Just finished watching the video of President Obama’s Q&A session at the GOP House Issues conference today. The President was brilliant. He called the GOP to account for for their campaign of misinformation about healthcare reform and the economic stimulus, but did it with respect and a sincere invitation to Republicans to work with him in the nation’s best interest. The President was articulate and knew his facts, including detailed knowledge of Republican counter proposals. He was warm and human in demeanor and gentle but firm in his criticisms, using self-deprecating humor effectively to put the room at ease. I have never seen a more brilliant performance by a President. Never.
You can hear Congressman Roskam pose his question at about 67:15.
The St. Petersburg Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning website, PolitiFact, this past Friday named Sarah Palin “death panel” allegation as the “Lie of the Year“. Palin’s lie was selected by the site’s editors after a poll of 5,000 readers demonstrated overwhelming support for the choice.
PolitiFact here recounts the lie which earned the site’s coveted “Pants on Fire” designation back when it was originally promulgated:
The former governor of Alaska had been out of the headlines since she announced her resignation on July 3; the Facebook message instantly brought her back to the political stage.
“As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!” Palin wrote.
“The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”
The claim that House legislation contained anything resembling a “death panel” is demonstrably false. It did cause much needless anxiety, particularly among senior citizens, including my own parents, and seriously compromised the quality of the national discussion on healthcare reform.
Palin never renounced her lie. Instead she defended it, as in an interview with the National Review in November:
“To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage,” she said. “Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death.”
“The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin. The phrase is “a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’ He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.’ I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat.”
Whenever the ex-governor of Alaska distinguishes herself in this way, it warms our heart to step back and listen to noted Palinite and 6th District Congressman Peter Roskam’s reflection on Sarah Palin’s “centeredness”:
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.
Earlier today, Republican Congressman Peter Roskam voted to cut Medicare payments to physicians, putting at risk access to care and choice of physician for the nations senior citizens, for disabled persons served by Medicare, and for families of U.S. military personnel receiving care through TRICARE, the health care program serving active duty service members, National Guard and Reserve members, retirees, and their families and survivors. It was just Peter Roskam’s way of saying thank you to the nation’s elders and soldiers for their hard work and sacrifices for their country, and thank you to the nation’s physicians as well for their efforts on behalf of their patients.
The vote was on H.R.3961 – Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009. Congressional action was required on this bill to prevent physicians caring for seniors and military families from receiving a 21%pay cut in 2010. Such a drastic cut in physician reimbursement would force many physicians caring for seniors and for military families to stop accepting such patients or dratically cut back on the number of physicians. This would result in many patients losing access to their physician of choice and perhaps losing access to care altogether. Roskam himself described the access problem in a letter attacking similar impending cuts back in 2008:
“Despite the rising costs of living, Congress is unwisely poised to cut Medicare payments for physicians, severely limiting access to medical care for an ever growing senior population,” said Roskam. “If such cuts are enacted, Illinois will lose $510 million for the care of elderly and disabled patients over the next year, and $10 billion over eight years. It is my sincere hope the bipartisan support from many of my fellow colleagues will help restore this funding, insuring that Medicare patients can find physicians in their community with the financial ability to treat them.”
Medicare seniors look to their doctor as the key professional in charge of their care. Every aspect of our health care system from hospitals to rural health clinics relies upon the skills and services of physicians. A stable payment structure for physician services is critical. The impending cuts will only destabilize the Medicare program and jeopardize all patients’ access to care if not addressed in a thoughtful manner. It is critical that we work together in a bipartisan fashion to enact legislation early in this year to stop the Medicare cuts.
So Roskam’s support of pay cuts to doctors this time around is based in his obstructive partisanship rather than good policy and he is willing to let everyone suffer for it. DuPage County Seniors, families of servicemen, and physicians should take note of this vote and remember it next fall.
Fortunately, Peter Roskam did not get his way. H.R. 3961 passed by a vote of 243-183. Only a single Republican voted for the bill: Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas. We see once again that all the Republican protestations about supporting the troops are really just so much hot air.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on the passage of H.R. 3961:
“Strengthening Medicare for generations to come is essential to our efforts to reforming health care for all Americans. This legislation will permanently improve the way Medicare pays physicians and in doing so, guarantee that America’s seniors will continue to have access to excellent care through Medicare.
“This legislation is a top priority for seniors and was endorsed by the AARP and the American Medical Association because it protects seniors’ access to their doctor, promotes primary care, and offers incentives for doctors to provide patients with higher quality and more efficient care. Today’s vote by the House keeps our promise to strengthen Medicare, never weaken it.
