in nearly two years, with stocks and home values gaining as the recession faded.

Still, household net worth remains about 19 percent below its peak in the third quarter of 2007, before the recession began.

The Federal Reserve said net worth grew by $2 trillion to $53.1 trillion in the April-to-June quarter. Net worth, or the value of assets such as homes, checking accounts and investments minus debts like mortgages and credit cards, rose nearly 4 percent from the first quarter, the Fed said.  See full article here.

Sen. Max Baucus has cost the Democrats and the White House an enormous amount of political capital by holding the country hostage for two months while he allegedly seeks bipartisanship.  And this is the best that he comes up with?  The Baucus plan proposes expanding Medicaid to individuals making less than 14k per year and to families of four making less than 30k per year.  However, to pay for your health insurance the Baucus’ plan levies a 13 percent tax on individuals making MORE than 32k per year and families of four making more than 66k .  Individuals who do not buy health insurance and who make LESS than 32k a year are fined $750 yearly and a $950 yearly fine is imposed on those who opt out and make MORE than 32k a year.  Families of four who do not buy health insurance and that make LESS than 66k per year are fined $1,500 a year and a $3,800 fine is levied on those making MORE than 66k  annually who opt out.  In addition, the 13 percent of  your salary that is deducted directly from your pay check is streamlined directly to insurance companies.  My question is did he put a cap on the 13 percent?  What about those making $200k per year?  Are they required to pay 13 percent of the 200k or was he at least slick enough to put a cap on the amount that can be paid to insurance companies for a single policy?    

The plan also proposes state-based/regional co-ops as a way to provide competition to the insurance companies.  In the meantime and while the co-ops are taking several years/decades to ramp-up the insurance companies are continuing to rake in obscene profits through a 13 percent mandate being imposed by the federal government.  That means that the insurance companies will be receiving 13 percent of every working person’s check going directly into their bank accounts.  Is Baucus serious? 

Unbelievable.  After all that drama not a single Republican vote.  Some folks were very happy with the Baucus plan however.  Insurance executives.  Stock prices for insurance companies rose between one and three percent following the announcement .  Which leads us to wonder if Baucus delayed this bill intentionally in order to sabotage or at least cripple health insurance reform.  The Montana senator has received $3 million from the health care and insurance industry since 2003.  The fact that none of Baucus’ Gang appeared with him at the press conference announcing his plan speaks volumes.

If you want a public option FireDogLake has put together a fundraising effort to kill the “trigger” option and replace it with the public option.  Please donate  here to make health care affordable for all Americans.

This is what whistleblower and former top executive at Cigna, Wendell Potter, said about the health reform plan released by Sen. Baucus.  Potter said during the House Democratic Steering & Policy Cmte. forum yesterday that if the health care reform bill “fails to create a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, the bill it sends to the president might as well be called the Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.”   He also went further and said the Baucus proposal is a joke:

“The Baucus framework is just an absolute joke,” said Potter, Cigna’s former head of corporate communications who has been speaking out against insurance industry practices. “It is an absolute gift to the industry. And if that is what we see in the legislation, (America’s Health Insurance Plans chief) Karen Ignagni will surely get a huge bonus.”

Potter went further:

Potter said the proposal would not provide affordable coverage. It gives the industry too much latitude to charge higher premiums based on age and geographic location, fails to mandate employer coverage, and pushes consumers into plans with limited benefits, Potter said.

Private insurers “want to have ‘benefit design flexibility.’ Those are three very worrisome words,” Potter said at a briefing arranged by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “By being able to have benefit design flexibility, they will be able to design plans that are so limited that more and more people will be in the ranks of the uninsured.”

As for Baucus’ fellow Gang of Six members:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller blasted the draft bill produced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus: “there is no way in its present form that I vote for it unless it changes in the amendment process by vast amounts.”

He’s not alone.  Fellow Finance Committee member Ron Wyden is livid too.

Apparently Baucus sought the approval of special interest groups before giving his draft plan to his fellow colleagues.  The Senator has received significant contributions from the health care industry. See the comments about the release of the Baucus plan by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

GIBBS: I was told that — that K Street had a copy of the Baucus plan, meaning, not surprisingly, the special interests have gotten a copy of the plan that I understand was given to committee members today.

…………………….

GIBBS: I was told that — that K Street had a copy of the Baucus plan, meaning, not surprisingly, the special interests have gotten a copy of the plan that I understand was given to committee members today.

Sen. Max Baucus has chosen the insurance industry over the American people and therefore has lost all credibility in this debate.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                               September 14, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON FINANCIAL RESCUE AND REFORM

Federal Hall
New York, New York

11:59 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  It is wonderful to be back in New York after having just been here last week.  It is a beautiful day and we have some extraordinary guests here in the Hall today.  I just want to mention a few.

