Insensitivity to human suffering appears to be a bipartisan condition: afflicting both Democrat Dan Lipinski, who appears intent on opposing healthcare reform over its funding for abortion, a (chimera) and Republican Peter Roskam, who has vowed to oppose it because it will increase debt (also a myth).
Hear is one mother’s touching appeal to Dan Lipinski for a change of heart. She rightly states that the healthcare reform bill is, by its very nature pro-life, because it will give access to care to millions of pregnant women who now go without.
Hopefully this will move Congressmen Lipinski and Roskam to reconsider their votes.
There is no uncertainty what Peter Roskam will do when the Democratic healthcare reform package comes to a vote, probably later this week. Roskam will vote “no”. Roskam vote will be just the culmination of a year of effort on his part to block the President and Congress from doing anything meaningful to help Illinois residents who are suffering because the can’t afford to purchase healthcare insurance, because they have a pre-existing condition that makes getting coverage impossible, or because the insurance they have won’t pay for the care they need.
Roskam has not only argued against healthcare reform in Committee and on the House floor. No, rather than listen to his constituents and understand their needs, he has undertaken an intensive misinformation campaign designed to promote fear and confusion about the Democratic plans amongst his constituency. And he has used your tax dollars in this war of deception, spending them on huge volumes of direct mail, robo-calls, and town hall meetings designed only to air his point of view. Why is he doing this? First and foremost to cause the President to fail for political gain – a failure on health reform may make other Democratic reforms on immigration and finance more difficult and improve Republican prospects in the 2010 election. And, of course, because it is the will of the big insurance companies who help fund his campaign.
If Roskam is successful in his efforts, and the Democratic healthcare plan fails, thousands will continue to die and suffer needlessly due to lack of care. The bill that is expected to emerge this week will not be a perfect solution. A single-payer plan or national health service would do more to improve quality and reduce costs, but this is a huge first step.
More troubling than Roskam sure “no” vote at this point is an expected “no” vote by Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez, of the 4th Congressional District in Chicago. Representative Gutierrez is a fine and principled legislator who is an outspoken advocate for badly-needed immigration reform. Representative Gutierrez is rightly upset that the healthcare reform plan on the table would exclude undocumented immigrants from coverage. This exclusion is not merely unjust, it is also bad policy. It will continue to force undocumented immigrants to use emergencies rooms for care. Care rendered will be less effective and more expensive than it would if these workers were included in reform plans. And undocumented workers tend to be younger and healthier than the population at large so their addition to risk pools could reduce premiums for everyone.
Representative Gutierrez is also upset because he feels that President Obama abandoned his pledge to make immigration reform a top priority during his first year in office. We too are disappointed, but I’m not sure that candidate Obama had any real sense of how difficult the healthcare fight would be or of the depths to which the Republican Party would sink in obstructing the Democratic agenda. We think it unlikely that the President could have, practically speaking, advanced immigration reform during the first year but we don’t see that as an abandonment by the President of the cause.
But whether that is true or not, we feel certain that Representative Gutierrez has the potential to kill both immigration reform and healthcare reform in one fell swoop, along with the rest of the Democratic agenda, if he casts a “no” vote on healthcare reform as he has suggested he may do. If healthcare reform fails, we believe that it is over. Neither immigration reform nor any other progressive reform is likely to go anywhere, and Representative Gutierrez will likely end up fighting for immigration justice with a Republican Congress and a Republican President hostile to immigrants.
So, Illinois, Peter Roskam already has his mind made up. Calling him will do you know good. Please call Representative Gutierrez instead and thank him for standing up for immigrants while asking him to change his mind and vote “yes” on healthcare reform. His contact information can be found here.
Peter Roskam’s communications to his constituents generally assume that we are all as gullible as the average “Tea Party” participant or Glenn Beck viewer. That is a serious mistake. This is a highly-educated district, literate regarding the serious issues we face as a country. I can discern a growing disgust with Roskam, particularly with regard to his stance on health care, both in the volume of traffic this site receives and the number and nature of communications I am receiving from among Roskam’s other constituents.
Received a note today from a 6th District voter. I won’t disclose her identity because I haven’t obtained her permission. She wrote regarding this email message from Roskam. She was upset by the “survey” on the “government takeover of healthcare” included in the message. Her response to Peter Roskam, which she copied me on, follows.
To: peter.roskam@mail.house.gov
Sent: Sun, Oct 11, 2009 10:05 pm
Subject: Fwd: Roskam Hosting CNBC`s Squawk Box Monday
This email is a perfect example of how words can be manipulated to fit YOUR version of the health care debate.
Who would answer “Yes” to the question below? I wouldn’t answer “Yes” and I am totally in favor of revamping our health care system. It is disingenuous of you to ask your constituents the LOADED question below. President Obama CLEARLY stated in his address to congress that a single-payer option (aka government takeover, in your words) is NOT on the table.
Yet, you will use the results of this question to justify not voting for health care reform, including a public option, saying it is not what your constituents want. You recently sent me a letter stating that you agree with President Obama’s assertion that congress is in agreement with 80% of the health care reform package currently being considered–and that you AGREE with him. Then you send out this email that totally rebuts what you said in that letter because this email will drive a bigger wedge between proponents of health care reform and those that are afraid of a public option–and you will use that to further your own agenda which is just to stop health care reform so that the democratic party is looked upon as a failure.
Your party is so good at calling the President every word in the book. Well, I’ll throw one at you–the republican party is treasonous. You are trying to disrupt the government at the cost of every American who does not have health care and those who cannot see through your manipulative words and believe they are doing the right thing.
Peter Roskam appeared on Fox Chicago Sunday yesterday and, I must say, our Congressman was looking particularly dreamy. The friendly Fox News team quizzed Pete again about the Joe Wilson outburst during President Obama’s speech last week and Roskam describes the “thud” he felt at hearing Wilson cry out “you lie” to the President when Obama said his plan would provide no coverage for undocumented workers. When I look at the pictures though, I’m pretty sure that the only “thud” Roskam experienced came much later when he saw his picture in the New York Times. In the picture that showed Wilson shouting, Roskam exhibits no reaction to Wilson. It does look like he’s reacting negatively to the President himself, though not shouting like his buddy from South Carolina. And notice in the interview how Roskam quickly changes the subject when the interviewer comments that, in the picture, Roskam didn’t look at Wilson:
Roskam only does safe interviews and this one was no exception. Fox gave him free air time to rehash his same tired obstructionist Republican talking points.
Roskam remarks that we need more clarity regarding the issue of coverage for illegal immigrants. I really don’t know how you can get any more clear than the President:
There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Personally, I feel undocumented workers should be covered. They are human beings who work hard for us, they pay taxes too, and we are all presently paying through the nose for ineffective care for them in emergency rooms. Why not provide them with lower cost effective health care while they are among us. But I know that won’t fly. Roskam seems to think that the paltry 30 million uninsured Americans remaining after you eliminate the undocumented are hardly worth bothering about.
Roskam says that polls show that the majority of Americans are opposed to a public option. But in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, “76 percent of respondents said it was either “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.” A CBS News/Nework Times poll in June found that 72% of respondents support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers. Even a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted this month after all the August teabag nonsense shows 55% support. (A poll of Congressmen receiving hefty campaign contributions from the healthcare industry would probably show weaker support). Roskam’s assessment of public opinion is, at best, disingenuous.
Listen to the Fox interviewer helpfully remind Roskam of his principal talking point that a public option “is opening the door to single-payer in the United States”. Apparently Roskam had gone off script. A single-payer plan is not, of course, what the President is proposing:
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. And the insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
Now, it is — it’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated — by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn’t be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. The public option — the public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
Peter Roskam loves to go on TV and radio and talk down the democratic efforts to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality affordable healthcare. What we have never, ever, heard from Roskam in all these is his alternative plan for providing healthcare to the millions of Americans who presently go without.
President Obama last week outlined an actual plan. It needs some meat on its bones and I’ll admit to skepticism on some points but he’s laid out a path we can follow to address the problem of the uninsured this year. All we ever hear from Roskam is “no”, “can’t do it”, “won’t work”, “too expensive”. Well the time for “no” is over. If Roskam doesn’t like the President’s plan, he should outline his own plan to provide universal healthcare. Otherwise, Roskam needs to take a heaping dose of STFU and work with the President to enact his.
I have no real hope, of course, that Roskam will do either. The hallmark of Roskam’s brief tenure in Washington has been an appalling lack of concern for those less fortunate than himself. I have no real expectation that he will change now. Not while there is political hay to be made by trying to cause the President to fail.