“As this legislation heads to the Senate, the statutory ‘pay as you go’ budget bill will be added to ensure that we put our nation back on a path of fiscal responsibility and begin to bring down the deep deficits that face our nation.”
Our Republican Congressman Peter Roskam appeared on WLS AM’s Roe Conn show this afternoon continuing his aggressive campaign to block any meaningful healthcare reform legislation. Here’s the audio:
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.
Roskam is obviously pretty pleased with himself about his little theatrical performance with the handcuffs on the House floor the other day. Its a shame we have a Congressman who constantly resorts to stunts and party talking points to scare his constituents rather than engage in serious efforts to resolve the issues that are making their lives difficult. If Roskam gets his way on healthcare, it won’t be long until members of Congress are the only Americans who will be able to afford adequate care.
Roskam’s latest scare tactic is to talk about the individual mandate provision in the House bill that was passed on Saturday. The Republican party has decided that scaring the public about individual mandates to purchase healthcare insurance is the best means they have to kill health reform and Old Rubber Stamp has been quick to take that message on the road. It wasn’t too long ago though that Republican leaders were talking about individual mandates as being a good thing – ensuring individual responsibility. Watch Republican Senator Charles Grassley extol the virtues of individual mandates on Fox News:
Individual mandates are a good thing because, without them, the cost of caring for people without insurance in emergency rooms raises the cost of health insurance for the rest of us – maybe as much as $1800 per year. People who can afford to obtain health insurance must do so as a matter of responsibility. Grassley says: “I believe there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.”
And listen to these guys talk about mandates – 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Grassley again, Republican Senator Bob Bennett, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, and former Republican Senate Majority leader Bill Frist:
But now Senators Grassley and Snowe and the rest of the party are opposing mandates. Grassley is questioning their constitutionality. Roskam is pulling out his handcuffs. What happened?
Well a couple of things, I think. As I have already suggested, the Republican Party has determined that this is the best strategy to kill health reform and cause the Democrats in Congress and the President to fail, and that is what they want more than anything else, even if it means the American people continue to suffer due to unmanageable healthcare expenses and lack of access to care. I think the other thing that’s operating here is the Democratic bill’s inclusion of effective insurance regulatory reform. Republicans would probably be very happy with mandates in a reform bill, if it didn’t come from the Democrats, and if it included massive insurance de-regulation as the present, Republican alternative bill does, without any public option to compete with private insurers. The health insurance industry supported mandates and have donated heavily to Republicans to get them included in any reform plan. But the public option was a buzzkill and so Republicans have reversed and are now attacking mandates.
The health insurance industry is isn’t anything like the bogeyman that some on the left portray it it to be. It’s like any industry looking after its stockholders first and foremost, but trying to be competitive by offering a high-quality high-value product that consumers and employers will want to buy. The companies are staffed by honorable people who subscribe to the same plans that they sell. Most of the horror stories in the media involve gross distortions of insurers role in medical decision making and the size of the profit margins that companies earn on their products.
Because health insurers have built-in incentives to control medical cost while maintaining quality of care, I believe it is possible, and perhaps desirable, to build an effective universal coverage plan based the private sector. But such a plan can only succeed in providing affordable universal coverage if there are effective individual and employer mandates, strong industry regulation, and a public option to fill in the gaps. Far from destroying, the private sector, CBO estimates that millions more Americans will obtain private coverage under the Democratic plan. And Roskam’s lies to the contrary, this plan does not involve the government taking control over 1/6 of the economy. Nothing changes hands. There is no nationalization of physician practices or hospitals or insurance companies. All that stays as it is now, in the private sector. This is not communism no matter what the teabaggers signs may say.
If the Republicans reject the individual mandate, there is still another option – single payer. But of course they reject that as well. They want only for reform to fail.
Rather than work seriously toward and effective solution to the nation’s healthcare crisis, Roskam and his Republican colleagues have offered a phony reform plan based in medical malpractice caps and insurance de-regulation that will do nothing to increase the proportion of Americans with health coverage based on CBO analysis. And if you like what Republican de-regulation has done for the banking industry, you’ll love what it does for healthcare.
One more point of correction for Peter Roskam on his statements on the radio today – Senator Lieberman has no conscience.
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.
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:
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.
But 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.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=afb7a0b5-ef66-4409-bbb6-9a7ea785dfe0)
But I digress.