First of all from my economic team, somebody who I think has done extraordinary work on behalf of all Americans and has helped to strengthen our financial system immeasurably, Secretary Tim Geithner — please give him a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  Somebody who is continually guiding me and keeping me straight on the numbers, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer is here.  (Applause.)  We have an extraordinary economic recovery board and as chairman somebody who knows more about the financial markets and the economy generally than just about anybody in this country, Paul Volcker.  Thank you, Paul.  (Applause.)  The outstanding mayor of the city of New York, Mr. Michael Bloomberg.  (Applause.)  We have Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is here, as well; thank you.  (Applause.)

We have a host of members of Congress, but there’s one that I have to single out because he is going to be helping to shape the agenda going forward to make sure that we have one of the strongest, most dynamic, and most innovative financial markets in the world for many years to come, and that’s my good friend, Barney Frank.  (Applause.)  I also want Read the rest of this entry »

The important number of uninsured is not the total number of people without health insurance (30/47 million), the important number is the 18,000 Americans dying EACH YEAR because they do not have health insurance.  To the GOP who continues to make excuses for why the number of uninsured is so high or its other argument that it is not really that high when you subtract these people and those people, please tell me how you deal with the 18,000 deaths each year due to lack of health insurance?  What other industrialized nation can you cite where the conduct of a private industry kills that many people EACH YEAR and the government continues to allow it to happen? 

Public Option

The public option was a part of the President’s health care plan during the campaign as the method to bring down insurance costs.  The focus has been consistent during the campaign and now that the health care reform plan MUST bring down health insurance cost and make it affordable for all.  So the complaint by the White House and some in the main stream media that progressives are overreacting because the President never campaigned on the public option is false because it was in his original health care plan proposed during the campaign.  More importantly the progressives went apoplectic upon hearing that the public option was off the table not so much because of an intractable allegiance to the public option per se but because the alternative proposals intended to reduce insurance cost are ineffective thereby accomplishing no health insurance reform at all.  

None of the alternatives to the public option accomplish a reduction in insurance premiums or health insurance costs more effectively than the public option.  As a matter of fact, none of the proposed alternatives even have a demonstrated potential for bringing down health insurance cost when closely examined. 

Co-ops

A co-op has been proven ineffective because of its inability to ramp up enough members quickly enough to make it/them a viable competitor to the private insurance companies.  In other words, in order to achieve economies of scale the co-op will need hundreds of thousands of customers and the infrastructure to service them immediately.  It has taken the two most cited health care co-ops over sixty years to achieve economies of scale and it is very doubtful that their success can be duplicated in the current business environment.  Not to mention the many barriers to entry for any new start-up private insurance company.  Further, a co-op’s vulnerability and susceptibility to eventually being acquired by a larger insurance company/ies as has happened in the past (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) makes this idea a very weak one.  Under the current proposal out of the Senate Finance Committee, Blue Cross Blue Shield would qualify to become a co-op to Sen. Conrad’s extreme delight.  In other words, private insurance companies would be able to call themselves co-ops thereby enabling them to take full advantage of the 30 or 47 million new captive customers as a result of a mandate without reducing their premiums by one cent.  Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Paul von Ebers has said as much. 

Increased Regulation of Insurance industry

Increased regulation is also ineffective because it is subject to politics and deregulation at the change of political leadership in Washington. Very much like the deregulation of Wall Street. Increased regulation is always subject to deregulation.

Trigger

A trigger relies too much on the insurance industry to develop a conscience and will not work because insurance companies are artificially created entities not human beings and can never develop a conscience.  Further, the artificially created entities are first and foremost profit focused so rest assured that the insurance industry will find a way around a so-called trigger because a public option will dramatically affect their profits.  In addition, historical practices of the insurance industry prove otherwise.  The insurance industry has had decades to self correct knowing that they were increasing the cost of premiums astronomically.  The industry has never even made a superficial effort towards reform why would it do so now if they can delay until the Republicans control the White House again?  This is a BLATANT stall tactic pure and simple.   A trigger will allow insurance companies several more years of exorbitant profits at the expense of thousands of American lives and the financial ruin of thousands more of America’s citizens. A so-called trigger is also subject to the politics of DC by giving the power to a politically appointed HHS Secretary to make the decision to pull the trigger.  What happens when the GOP controls the White House and there is a Republican HHS Secretary?  Why would the insurance industry reform now with the mere threat of a trigger which they have millions of dollars in legal coffers to fight against the trigger.  What is the incentive to the industry to reform immediately?  What are the bench marks?  Further, look at what happened with the prescription drug bill which contained a trigger and though prescription costs continue to expand the trigger has never been pulled. 

Private Insurance Exchange

Mandating that the 30/47 million people currently without insurance participate in an exchange ran by the insurance industry where the only plans available are those offered by private insurers is a joke.  How excatly would this provide cost control.  While the insurance companies are RUNNING the exchange will they also provide competition for themselves in the exchange.  A completely REDICULOUS proposition.  Mass profit seeking insurance companies are the entities that raised premiums 130 percent in the last 10 years.  Now those same profit seeking insurance companies are going to run an exchange that is suppose to provide affordable health insurance to 47 million captive new  customers?  DREAM ON!!!  What makes any imbecile think that this is a plausible solution to bringing down the cost of health insurance ?

Final Thoughts

One question to Sen. Mary Landrieu of Lousiana, a member of Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee, about her comment this past weekend on This Week regarding the public option:

                  ”Many of us are concerned that a public option may undermine the private insurance industry”

By “undermine” Sen. Landrieu do you mean provide competition for?

About the myth that a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business.  A public option will not put insurance companies out of business any more than public universities and colleges put Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Howard, Wellesley, Sarah Lawrence, and other private colleges and universities out of business.  An education at the University of California Berkley costs a fraction of what it cost to attend Harvard or Yale yet both ivy league colleges have hundreds of thousands of students clamoring to get in each year and routinely must reject thousands of hopefuls.  The claim is ridiculous on its face and easily disproven simply by looking at the various public and private entities that continue to coexist and thrive in today’s business environment.  Including Medicare/Medicaid (public program) and Aetna/Universal Health (private industry).  Yes the same argument was cited against the passage of Medicare and Medicaid.

We have thousands of people dying as a result of irresponsible and profit centered insurance companies therefore fixing this problem yesterday is non-negotiable.  Non-negotiable not only to progressives but to any person who puts the value of human life above the value of the insurance industry’s unfettered free market and monopolistic existence.

The President is giving a speech today on the progress that has been made with respect to overhauling our financial regulatory system.  The credit card and the rest of the financial industry has unleashed its lobbyists on Capitol Hill to the tune of millions of dollars in an effort to thwart the administration’s efforts to overhaul the financial regulatory system.  More specifically preventing the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is the industry’s highest objective. 

Mr. President we desperately need this agency and cannot afford to continue spreading the responsibility for protecting consumers within the financial markets among ten different agencies that have other much higher priorities.  The agencies currently delegated with this task failed miserably as was demonstrated by the near financial collapse.  Further, and as noted by your chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, Elizabeth Warren, “[c]onsumer financial products were the front end of the destabilization of the American economic system.”  Obviously all ten regulatory agencies currently charged with consumer protection responsibilities were distracted with other priorities prior to and during the financial meltdown and therefore would not give this aspect of regulatory reform the attention it needs.  We need an agency whose sole mission, purpose, and focus is protecting consumers. In addition, there appears to be a conflict of interest with bank regulators like the Federal Reserve taking on the consumer protection aspect of financial regulatory reform.  A bank regulator’s primary goal is the “safety and soundness” of banks and a bank’s profitability even if its at the expense of exploiting consumers.  Therefore, consumer protection cannot be a high priority at the same time as the profitability and soundness of banks being a priority.  Bank regulating agencies will be less inclined to enforce consumer protection laws if a bank is failing because the regulators main job is to help prevent the bank from failing and the risk of the manipulation or unfair practices perpetrated against the consumer is secondary.  Also, because companies can choose which agency regulates them by how it decides to form as a corporation (e.g. charter, bank, etc.), bank regulators are incentivized to regulate without bite or not be tough on banks because such a reputation will result in banks choosing one of the other nine agencies to regulate it by choosing a different corporate form to operate under.

In short Mr. President, we need the Consumer Financial Protection Agency more than ever because banks have already begun re-engaging in the same irresponsible risk-taking behavior that caused the current recession and the credit card industry is already engaging in deceptive practices as a work around to recently passed consumer protection laws.  As for the financial industry, it is engaging in excessive risk-taking again because no significant changes have been made to the financial regulatory system.  Unfortunately turf-protecting regulators, lobbyists, and Congress have slowed the overhaul process down considerably but we cannot afford to continue at this snail’s pace.  Because banks are again taking risks far greater than the CYA capital they have on hand our financial system is again in jeopardy.  The banking industry continues to operate under the assumption that they are “too big to fail” and that is not healthy for consumers.

Therefore Mr. President, please continue to press hard and fast with regulatory reform including creating the vitally important Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  We will not reiterate the stakes as we are sure that you are very much aware.

Your behavior at the Presidential address was inexcusable and you should be censured. You are the first congressman ever to demean the House and your state in such a way. As a member of Congress listening to a presidential address in the House chamber civility is the order of the day. Not to mention that as a “congressman” protocol requires that you never call a fellow House member a liar on the House floor.  So what exactly makes you think that you are free to call the President of the United States a liar during a joint session? As a former aid to Strom Thurmond who posits Thurmond as someone to be admired and revered even today I have an idea of where on the spectrum your morals, values, and ignorance lie. I also have an idea of what your feelings are about Barack Obama being president.  You are a disgrace to the House and to the state of South Carolina. It serves you right that your opponent has raised over a million dollars following your childish and inappropriate behavior.  It is my sincere hope that this will be your last term in Congress and your state and the rest of America will be well rid of your lunacy and disrepect for the office of the President and the House of Representatives.  As for your GOP colleagues who attempt to excuse your behavior by saying that your claim about the President is accurate that is not the point.  Your claim is NOT accurate by the way but I digress.  There is a place for disagreeing with the President and that place is not during a presidential address to a joint session. As a matter of fact you are the first Congressman to ever commit such a violation and President Obama is the first president to be on the receiving end.  Go figure former Thurmond aid.

You have officially set a new LOW bar, congratulations.

Presidential Address to Joint Session of Congress

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month.  Credit was frozen.  And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods.  A full and vibrant recovery is many months away.  And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.  That is our ultimate goal.  But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery.  I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises.  We came to build a future.  So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.  It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.  And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way.  A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943.  Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.  

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point.  Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy.  These are not primarily people on welfare.  These are middle-class Americans.  Some can’t get insurance on the job.  Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.   Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.  

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.  There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage.  In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point.  And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.  In other words, it can happen to anyone. Read the rest of this entry »

A preview comment regarding the President’s address this evening.  First, a mandate without a public option means a jackpot for the insurance companies and it does not appear on its face to be health insurance reform.  Tonight we hope to hear an affirmative  list of items that the White House must see in the  health care reform bill.  Why?  Because one wonders had the President been explicit about his deal breakers at the jump whether we would be much further along in terms of a final bill. 

Second, the Senate and the House has had decades to think about the best way to accomplish true health care reform and the American people have received zip.  The GOP has had months to debate the current proposals and they still argue that they need more time.  As you said on Labor day there comes a time when debate must end.  Now is that time.   It is time to act.  So we ask Mr. President that you keep in mind the advice of President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 during the tumultuous negotiations surrounding Medicare and Medicaid and the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he explained his decision to run for President against incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

Lets start with what Lyndon Johnson said during a call to House leadership moments after the Medicare bill got through a pivotal House committee.  Johnson demanded that the leadership keep the bill moving and not rest on their laurels:

“You just tell them not to let it lay around. Do that,” Johnson barks.

“They want to, but they might not,” he continues. “Then that gets the doctors organized, then they get the others organized. And that damn near killed my education bill. Letting it lay around. It stinks. It’s just like a dead cat on the door. When a committee reports it you’d better either bury that cat or get some life in it.”

Now Sen. Ted Kennedy:

In explaining why he decided to run for the presidency in 1980, Mr. Kennedy explained how he was motivated in part because of his differences with then President Jimmy Carter. Among other things, he was frustrated by Mr. Carter’s incremental approach to providing universal health care coverage, saying the president’s go-slow approach was “squandering a real opportunity to get something done.”

The gist?  This has been dragged out in the name of bipartisanship long enough and the longer you continue to seek this unattainable illusion with the current Republican Senate and House the more funky this cat becomes. Keep it moving and do what the majority of Americans sent you there to do…implement the agenda that you campaigned on public option and all.   No one can fault you for that.

There has been a ridiculous meme being pushed by the right about President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schools.  A request asking children to write a letter informing the President how they can support him is the main objection being circulated by the lunatic fringe.  Several members of the Republican party claim that the administration is trying to indoctrinate students in a way similar to that of some of the world’s most evil and notorious dictators.  Unbelievable.  Well…..guess who said the following in a speech broadcast live to the nation’s classrooms while he was campaigning for re-election in 1991:

“Let me know how you’re doing. Write me a letter — and I’m serious about this one — write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.”

            President George H. W. Bush 1991

No public outcry, no storming of the Capitol by the left, no parents threatening to pull their children out of school.  President Bush gave his speech pushing the education policies of his administration and all was good in the hypocracy of the GOP.