Healthcare really shouldn’t be so difficult a problem for our country to solve. In case you haven’t already seen it, I highly recommend T.R. Reid’s Frontline report “Sick Around the World” below. Reid shows how five wealthy democracies have tackled the problem and have come up with solutions that, while imperfect, are pretty good, and haven’t resulted in a totalitarian state or economic collapse. All the noise that surrounds the effort to provide universal healthcare in this country is the result of obstructionist Republicans like Roskam manipulating their gullible base into working against their own best interests for political gain and to the benefit of their corporate sponsors.
If you watched President Obama’s address to the joint session of Congress last night or have seen the news since, you no doubt heard or heard about Representative Joe Wilson’s inappropriate outburst during the speech. Wilson screamed out “You lie!” when the President stated unequivocally that his proposed health care reform plan would not provide coverage to illegal aliens:
On insistence of the Republican leadership, Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, today apologized for his outburst and his apology was graciously accepted by President Obama.
I was intrigued to see at the New York Times and at TPM this morning , that our own Peter Roskam was seated directly to Wilson’s left during the speech.
It does not appear that they are seated alphabetically, or by state delegation, because they would not fall together. They aren’t seated by Committee because Wilson is not on Ways and Means. They aren’t particularly close in seniority – Wilson was seated in 2001, Roskam in 2007. So either they were seated that way by accident, or they chose to sit together.
I don’t know whether Wilson and Roskam are close. If they were, I would not be surprised. The two have very similar voting records – 93% out of 2318 roll call votes since 2007 were identical according to Open Congress’ nifty new comparison tool as of this writing. Both Roskam and Wilson have been working to defeat President Obama’s efforts to provide healthcare coverage to all Americans. And Roskam has not been afraid to play the illegal alien card himself when he thought it could work to his political advantage.
It would be interesting to hear Peter Roskam’s thoughts on Wilson’s outburst, the nature of his relationship with Joe Wilson, and whether he admonished Wilson himself on his behavior, having been seated right next to him.
And what’s that angry scowl about on Roskam’s face?
Addendum: I just heard Peter Roskam quoted on WBEZ a saying he “cringed” at Wilson’s remarks. But the photo’s don’t seem to show Roskam reacting negatively to Wilson. Rather his attention and his scowl seem to be focused elsewhere. Notably, WBEZ did not quote Roskam as saying he chastised his colleague. Presumably, he did not.
2nd Addendum: The Daily Herald now reports that Roskam was “surprised” and “disappointed” by Wilson’s outburst. The camera does not show that. If Roskam had been surprised we would see him reacting to Wilson at this moment. Instead his expression, IMHO, seems to be a reaction to the President on the podium. Birds of a feather, I believe.
3rd Addendum: TPM has further background on Joe Wilson including his attacks on Sen. Strom Thurmond’s illegitimate daughter (Wilson is a former Thurmond page) and on Rep. Bob Filner who had the temerity to state that the U.S. had armed Saddam Hussein. Its a little frightening, though not particularly surprising, that Peter Roskam would hang out with this guy. Perhaps Peter would feel more at home if he joined the the South Carolina delegation. The climate is nicer (at least for the moment) and South Carolina is a better fit for a 19th century kind of guy like Roskam.
Last Addendum: It looks like, as of this writing, Miller has raised over $750,000 in campaign contributions since Wilson’s outburst on Wednesday night.
Every couple of weeks for the past 15 years or so I have gone to get my hair cut by a woman in Villa Park. I’ll call her Liz. She’d be mortified if I used her real name. Liz works in a small shop where she gets paid a portion a what she takes in in business plus the tips her customers give her. Her income is modest but she lives very simply. When her Mom died a couple of years back, she was able to afford a tiny condominium in Wood Dale with the inheritance. Prior to that she’d lived with her Mom. Liz’s employer doesn’t provide a health plan and she is unable to afford the premiums for an individual plan on her limited income. Even if she could, preexisting condition limitations on any policy she might purchase make it unlikely she would get the care she needs.
Liz may have a serious medical condition. Because she knows that I am a health care professional, she tells me about her symptoms when I visit and looks to me for advice. At my insistence she has gone to see a primary care physician, paying out of pocket for her visits. He helps her out by giving her medication samples which she takes but her condition isn’t resolving. Her doctor wants to refer her to a specialist who will need to perform an endoscopy to definitively diagnose and treat her condition. Liz has consistently refused because she has no means to pay for such an expensive procedure. Instead she just hopes that her condition will resolve itself. She has lost weight and sometimes feels too sick to work but can’t afford to take a day off. Eventually she will probably end up in an emergency room where she will get care that could have been provided much more effectively and for much less cost in a specialist’s office. Her delay of care has the potential to be life-threatening.
Liz is one of Peter Roskam’s constituents. He was elected to represent her interests in Congress. She is one of thousands of people just like her in the 6th District who work hard for a living and still can’t afford to buy into our healthcare system. Peter Roskam doesn’t even seem to know these folks are alive. Or else he just doesn’t care.
“My constituents want doctors and patients to be reconnected in ways that make sense to them. They want to see us make sure we don’t stifle medical innovation, which in this country is great. Think about the devices and the transforming nature of things that have come upon and been made available to us within our lifetime. You got to make sure those things don’t get stifle because government alone certainly does not come up with those medical devices. It is largely the private sector.
…
“My folks are looking for the right to know from their Health Care providers. Who’s doing a good job, who’s not doing a good job – publishing some results – morbidity results and success rates of different hospitals and physicians. And they are also interested in doing everything they can to contain costs because for small businesses, for that manufacturing core that I represent in DuPage and northwest suburban Cook county, those guys are struggling from 19,20, 23, 25% increases in their insurance premiums and I don’t think the President’s plan hits the mark in terms of cost containment.”
Wrong, Peter. Your constituents want to be able to go to the doctor when they get sick. Your constituents are not the “manufacturing core”. Your constituents are people like Liz who are sick and can’t get care. And their President has proposed that we fix that, and Democrats in Congress are working hard to make that proposal a reality. And what are you doing, Peter? You are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that real healthcare reform never happens. You are doing this by trying to scare people about a “government takeover” of healthcare.
Listen to Peter Roskam’s staged “interview” on WIND’s Big John and Cisco program last week:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Lets look at Roskam’s arguments:
Roskam warns that breast and prostate cancer survival rates in the United Kingdom are much lower than ours here in the United States, implying that the quality of care will suffer here if we diminish the role of the private sector in healthcare. But Roskam is using a couple of statistics very selectively to compare healthcare under a public single payer system to our own. Roskam fails to address the overall cost-effectiveness of the U.S. healthcare “system”. The United States currently spends about 17% of its gross domestic product on healthcare. That figure may grow to 20% by 2017. At that astounding level of spending 46 million Americans are uninsured and are getting ineffective incomplete care. We are the only wealthy Western industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have at least minimal coverage. And even those who are covered by insurance plans are often choosing to do without care due to rising healthcare costs and shrinking benefit plans. And here we spend 6 times as much per capita on administrative expenses as in industrialized European nations. Medical tourism is gaining increasing popularity in this country. U.S. citizens are traveling to places like India and Thailand for major medical and dental procedures because quality is high and costs are low. Some health plans and employers are beginning to look at it as a means of saving money. For all the money we spend on healthcare here, quality of care leaves much to be desired. Our infant mortality rate is higher than in all other developed countries and we rank 46th in total life expectancy. Between 1997 and 2003, U.S. mortality amenable to health care interventation (preventable death) declined much more slowly than in the 18 other industrialized countries studied. (4% vs an average of 16%). A 2000 study by the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. healthcare system 37th in overall effectiveness (the U.K. ranked 18th with much lower spending.) While the cancer survival rates that Roskam quoted are not without controversy, they probably do relate to a real phenomenon in that the market creates incentives here for spending on highly lucrative new technologies involved in cancer treatment while it encourages neglect of more mundane but ultimately more important aspects of care like prevention and primary care. And not all Americans share equally in the benefits of those new cancer treatments. A recent study showed that uninsured or medicaid recipients were more likely to be diagnosed with 12 common cancers at a late stage when they are less amenable to treatment. In short, American healthcare is bad and getting worse when stacked up against our peers. In fact, our system is a terrific model of why its a bad idea to let the market alone drive the provision of healthcare.
Roskam complains that Democrats are using deceptive language and tested talking points to steer the debate. I don’t want to give this more attention than it is worth but this is the pot calling the kettle black. MediaMatters has already pointed out that Roskam is pushing Frank Luntz talking points on healthcare reform. Luntz is a Republican political consultant who has authored a set of talking points aimed at helping Republicans in Congress prevent any action toward healthcare reform. Roskams remarks show heavy indebtedness to Luntz. You can read the Luntz document here courtesy of Think Progress. One of the high points for me was: “The cure rate differentials between the United States and countries with government-run healthcare is a powerful weapons. You need to assemble a list of the five most staggering facts that show better cure rates in the United States than our neighbors in Canada and our cousins in Great Britain. Focus on the kinds of diseases that touch the most people in the most personal ways, like cancer and heart disease. The facts must be accurate – because our research indicates that this kind of information really will move people. It personalizes the harm of government-run healthcare in a powerful way.” Sound familiar?
Roskam complains that a public option will result in a “government takeover” of healthcare. This is Luntz’s chief talking point in his document “The 10 Rules For Stopping the Washington Takeover of Healthcare.” This phrase is pretty meaningless and is designed only to scare and upset you and to boost Glenn Beck’s ratings.
Roskam claims that you will have no choice in a public option. We currently have a public option covering many millions of Americans. It is called Medicare. Medicare recipients have much greater choice of providers than the rest of us.
Roskam claims that a public option will deter medical innovation. Medicare has been around since the 1960’s and medical innovation hasn’t slowed. But we have already talked about the perverse incentives the market creates in the direction of that innovation. (i.e. toward lucrative high technology vs effective primary and preventive care).
Roskam says you will have to wait a long time for care if the Democrats reform healthcare. Roskam does not substantiate this claim with evidence, just an anecdote about an aunt. For many Americans a wait for care would be a vast improvement over no care at all. But we have no real reason to believe that this will be the case. Medicare recipients are not waiting for care.
Roskam says there will be rationing. Again, these are just scary words from the Luntz talking points. We already have rationing. Rich people and public officials like Roskam get Cadillac care. The working poor get next to none. Thats how we do rationining in this country and essentially that’s what this debate is all about. Roskam and his ilk want to protect that privileged Cadillac care for the very rich at the expense of those of you who have to sweat to earn a living. Its not much different from his stance on taxation really. As with any good, we do need to have a method of fairly allocating healthcare. We will never have a plan that we can afford that covers everything for everyone. And we need to rationalize the kind of care that we give to people at the very end of life, when much of the care we render is actually futile and causes needless suffering. Our present system of allocation of care is very unfair. It is based upon wealth and status.
Roskam claims that bureauocrats will make medical decisions for you. This is, again, straight out of the Luntz talking points: “With government run healthcare, politicians and bureaucrats make your healthcare decisions for you.” Roskam offers nothing to substantiate this wild claim. Under Medicare, physicians make treatment decisions. As with any insurance plan, there are limitations to coverage, and not all aspects of care are reimbursed by the plan.
So what does Roskam offer to my friend and his constituent , Liz, as a solution to her inability to healthcare?
We should improve medical data transfer
We should control Medicare waste and fraud
We should have medical tort reform
I’m sure all of that will be a great comfort to Liz. Why if we are dilligent, in 20 or 30 years she might be able to afford to see a doctor again.
No Peter. We need universal access to care now. And you are standing in the way.
Unlike many progressives, I am not wedded to a single payer solution or even convinced that it would be workable in the near term. I don’t see how you can turn a monster like the current U.S. system into a public single payer system overnight. I believe that the private healthplans bring much to the table in terms of controlling costs and improving outcomes and transparency and that we would be foolish to bring about their demise. They have been unfairly demonized in the current debate. Healthplans provide a check on excesses by other sectors like hospital systems, drug companies, and unscrupulous physicians. Rather than rebuild a healthcare system from the ground up, the goverment should be given powers to help correct some of the perverse incentives created by the market and to get all components of the current system working together toward common ends. But I also believe that universal coverage is non-negotiable. We have to provide it, and if the only way to do so is through some kind of public option, then so be it.
Peter Roskam is using his position and his platform to obstruct progress toward universal coverage and his constituents should let him know that they won’t stand for it. Please call him today and demand that he stop badmouthing the present efforts toward healthcare reform and work with the Democrats to achieve universal coverage this session. You can reach him at (202) 225-4561 in Washington or at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale.
BTW: Roskam accused President Obama of being defensive in his speech before the AMA. You can judge for yourself but IMHO this guy was not defensive, he was in command:
