Is Representative Luis Gutierrez Really Going to Unite with Peter Roskam to Kill Healthcare Reform?

On March 17, 2010, in Healthcare, Immigration, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

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.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Roskam Touts Partisan Report in Effort to Kill Universal Access to Healthcare

On November 23, 2009, in Healthcare, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

Humiliated by his recent fruitless efforts to frighten Illinois residents about the proposed use of the Thomson Correctional Center to house prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Peter Roskam today redirected his efforts back to scaring Illinois residents about healthcare reform. Essentially his argument is that if the government gives you healthcare, you’ll lose your job.

Roskam appeared today on the friendly Fox network touting a report from the Illinois Policy Institute, which he calls a “non-partisan think tank”, that indicates that Illinois will lose 169,000 job if health reform is passed. Roskam is asked directly two times to explain the mechanism for this job loss but doesn’t really do so. Instead he rants about Illinois unemployment rates exceeding the Obama administration estimates. Here’s the video:

As is typical with Roskam, what comes out of his mouth is only peripherally related to the truth. The Illinois Policy Institute (IPI) likes to style itself as a “non-partisan research organization, but what it really is is an ideologically-driven advocacy group. They work for economic deregulation, regressive tax policy, and other right-wing causes, and against policies that benefit working people, like a fair minimum wage . They are also an “astroturf” group – organizing so-called “grass roots” efforts from the top down via their Liberty Leaders program, hardly a non-partisan effort. The group is secretive about its funding sources, saying only that the organization “welcomes donations from individuals, foundations, and other organizations that support free market principles”.  According to Sourcewatch, they have received funding from the CATO Institute.

And they are connected with the teabagger movement. Both CEO John Tilliman and Executive Vice-president Kristina Rasmussen spoke at the April 15th teabagger event in Chicago. And that is fine, but please don’t insult our intelligence bby call this a “non-partisan think tank”.

The IPI, apparently being a think-tank unprepared to do its own thinking brought in a hired gun to write the report Roskam refers to: Adding Insult to Injury. The scholar in question is discredited economist Arthur Laffer, seen in the following video scoffing at fellow economist Peter Schiff’s prediction of an impending economic collapse on CNBC in August 2006:

Laffer is, of course, more famous for his role in the development of Reagonomics in the 1980s. His theory known as the “Laffer Curve” proposed that lowering taxes on the wealthy would result in increased tax revenues and a balanced budget. It didn’t work out and Reagan saddled his successor, Bill Clinton, with an enormous deficit, which Clinton fixed, only to have another Republican President, George W. Bush, reapply the failed policy with a vengeance, leaving us in the enormous mess we’re in today.

Not suprisingly, Laffer’s report finds that instead of the Democratic reform proposals we should instead de-regulate the insurance industry and implement tort reform, proposals that will, have talked about here before, do nothing to resolve the problem of the uninsured and instead will result in higher premiums and lower benefits for those lucky enough to have insurance at all as state-imposed benefit mandates and rate regulations are castrated. Meanwhile, the giant healthcare  corporations will be given immunity from lawsuits, leaving consumers little recourse when they are harmed by sub-standard care.

I find it very sad and infuriating to see our Representative Peter Roskam, who is supposed to be listening to us and advocating for our interests in Washington, instead engaging in this never-ending marketing campaign aimed at killing any chance that those in his district who presently do not have access to healthcare will be given an affordable solution.  It really is time for Roskam to be replaced.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Votes Against Affordable Healthcare for Illinois

On November 8, 2009, in Abortion, Healthcare, Peter Roskam, by RSR
1

Lots of folks have been hitting the site this morning looking for the results of last evenings historic House vote on H.R. 3962 – the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Fox News must still be devoting all their resources to round-the-clock coverage of Tuesday’s New Jersey gubernatorial contest so I guess I should put something up as a public service.

Well the news is mixed. First off, 6th District, your Republican Congressman, Peter Roskam, as usual, sided with the interests of big corporations over those of  his constituents who are being bankrupted and going without adequate healthcare. Peter Roskam voted against passage of H.R. 3962.

The measure passed by a vote of 220-215 with one lone Republican having the courage to stand up and do the right thing. That Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, has since been viciously attacked by the Teabaggers (H/T to Wonkette) whom Rep. Roskam and his party have allied themselves in their efforts to kill any meaningful healthcare reform:

anhcaotwit1

Thankfully, the Teabaggers are merely standing up for the freedom of all poor and middle class Americans to die an untimely death. Racism has in no way motivated their attacks on the President and his agenda for healthcare reform.

obamacareBut I digress.

The bill that Peter Roskam voted against will, if enacted, by CBO estimates provide health coverage to 96% of Americans and do so under the $900 billion threshold outlined by President Obama and will reduce the deficit to a greater degree than the phony reform alternative presented by Roskam and the desperate Republicans at the last minute.

Specific providions of the bill include:

  • The creation of a new national program to provide affordable coverage for those who can’t get health insurance today because of pre-existing conditions
  • Implementation of insurance reforms to enforce an 85% medical loss ratio – meaning that insurance companies must spend 85 cents out of every premium dollar on medical services
  • Coverage of young adults on their parents’ policies through age 26
  • Limits on pre-existing condition exclusions
  • A self-sustaining public insurance option (that is financed not by tax dollars but by insurance premiums) that provides an alternative to and competes on a level playing field with private health insurance companies
  • Elimination of the antitrust exemption for health insurers and medical malpractice insurers, increasing competition in the insurance marketplace and removing the shield that has allowed them to price fix, divide up territory, and effectively create monopolies in particular markets.
  • Establishment of a new essential benefit package that over time will become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. The basic package will include preventive services with no cost-sharing, mental health services, oral health and vision for children, and caps on the amount of money a person or family spends on covered services in a year.
  • Creation of a new, voluntary, public, long-term care insurance program to help purchase services and supports for people who have functional limitations. Individuals determined to need assistance because of functional limitations would qualify to receive a daily or weekly cash benefit to help purchase the services and supports needed to maintain personal and financial independence.
  • Provision of affordability credits to low- and moderate income individuals and families, up to 400% of the federal poverty level, to aid in the purchase of health insurance of their choosing through a new health insurance exchange that includes the public option.
  • Caps for annual out-of-pocket spending. Will cap annual out-of-pocket spending at a maximum of $5,000 per individual and $10,000 per family to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.
  • Expansion of Medicaid. Individuals and families with incomes at or below 150% percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for an expanded and improved Medicaid program. Recognizing the budget challenges in many states, this expansion will initially be fully federally financed then transition to include a 9% contribution from states starting in 2015. To improve provider participation in this vital safety net – particularly for low-income children, individuals with disabilities and people with mental illnesses – reimbursement rates for primary care services will be increased to Medicare rates with new federal funding.
  • Improvements to Medicare. Senior citizens and people with disabilities will benefit from provisions that fill the donut hole over time in the Part D drug program, eliminate cost-sharing for preventive services, improve the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, increase access to primary care providers, and make other program improvements. The bill will also address future fiscal challenges by improving payment accuracy, encouraging delivery system reforms and extending solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

To make this all work the bill includes mandates: except in cases of hardship individuals must obtain insurance through their employer or independently. Assistance is providedfor those with low incomes. Care is made more affordable for everyone by increasing the size of the risk pool and by removing the antitrust exemption and providing public plan competition.  Employers must either provide insurance to their employees or contribute to the cost of their coverage through the public plan/exchange. Small businesses are exempted from this requirement.

Sadly, an amendment was offered and passed to the original legislation by pro-life Democrats which restricts the ability of women to obtain a plan that covers abortion services, even if they are purchasing the plan through the exchange with their own money. The Democratic leadership was forced to compromise and allow a vote on the amendment or the whole reform bill would have failed. It was a necessary compromise, I think, but a painful one. The provision is an affront to all women and makes a mockery of the Republican claims that their votes against healthcare reform are votes for freedom. This addition allows unwarranted interference by the state in the lives of women seeking a legal medical procedure.  Peter Roskam voted for the anti-choice amendment, even though he had no intention of voting for the final bill.

Difficult work lies ahead in reconciling this bill with Senate legislation and in passing a final conference report. But this was a big step.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • •