/PRNewswire/ -- Military families have filed a motion for an injunction to mandate that the Defense Department's insurer, TRICARE, cover medically necessary care needed by military families' children with autism. The motion seeks a mandate that TRICARE cover the cost of Applied Behavior Analysis therapy, or ABA, which is effective in treating children with autism spectrum disorder.
According to the military families, without ABA therapy at an early age, children with autism will suffer irreparable harm. The motion alleges that numerous studies and medical professionals confirm the effectiveness of ABA therapy, yet the Defense Department continues to reject military families' claims for the therapy, relying on shifting rationales.
The case is entitled Berge v. United States of America, et al., No.10-cv-00373-RBW (D.DC), assigned to Judge Reggie B. Walton.
The military families allege that for approximately 10 years the Defense Department and TRICARE have avoided paying for ABA therapy by incorrectly claiming it was "special education" and therefore not payable under the military insurance program. After the military families demonstrated in their written arguments that the Defense Department's position was incorrect, the Defense Department shifted and began claiming that ABA therapy is not proven to be "medically or psychologically necessary."
At a hearing before Judge Walton on November 15, 2010, Department of Justice lawyer, Adam Kirschner conceded: "Special education was not the basis of" our denial of the therapy. Thus, after a decade of taking the position that ABA was "special education," the Defense Department has now abandoned that position and has contrived a new, equally erroneous, reason to not pay for the care.
Former Michigan State Senator, David Honigman, an attorney for the families, emphasized: "The Defense Department's shifting rationales for denying this therapy exposes the hollowness of its position. Time is of the essence for these children. Studies on ABA therapy emphasize that there is a small window of opportunity for these children to obtain maximum benefit from this therapy. If left to its own devices, the Defense Department would continue to keep this window of opportunity closed to these children."
Gerard Mantese, another attorney for the families, stated: "The Defense Department and the Department of Justice should do their homework and read the studies and reports, including the Defense Department's own internal documents, showing that ABA is the most effective therapy for treating autism. It is a slap in the face to these military families to deny therapy needed by their children, while these families are risking their lives for our country." In September 2010, Mr. Mantese was awarded the State Bar of Michigan's Champion of Justice Award for his work in taking legal steps to assist children with autism to access coverage for ABA therapy.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, December 6, 2010
One Nation Divided Over Health-Care Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- Americans remain deeply divided over the nation's new health-care reform package, with 40 percent of adults wanting to repeal all or most of the legislation while 31 percent favor keeping all or most of the reforms.
Another 29 percent aren't sure what should be done.
Those are several key findings in a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll released today.
The conflicting views reflect divisions in Congress, where Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives in January following election gains at the polls last month. Many GOP representatives have pledged to dismantle—or, at the very least, curtail—the controversial legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in March.
But the poll also uncovered an intriguing paradox: Many of those who want the health-reform law repealed favor keeping many of its key components.
Specifically, nearly two-thirds of poll respondents like that the law prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Sixty percent want to keep the provision of tax credits for small businesses that provide their employees with health insurance. While just over half support the law for allowing children to remain on their parents insurance until they are 26.
The poll released today surveyed 2,019 adults online between November 19-23, 2010 by Harris Interactive, one of the world's leading custom market research firms, and HealthDay, a leading producer and syndicator of health news.
"Additional poll results indicate that many Americans want to repeal the bill not because they dislike the specifics, but because they feel it is an expensive expansion of an already big government," said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, Harris Interactive's long-running public opinion poll. He continues, "81% believe it will it result in higher taxes, could lead to rationing of health care (74%), and reduce the quality of care they will receive (77%)."
Perhaps part of the explanation for this paradox was seen in a previous HealthDay/Harris Interactive poll which discovered that Americans have little knowledge of the specifics of the more than 2,500-page law. "There's a substantial gap in the general public understanding [but] the more informed people are, the more they understand," said Thomas R. Oliver, professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.
"I think this suggests that as the public becomes more familiar with the law and how it will benefit them and their families, support will probably climb," said Sara Collins, vice president for Affordable Health Insurance at The Commonwealth Fund. She continues, "There's just a lag while immediate provisions are rolling out like young adult coverage."
The complete findings of the newest joint Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll are available. HealthDay's news report is available here. Full data on the poll and its methodology are available at Harris Interactive.
Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the United States November 19 to 23, 2010 among 2,019 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Another 29 percent aren't sure what should be done.
Those are several key findings in a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll released today.
The conflicting views reflect divisions in Congress, where Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives in January following election gains at the polls last month. Many GOP representatives have pledged to dismantle—or, at the very least, curtail—the controversial legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in March.
But the poll also uncovered an intriguing paradox: Many of those who want the health-reform law repealed favor keeping many of its key components.
Specifically, nearly two-thirds of poll respondents like that the law prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Sixty percent want to keep the provision of tax credits for small businesses that provide their employees with health insurance. While just over half support the law for allowing children to remain on their parents insurance until they are 26.
The poll released today surveyed 2,019 adults online between November 19-23, 2010 by Harris Interactive, one of the world's leading custom market research firms, and HealthDay, a leading producer and syndicator of health news.
"Additional poll results indicate that many Americans want to repeal the bill not because they dislike the specifics, but because they feel it is an expensive expansion of an already big government," said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, Harris Interactive's long-running public opinion poll. He continues, "81% believe it will it result in higher taxes, could lead to rationing of health care (74%), and reduce the quality of care they will receive (77%)."
Perhaps part of the explanation for this paradox was seen in a previous HealthDay/Harris Interactive poll which discovered that Americans have little knowledge of the specifics of the more than 2,500-page law. "There's a substantial gap in the general public understanding [but] the more informed people are, the more they understand," said Thomas R. Oliver, professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.
"I think this suggests that as the public becomes more familiar with the law and how it will benefit them and their families, support will probably climb," said Sara Collins, vice president for Affordable Health Insurance at The Commonwealth Fund. She continues, "There's just a lag while immediate provisions are rolling out like young adult coverage."
The complete findings of the newest joint Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll are available. HealthDay's news report is available here. Full data on the poll and its methodology are available at Harris Interactive.
Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the United States November 19 to 23, 2010 among 2,019 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer: ObamaCare is Wrong for Arizona and Wrong for America - Federal Hearing Tuesday
/Standard Newswire/ -- "Arizona has a long and proud history of fighting the Washington, D.C. elite's insatiable appetite for bigger government at the cost of States' rights. The battle over the Affordable Care Act better known as "ObamaCare" is the latest round. Once again, the feds have gone too far.
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Senate Fix Needed to Meet White House Promise That Financial Reform Won't Weaken State Insurance Regulation
/PRNewswire/ -- Financial reform legislation must be amended to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers and bring the bill in line with White House comments yesterday targeting potential industry loopholes in financial reform, said Consumer Watchdog today.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a list of the '10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes' in the financial reform bill yesterday. He warned against efforts to exempt the insurance industry from new information collection requirements and notes that the bill does not change states' authority to regulate insurance. However language in the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate would grant the Treasury Department broad new authority to preempt state insurance laws and regulations on behalf of foreign insurance companies.
Pfeiffer wrote: "Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government - and this bill doesn't change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system - like AIG."
Consumer advocates point to language in the main Senate proposal that would allow federal preemption of state insurance laws and are calling for an amendment to bring the bill in line with White House position on this issue.
"The Senate bill would allow Treasury to roll back strong state insurance protections on behalf of foreign insurance firms. It must be amended to meet White House assurances that state oversight of insurance will not be harmed. Insurance deregulation should not be the end result of the Senate's financial re-regulation package," said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog.
An amendment offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and supported by Consumer Watchdog would narrow the broad scope of insurance preemption in the bill to help preserve state insurance regulation and give Congress and the states more input into insurance agreements negotiated by Treasury.
The current Senate provisions would allow Treasury to negotiate new insurance policy through international agreements and behind closed doors, with no input from Congress, state regulators or insurance consumers. Treasury need not consider states' regulatory goals, potential gaps in insurance regulation, or protect insurance consumers in negotiating such agreements. Agreements could then be used to preempt state insurance protections, including capital, solvency and other prudential laws, on behalf of foreign insurers. The states would have no authority to challenge unilateral preemption decisions by Treasury on the merits. Even state laws that treat all insurance companies equally could be subject to preemption. And the current language threatens to subject state insurance laws to preemption under deregulatory constraints contained in existing trade agreements.
"A Senate fix is necessary to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers," said Balber.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a list of the '10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes' in the financial reform bill yesterday. He warned against efforts to exempt the insurance industry from new information collection requirements and notes that the bill does not change states' authority to regulate insurance. However language in the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate would grant the Treasury Department broad new authority to preempt state insurance laws and regulations on behalf of foreign insurance companies.
Pfeiffer wrote: "Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government - and this bill doesn't change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system - like AIG."
Consumer advocates point to language in the main Senate proposal that would allow federal preemption of state insurance laws and are calling for an amendment to bring the bill in line with White House position on this issue.
"The Senate bill would allow Treasury to roll back strong state insurance protections on behalf of foreign insurance firms. It must be amended to meet White House assurances that state oversight of insurance will not be harmed. Insurance deregulation should not be the end result of the Senate's financial re-regulation package," said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog.
An amendment offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and supported by Consumer Watchdog would narrow the broad scope of insurance preemption in the bill to help preserve state insurance regulation and give Congress and the states more input into insurance agreements negotiated by Treasury.
The current Senate provisions would allow Treasury to negotiate new insurance policy through international agreements and behind closed doors, with no input from Congress, state regulators or insurance consumers. Treasury need not consider states' regulatory goals, potential gaps in insurance regulation, or protect insurance consumers in negotiating such agreements. Agreements could then be used to preempt state insurance protections, including capital, solvency and other prudential laws, on behalf of foreign insurers. The states would have no authority to challenge unilateral preemption decisions by Treasury on the merits. Even state laws that treat all insurance companies equally could be subject to preemption. And the current language threatens to subject state insurance laws to preemption under deregulatory constraints contained in existing trade agreements.
"A Senate fix is necessary to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers," said Balber.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The 'Big 3' Fixes for the Weakened Senate Health Reform Bill to Block Full Insurance Co. Take-Over of Health System
/PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog condemned the removal of the Medicare buy-in provision for those over 55 and the public option from the U.S. Senate health reform bill. But the group said that the Senate must still make three essential fixes to the greatly weakened bill to prevent ceding the entire health care system to the insurance industry.
Without the changes, said the consumer advocacy group, the legislation will fail even to provide basic consumer protections of cost containment, access to necessary care, and protection against bankruptcy when patients get sick and need coverage the most.
Consumer Watchdog said that it is essential that the bill be fixed now because there is a growing belief that a conference committee will be bypassed altogether, and instead the House of Representatives will be pushed to approve the Senate bill with no amendments. The three key fixes, detailed below, are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
"If health care reform is really about consumers and patients, then Senators must make these fixes before they pass the bill," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Current provisions of the Senate bill requiring Americans to buy insurance policies, while gutting state laws and ineffectively capping what insurers can charge for bare bones coverage, add up to a dream bill for insurance companies."
"Eliminating the public option, pre-empting state health benefit laws and avoiding tough rate oversight is an insurance company hat trick - the top three legislative goals of the insurance industry of the last twenty years," said Flanagan. "If health reform is going to be worth anything to consumers, Senators must fight back on these three points. Without them, health reform is little more than a scheme for health insurers to increase profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers."
The three changes that the U.S. Senate must make to HR 3590 are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
For 60 years, states have been responsible for the oversight of health insurance. States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs.
However, provisions in the current bill could replace hard-fought "Patients Bill of Rights" laws with new, weaker federal protections.
For example, section 1333 on page 219 of the Senate bill allow health insurers to avoid strong state patient protection laws under so-called "nationwide plans" and multistate "compacts." Under these provisions, health insurers that sell policies in more than one state would only be regulated by the state where the policy was "written or issued." Therefore, if an insurer "issues" all of its policies from Wyoming, then the laws of Wyoming would control policies sold to consumers in states with more protective laws like California, New York, Texas or Virginia.
Insurers would certainly elect to issue their policies from the states with the weakest laws. As a result, new federal minimum coverage requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays, for instance, would likely be lost.
The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws, which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. Read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group's letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31197
Read the Los Angeles Times coverage of the pre-emption provisions:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31200
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
A cornerstone of national health reform is to ensure that patients get the care their doctor prescribes when they are sick and need treatment the most. An essential element to reach that objective is to bar insurance companies from placing annual limits on how much health care a patient can receive.
Current caps mean that patients with serious illnesses, including many cancers, can be left without coverage in the midst of treatment. As a result, patients face bankruptcy even though they have insurance. In fact, a Harvard Medical School study released this year found that 62% of U.S. bankruptcies were caused by big medical bills, while 78% of those declaring bankruptcy had insurance.
A loophole in the Senate bill would allow health insurers to impose unspecified "reasonable" annual limits on the annual dollar value of benefits that patient can receive this year. This is a major departure from previous version of the Senate bill, and the House legislation, which bar any annual caps.
The Senate bill cites section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates Health Savings Accounts. That section does not define "reasonable" annual limits. As a result, health insurers will be left to define "reasonable" as they see fit. However, for an insurance company, a "reasonable" limit on annual health care costs is one that increases shareholder profits by cutting off access to necessary care.
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
Requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases and seek "prior approval" for those increases are essential components to controlling skyrocketing health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.
Page 37, section 2794 of HR 3590 provides some additional transparency on insurance premiums and takes some first steps toward limits on insurance company gouging, but does not provide real protections for Americans by, for instance, requiring insurers to seek approval before imposing premium and rate increases.
Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, calls on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California's landmark insurance reform law, including:
-- Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums,
deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable"
premium increases.
-- Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek
permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate
increases, before imposing rate increases. Since 1988, California's
Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a
competitive and profitable insurance market.
-- An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge
unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog
has saved the state's consumers $1.7 billion by challenging
unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Without the changes, said the consumer advocacy group, the legislation will fail even to provide basic consumer protections of cost containment, access to necessary care, and protection against bankruptcy when patients get sick and need coverage the most.
Consumer Watchdog said that it is essential that the bill be fixed now because there is a growing belief that a conference committee will be bypassed altogether, and instead the House of Representatives will be pushed to approve the Senate bill with no amendments. The three key fixes, detailed below, are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
"If health care reform is really about consumers and patients, then Senators must make these fixes before they pass the bill," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Current provisions of the Senate bill requiring Americans to buy insurance policies, while gutting state laws and ineffectively capping what insurers can charge for bare bones coverage, add up to a dream bill for insurance companies."
"Eliminating the public option, pre-empting state health benefit laws and avoiding tough rate oversight is an insurance company hat trick - the top three legislative goals of the insurance industry of the last twenty years," said Flanagan. "If health reform is going to be worth anything to consumers, Senators must fight back on these three points. Without them, health reform is little more than a scheme for health insurers to increase profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers."
The three changes that the U.S. Senate must make to HR 3590 are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
For 60 years, states have been responsible for the oversight of health insurance. States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs.
However, provisions in the current bill could replace hard-fought "Patients Bill of Rights" laws with new, weaker federal protections.
For example, section 1333 on page 219 of the Senate bill allow health insurers to avoid strong state patient protection laws under so-called "nationwide plans" and multistate "compacts." Under these provisions, health insurers that sell policies in more than one state would only be regulated by the state where the policy was "written or issued." Therefore, if an insurer "issues" all of its policies from Wyoming, then the laws of Wyoming would control policies sold to consumers in states with more protective laws like California, New York, Texas or Virginia.
Insurers would certainly elect to issue their policies from the states with the weakest laws. As a result, new federal minimum coverage requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays, for instance, would likely be lost.
The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws, which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. Read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group's letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31197
Read the Los Angeles Times coverage of the pre-emption provisions:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31200
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
A cornerstone of national health reform is to ensure that patients get the care their doctor prescribes when they are sick and need treatment the most. An essential element to reach that objective is to bar insurance companies from placing annual limits on how much health care a patient can receive.
Current caps mean that patients with serious illnesses, including many cancers, can be left without coverage in the midst of treatment. As a result, patients face bankruptcy even though they have insurance. In fact, a Harvard Medical School study released this year found that 62% of U.S. bankruptcies were caused by big medical bills, while 78% of those declaring bankruptcy had insurance.
A loophole in the Senate bill would allow health insurers to impose unspecified "reasonable" annual limits on the annual dollar value of benefits that patient can receive this year. This is a major departure from previous version of the Senate bill, and the House legislation, which bar any annual caps.
The Senate bill cites section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates Health Savings Accounts. That section does not define "reasonable" annual limits. As a result, health insurers will be left to define "reasonable" as they see fit. However, for an insurance company, a "reasonable" limit on annual health care costs is one that increases shareholder profits by cutting off access to necessary care.
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
Requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases and seek "prior approval" for those increases are essential components to controlling skyrocketing health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.
Page 37, section 2794 of HR 3590 provides some additional transparency on insurance premiums and takes some first steps toward limits on insurance company gouging, but does not provide real protections for Americans by, for instance, requiring insurers to seek approval before imposing premium and rate increases.
Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, calls on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California's landmark insurance reform law, including:
-- Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums,
deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable"
premium increases.
-- Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek
permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate
increases, before imposing rate increases. Since 1988, California's
Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a
competitive and profitable insurance market.
-- An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge
unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog
has saved the state's consumers $1.7 billion by challenging
unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Democratic Senators, Congresswoman, Small Business Owners Discuss Impact of Health Insurance Reform on Small Businesses
/PRNewswire/ -- Democratic Senators Tom Harkin and Mary Landrieu and Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson joined Mike Draper, a small business owner from Des Moines, Iowa; Gwendolyn Barnes, a small business owner from Shreveport, Louisiana; Dr. Ken Brantley, a small business owner from Richmond, Virginia; and other small business owners from across the country at a press conference this morning to discuss how health insurance reform will benefit small businesses. Recent studies indicate that small businesses are likely to see their premiums rise 15% in the coming year, double the rate of last year's increase. Small businesses employ roughly 40% of the private labor force in America, making it crucial that we work to ensure affordability of health coverage for this central part of the American workforce.
"The status quo in health insurance spending for America's small businesses is intolerable and it is unsustainable," said Harkin. "Today, we have a simple message for small business owners across America: help is on the way and it comes in the form of a health reform plan that puts a stop to the discriminatory insurance industry practice of jacking up premiums for small businesses by up to 200 percent when an employee gets sick or because the business hires a woman. Our bill will end the practice of denying coverage based on preexisting conditions or increasing premiums based on health status, gender, or industry. As I have said many times, the biggest winners in a reformed health system will be small business owners and their employees."
Landrieu said: "Small businesses are suffering from skyrocketing health insurance premiums that are eating into their bottom lines and threatening their survival. As we continue to make progress toward comprehensive health care reform, Democrats are working to address the health care needs of small businesses. And while we may not yet completely agree on everything, one thing we can all agree on is that doing nothing is simply not an option."
"Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and right now health care costs are simply too much to bear," said Halvorson. "If we truly want our small businesses to help lead us out of our current economic troubles, we must act to reform health care. Small business owners and their employees are depending on it. We must act now."
Draper said: "We try to be flexible, but it's an expensive way to do it. Right now, health insurance is a volatile commodity such as oil -- the price swings, the price increases, and it takes up a larger portion of a company's budget. If the government were to provide a more stable option and take the market out of things, it would help settle business's books, it would help them better predict the future. As a business owner, I wouldn't have to worry about finding policies, knowing what is covered, what isn't covered and how much the company will end up paying."
"We started off with everybody on a group plan, but as the premiums continued to climb and climb, my employees had to start dropping out, so we switched to individual plans," said Barnes. "But one of my employees was denied for a pre-existing condition. And we've had trouble with the insurance company -- when my daughter needed a surgery, they mysteriously took her off the surgery schedule. That's not right. It's time to fix health care -- for small businesses like mine and for the communities we serve."
Brantley said: "The lack of affordable health insurance hurts millions of small-business owners like me. I would love to hire several highly skilled staff to work with me. This would balance the workload, expand our care, and create more jobs. It is virtually impossible, however, to find qualified applicants who will accept a job offer without health insurance benefits. The high cost of health care hurts my ability to create new jobs here in Virginia and retain skilled employees. Without competition and meaningful health care legislation, we will continue to see rising health insurance premiums each year that harm businesses and squeeze families."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"The status quo in health insurance spending for America's small businesses is intolerable and it is unsustainable," said Harkin. "Today, we have a simple message for small business owners across America: help is on the way and it comes in the form of a health reform plan that puts a stop to the discriminatory insurance industry practice of jacking up premiums for small businesses by up to 200 percent when an employee gets sick or because the business hires a woman. Our bill will end the practice of denying coverage based on preexisting conditions or increasing premiums based on health status, gender, or industry. As I have said many times, the biggest winners in a reformed health system will be small business owners and their employees."
Landrieu said: "Small businesses are suffering from skyrocketing health insurance premiums that are eating into their bottom lines and threatening their survival. As we continue to make progress toward comprehensive health care reform, Democrats are working to address the health care needs of small businesses. And while we may not yet completely agree on everything, one thing we can all agree on is that doing nothing is simply not an option."
"Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and right now health care costs are simply too much to bear," said Halvorson. "If we truly want our small businesses to help lead us out of our current economic troubles, we must act to reform health care. Small business owners and their employees are depending on it. We must act now."
Draper said: "We try to be flexible, but it's an expensive way to do it. Right now, health insurance is a volatile commodity such as oil -- the price swings, the price increases, and it takes up a larger portion of a company's budget. If the government were to provide a more stable option and take the market out of things, it would help settle business's books, it would help them better predict the future. As a business owner, I wouldn't have to worry about finding policies, knowing what is covered, what isn't covered and how much the company will end up paying."
"We started off with everybody on a group plan, but as the premiums continued to climb and climb, my employees had to start dropping out, so we switched to individual plans," said Barnes. "But one of my employees was denied for a pre-existing condition. And we've had trouble with the insurance company -- when my daughter needed a surgery, they mysteriously took her off the surgery schedule. That's not right. It's time to fix health care -- for small businesses like mine and for the communities we serve."
Brantley said: "The lack of affordable health insurance hurts millions of small-business owners like me. I would love to hire several highly skilled staff to work with me. This would balance the workload, expand our care, and create more jobs. It is virtually impossible, however, to find qualified applicants who will accept a job offer without health insurance benefits. The high cost of health care hurts my ability to create new jobs here in Virginia and retain skilled employees. Without competition and meaningful health care legislation, we will continue to see rising health insurance premiums each year that harm businesses and squeeze families."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Full Transcript of House Democrats' Press Conference on Introduction of Health Care Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Chairman Henry Waxman, Chairman Charles Rangel, Chairman George Miller, Chairman John Dingell and other senior House Democrats held a press conference in the Capitol this afternoon to discuss legislation introduced today by the Tri-Committees on health care reform.
Below is a transcript of the entire press conference.
Speaker Pelosi. Good afternoon.
This is indeed a happy day, for today we are introducing historic and transformative legislation that will benefit all Americans -- America's Affordable Health Choices Act. It is a health insurance act for the great middle class of America.
I'd like to thank our committee chairs for the work they have done to ensure quality, affordability, and accessibility for America's middle class. In doing so, I am joining the praise of the President of the United States and the praise that he heaped upon them earlier today when the bill was filed. I'd like to acknowledge the great work of Chairman Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee, and to all of their staffs who have worked so hard to make this day possible.
I especially want to acknowledge Chairman Dingell. I said to Chairman Dingell just before we came in here, "Are you happy? Isn't this a great day?" He said, "I'm happy, and my father would be happy, too." Chairman Dingell, every year in his long service in Congress, has introduced universal health care legislation, and now he is the lead author on this historic legislation that will take us to that place. Thank you Mr. Dingell.
I'd also like to acknowledge some other members of the leadership who are here. Mr. Hoyer, whom you'll be hearing from later, important leader at organizing and coordinating this effort; Mr. Clyburn, our distinguished Whip; Mr. Larson, the chair of the Caucus; Mr. Becerra, the Vice-Chair; Mr. Van Hollen wears two leadership hats as Assistant to the Speaker and Chair of the DCCC. In addition to that, the chairs of the subcommittees who've worked very hard on this, bringing their extensive knowledge and experience in health care and health care insurance reform -- Chairman Stark of the of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Andrews of Education and Labor, and Chairman Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Have I acknowledged everyone? I can acknowledge everyone in the Caucus, this has been such a joint effort.
Over the coming weeks Congress will continue working with President Obama to make health care reform work for middle-class Americans. This bill is a starting point and a path to success. To lower costs to consumers and businesses, to give greater choice to Americans, including keeping your doctor or plan if you like them, better quality of care putting doctors, not insurance companies back in charge, and to provide stability and peace of mind that you cannot be denied care or coverage for a pre-existing condition.
This is so important to the middle class. You cannot be denied care from a pre-existing condition. If you change jobs, lose your job, or start a new business, you still have health care. This is very important to the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Inaction is not an option for us. That is why we are still on schedule to do what we have planned, to vote on this legislation before we leave for the August recess.
I'm now pleased to introduce the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I do so with admiration and appreciation for his great leadership in bringing us to where we are today along with the other chairs, Mr. Waxman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
This legislation is landmark legislation, and this is a defining moment for our country. We are about to undertake what has eluded so many Presidents and Congresses for far too long, and that is the objective of getting good quality, affordable health care insurance to every American.
The President was elected with the mandate that he undertake this very ambitious goal. And he outlined how he wanted to achieve it, by building on the system that we have now, by giving people the option to keep the insurance that they have, if they like it, and to allow the seniors to stay in Medicare but improve that system.
But for those who have no insurance, or for those small businesses that cannot afford insurance, our legislation will allow people to choose an insurance option. And I emphasize the word "choice" because that choice and competition is one very formidable way to hold down the costs.
We are trying to achieve a number of different objectives. But holding down the costs in health care is certainly, by far, our number one objective. The system is unsustainable. We cannot continue to put more and more money into health care, especially when you recognize that this country spends more money on health care than any other Western industrialized nation.
And yet, we have 46 million to 50 million people uninsured, and more and more stories of people who have insurance that doesn't work for them when they need that insurance to kick in and pay for their medical bills.
We can't afford it as a country, paying for Medicare and Medicaid. We can't afford it for those who are buying insurance that's going up every year. We can't afford it for governments at the local level that help pay for health care as well.
So our system is dysfunctional, and this legislation, we hope, will bring a system together that will serve all of the American people and all those who provide care for those people.
The legislation that we are rolling out today is an improvement on the draft that was released a couple of weeks ago. It reflects the input from many of our colleagues.
We have a number of items, from making sure that we protect small businesses to making sure that people have more options, and a number of other changes that you'll be able to look at when you see the draft.
This draft, which is the product of the three committees, will now be presented to each of our three committees. And in our committee, on the Energy and Commerce, we will work through some of the differences we have among the members, both Democrats and Republicans, with the objective that we are going to get a bill.
We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again. We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system.
And that is what we're going to be doing in the next three weeks, accomplishing this goal in the House and the Senate, so that we can get together and work out one final piece of legislation for the President to sign.
I'm pleased that we've had such strong leadership from our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and our Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, and our Whip, Jim Clyburn, and others in our caucus.
And we are -- we are moving forward. We are going to -- we are going to accomplish what many people have felt wouldn't come in our lifetime, but we are going to make it happen in the House this next few weeks, and in the Congress by the end of this year, to the President's desk for his signature.
I'm pleased now to yield the floor to the very distinguished Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a key participant in the legislation that we are rolling out today, Chairman Charlie Rangel.
Chairman Rangel. Thank you, Henry.
Madam Speaker, I almost feel like I'm one of the luckiest people in the world, to have stayed here so long to wait for a President that has made a personal political commitment to provide health care for all of America.
To go through so many Speakers and to have such a dynamic Speaker to be working with to bring all these Indian chiefs together and to read from one page for America, to let people know that those 50 million people that don't have insurance, they're getting health care, but to remind America that they're paying for it, the doctors are charging for it, the hospitals are charging for it, the health insurance people are charging for it, the rates are just soaring.
There's not anybody in America that's an adult that doesn't have some horror story about somebody that lost their lives, lost their home, lost their jobs, lost their insurance.
And just to think that these people will be able to work anyplace with their families knowing that they are insured, to have the self-esteem to know that such a large part of their disposable income would not have to be for insurance, but America and our government will be there to effectively compete, to have people to be able to make decisions based on what's good for them and their families, and to know that we're going to provide the providers there so that people can now look into the future and know that if they really just don't want to make a buck, but want to do what doctors are supposed to do, to serve people and to cure people and to prevent illness, how lucky we are to be in a Congress with such leadership, and to have a President that's going to give us an opportunity that if we do nothing else, we can say we were a part of the team that brought universal health to the people of the United States of America.
I want to really thank Pete Stark. As old as he is, he spent so much of his time working on this subject, and (inaudible)...
He keeps calling me "Dad." But Chairman Miller's been a dynamic person to work with -- this whole team. And we have promised the President and we promised the American people that we've been challenged and we will produce. And thank you for giving us an opportunity.
George Miller, the dynamic chairman of Education and Labor.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very exciting day for so many of us that have been involved in public service and in the Congress of the United States most of our lives, to stand here today with the introduction of our legislation that will embrace the desires of the American people to have real health care, real coverage, real affordability and real access, and to stand here with the introduction of legislation that meets the goals that were articulated by President Obama, to lower the cost, to preserve choice, and expand access to care.
Our bill addresses America's economic and fiscal health and its medical well being of all our people. Let me be specific about what our bill means to the average American. Our bill will lower costs for health care. There will be no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care; no more rate increases because of pre-existing conditions or because of your gender or where you happen to work.
There will be an annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses. Group rates will be available for individuals who have to purchase insurance for themselves. Guaranteed and affordable oral, hearing and vision care for our children.
Our bill will provide choice of care. You can keep your doctor and your current plan if you like them. Your choices will be protected and enhanced. You will have access to a wide variety of choices for quality and affordable plans, including a high-quality public health insurance option to compete with the private insurers.
Our bill will increase the quality of care. You and your doctor will make health care decisions, not your insurance company. More family doctors and nurses will be able to enter the workforce, helping to guarantee your access to better treatment that meets your needs. Mental health care will be covered.
Our bill will offer stability and a peace of mind. Never again will you go without health insurance. You will have the peace of mind of knowing that you will never lose coverage. If you lose your job, you switch jobs, you start a business, you will keep your coverage.
You will never be denied coverage because of those pre-existing conditions. And you won't -- and you won't face any lifetime limits on how much instance companies will pay, meaning that never again will you be one treatment away from bankruptcy.
And our reforms will cover 97 percent of the Americans by year 2019.
Beginning this week -- or beginning tomorrow or the next day -- our committees will mark up in our respective areas of jurisdiction. Our Republican and Democratic colleagues are already busy drafting amendments to the bill, and they will have an opportunity to offer their amendments.
We will continue to improve our bill by working with those with constructive ideas, and we'll endeavor to satisfy the many competing demands that naturally accompany a bill of this scope and importance.
We will in this year produce a bill that is fair and fully paid for, reduces cost, preserves choice, and expands access for all Americans. That was the charge that President Obama gave this Congress when he was sworn into office. It was the charge that the American people gave President Obama when they voted for him in the election. And this Congress is delivering on that promise for the first time in the history of this country.
And one who has worked on this longer and harder than any of us, Chairman John Dingell.
Chairman Dingell. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller.
Madam Speaker, our leader, my colleagues, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and our leader, Mr. Hoyer, I am proud, indeed, to be here with my great colleagues who have worked so hard on this undertaking. And I'm delighted to be a participant in this great undertaking.
As mentioned, this is the first time we have gotten to this point. We're going to cover every American. We're going to see to it that they have choice. We're going to see to it that not only are the humanitarian concerns of people with regard to health care met, but that an economic calamity, which is coming unless we do so, will be headed off because of the work that has been done today.
This is a good bill. It is a uniquely American solution to address the insecurities in health care felt by the American people. The burden of costs of health care has been placed on the economy. And the competitive disadvantages experienced by our businesses will be removed.
Today, it marks a major step in this long journey of ours. However, it is not the last step. And while we greet this day with delight, we know that we have a lot of work before us.
My old dad would be pleased. He started this out in 1943 with Harry Truman. And we have been working on it ever since.
And, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you how pleased we are that we can finally say the House is going to consider this and that we are going to pass it.
And I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Caucus and the larger House of Representatives to solving the greatest single humanitarian and health care problem that's faced by our people.
This nation has a proud history of protecting our elders, our newborns, our sick, and those who are the weakest and least capable of taking care of themselves.
We created Social Security during a time of economic calamity. We passed Medicare legislation during a period of civil unrest and a divisive war. Some of our greatest acts of compassion have come at the most difficult and trying of moments.
We are working to accomplish something that is greater than us as Members of Congress, and something which must, should and I hope, will transcend partisan divides and bickering. This has been tried by many Presidents and congresses before. However, this time is different. This time we will be successful. This time we must be successful.
This American solution of ours will help those needing care gain access to the finest medical care in the world. And there's an interesting thing about this country. We have the finest medical care, but a lot of our people can't afford it and don't get it. We're going to cure that.
Not only do we have a chance to do the right thing for our and about our people, but also for our economy. The high cost of health care is not only a part of today's economic woes, but it will cause a still greater problem in the years to come because if you draw on the line -- draw on the graph two lines, the first being the cost of medical care and the second the gross domestic product, the two of them will cross sometime around 2070 or 2080.
We have an opportunity then to prevent the next great economic catastrophe, but we must learn from the current economic crisis that we've inherited. To protect the health and the well being of our citizens and our country, and our help to our businesses to remain competitive, we must be bold. We must be strong, and we must respond to the challenge that we have before us and that we are confronted with now on behalf of our nation's citizens. And we have to address the problem, cure it, and pass this legislation now.
I'm proud to be a part of it.
And I have the privilege of introducing the great majority leader who is going to lead us in that undertaking, Mr. Hoyer.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Before I speak, I would be pleased to yield to my friend the Whip, if he would like to say something.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Thank you very much.
Speaker Pelosi. He's going to get the votes.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Madam Speaker, congratulations to you for your single- minded focus, your purposeful direction of all of us to work together to accomplish this day.
Six decades we have been trying to make sure that every American had the availability of quality, affordable health care -- six decades. There's been a Dingell in every decade.
John Dingell, we owe a great gratitude to your father, because your father was the leader on health care, and you have been a leader on health care.
To Henry Waxman, to Charlie Rangel and to George Miller, who have worked together in an unprecedented fashion, who have said, yes, each of us have jurisdiction, yes, each of us could produce a product, but we believe that this issue is so important that we must come together to produce a product -- a product for the American people.
President Obama has, as Speaker Pelosi indicated today, issued a very strong statement of how pleased he is that this product is today being put on the table and that it will be marked up later this week and perhaps into next week we enter a process of improvement.
As Henry Waxman said, this is not the original document that was introduced or put on the table as a draft. It has been improved. It has responded to the views and concerns of not only those Members of Congress, but those outside Congress, those who are users of health care and those who are providers of health care.
As Chairman Waxman has indicated, they're going to be continuing to consider ways and means to improve this legislation.
As the President indicates, this is an excellent work for the American people.
It seeks to bring costs down and it will bring costs down, not just costs down for government, but more importantly, costs down for individuals and families who are being priced out of the market, who understand that they've got health care now, but are worried about losing it. That's what this issue is about.
And I've had some Americans say, "Don't mess with my health care." We heard what they said. And if they like what they have, they keep what they have. This does not mandate any changes and they will have choice of doctor and hospital. This does not in any way undermine. But what it does do, it gives them the security that if they should lose their job or their economic circumstances should change and they can't afford health insurance that they used to have, now have, this ensures that they will have that insurance.
So as we proceed in this process, let me say to you as the Majority Leader who's talked to you a lot about our schedule, we're on schedule. We're going to be paid for. I don't know if we'll be under budget, but we'll be on budget. We're going to pay for this bill. We're not going to add additional debt to the American people.
And we will produce a product that will give to the American people a sense of security and well being for them, for their husbands, their wives and their children that they so desperately want.
The overwhelming majority of the American public says, "We want health reform." John McCain said, "I want health reform." Hillary Clinton said, "I want health reform." And Barack Obama said, "I want health reform," and the American people overwhelmingly elected him President of the United States.
And I want to tell you, in closing, I've talked to almost every member of our caucus and there is not a member of the caucus who is not for health care reform, to making sure that we bring costs down, make health care affordable and available to all, and make sure that they have the quality that American has to offer.
So again, Madam Speaker, in closing let me congratulate you, John Dingell -- no one here has kept the faith longer and more focused than you have. God bless you, sir.
Chairman Dingell. Thank you.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Speaker Pelosi. I thank all of you all of you and again join you in saluting the great leadership of President Barack Obama. Without that leadership, this day would not be possible. More importantly, a day when he signs the bill into law, making tremendous progress to the American people on this important issue that is relevant to their economic and physical well-being.
Leader Hoyer mentioned, and I associate myself with his praise of Mr. Dingell, once again, Chairman Dingell and his father in saying the last six decades that every one of those decades has had a Dingell. And that's for sure. Every decade has had a Kennedy as well, and I am so pleased that Patrick Kennedy is here -- his eyes lit up when George Miller mentioned mental health.
And as we gather here, the HELP Committee -- my understanding is that today they will be passing the bill in the United States Senate -- the HELP Committee, will be passing out their bill. So please give our thanks and best wishes to your father, Patrick, because he too was so important in making this day possible.
With that, I would be pleased to take any questions you may have.
Q: Can you address how you're going to deal in committee with the -- I mean, the Blue Dogs, the 40 who signed that letter last week, they have enough Members to significantly change the legislation in committee, and they're still against the public option be implemented right away, and they have reservations about the surtax going in before doing more cost cutting.
How are you going to address your fellow Democrats' concerns in committee while keeping the structure of this bill?
Speaker Pelosi. I'm going to yield to the chairman on that, but to say that we all associate ourselves with any additional cost cutting we can do. We want to squeeze every dollar we can have out of the system to have more savings, to reduce the need for revenues.
And we will have a strong level-playing-field public option, and some of the concerns raised by the Blue Dogs were well taken.
And with that, I will yield to Mr. Waxman, and then Mr. Hoyer.
Chairman Waxman. The Blue Dogs are the Democrats from especially the rural areas, and who have a specific fiscal conservative point of view that many of us share -- they play a very constructive role. I thought their letter last week was an outstanding letter, setting out the issues that concern them and concern all of us.
We are going to have to work through those issues. It's not a correct statement to say they're against a public option. They want some changes in the public option. Some would prefer not to have a public option, but we have to bring everybody together, because a large part of our Democratic Caucus wants a public option, as does the President of the United States.
But their main focus -- and I welcome this -- is to reduce the costs in this legislation, and in that regard we're going to work with them to achieve those goals and to get a bill that all of us can support.
The Democratic Party's a big tent. We have different parts of it pushing for different aspects of the problem, and we all have to come together, compromise, and work out our differences, and then stand behind legislation that will accomplish this important goal.
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Hoyer? Mr. Leader?
Majority Leader Hoyer. The chairman's absolutely right, I think. But I want to just reiterate for you, when I articulated that every member of the caucus wants to see health reform enacted, that included all 52 members of the Blue Dogs.
The Blue Dogs have a perspective, like all of us. It's not unanimous, but a very significant focus, which is shared by them. But because they are in favor of the objective, I expect and have seen them working very hard to get to a place where we would create the consensus for a significant majority for this bill before we leave here in August.
So I have great confidence in the chairmen, all three chairmen, bringing together a bill, one bill, that will enjoy the broad support of our caucus.
Speaker Pelosi. I might add that under Steny's leadership we'll be bringing to the floor legislation by Baron Hill, George Miller, who else are the co-sponsors on...
Majority Leader Hoyer. Peter Welch.
Speaker Pelosi. Peter Welch, on PAYGO.
Majority Leader Hoyer. And Bobby Scott.
Speaker Pelosi. And Bobby Scott. So a cross-section of our Caucus supporting PAYGO, really an issue that the Blue Dogs have taken the lead on and that the Congress, the Democratic Caucus has adopted. So we thank them for their leadership there.
We are all committed to fiscal soundness. We thank them for their leadership in that regard.
Q: Madam Speaker, can you tell us what the total CBO estimate is on the bill? And can you give us a couple of examples of where you've changed the bill, from the few weeks ago until now?
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Miller and Mr. Waxman can talk about the changes.
Chairman Rangel. Well, one of the things that we had concern with -- and I have to admit I learned a lot as we moved along, especially the diversity that exists throughout this great country, where people have different needs, people have different ways of providing health care, and not all of it appears to be equitable.
As a result of the deep interest and concern that some Members had, we directed that there would be an investigation, a study, to see where the best possible medicine is being given at the -- at the most efficient way and the most efficient price, and we set aside $10 billion to make up for any inequities that could exist, and that would be handled by the federal administration.
So it's not the end; it's just the beginning. So many reforms, of course, as a result of this, that were in the bill, the people just didn't know where to find them. So we had to bring those things together, and a lot of people were pleased.
The small businesses that we are able to change the threshold, to be able to provide credits, for all of these, small business as well as big, want and many can't afford to provide care for their employees. And we provide incentives for them to do that.
So many of the concerns that had been in the bill, we brought them up, and we're pretty certain -- now, we've got a long way to go, but we really have eased a lot of concern that people have had.
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Waxman?
Chairman Waxman. The Congressional Budget Office works its own measures of the costs at a process that is laborious and, for many of us, slower than we would like.
As a matter of fact, on our committee, we're going to have a bipartisan briefing by the CBO to try to understand how they come to some of their conclusions.
Some of our members get perplexed when we have very important preventive service that aren't scored as saving any money. I think CBO looks at the idea that maybe people stay alive longer and collect more Social Security, even though we don't have to pay for treatment of diseases that we can prevent.
But I want to go into that when we meet with the CBO soon.
I don't know if we have a specific CBO estimate, but we will have one very soon. And it is going to be in the -- in the context of what we've expected all along, that we are going to be holding down the costs, and that is going to be used to pay for a lot of this bill. And we're going to have need for revenue-raisers as well, which the Ways and Means Committee is providing because it's within their jurisdiction to help us meet that obligation.
Q: Just to follow up on that, Chairman Waxman, it seems that you probably must have some idea of the (inaudible) overall (inaudible) at this point -- I mean, since you're unveiling this bill to the American public, you must have an idea of how much it is going to cost.
Chairman Waxman. Well, I wouldn't want to speculate. I wouldn't want to speculate about exact amounts because CBO is going to come up with their official score, and that's the score we abide by.
So we should get that very soon, and we'll share it with everybody.
Speaker Pelosi. And the bill will be paid for.
Q: (Inaudible) proposed legislation. In this case, what do you see as the role of the President and Mr. Emanuel in helping to get votes in the House and perhaps in helping to pull the Senate toward your vision in the House bill?
Speaker Pelosi. Would any of my colleagues like to address that?
The President's leadership is essential to the success of this legislation. As Mr. Miller said, the American people called out for this in the election. The President has called upon the Congress to pass this legislation for health care to lower costs, improve quality, get better choices and to improve the quality of life of the American people.
Lowering costs is essential to this. As the President said, health care reform is entitlement reform. So a great deal of our fiscal health, to borrow a word, is dependent on this bill being paid for and with its prevention and wellness initiatives, to take down the cost of health care, therefore Medicare, Medicaid, reducing entitlements, lowering the national deficit. This is a priority for all of us. It is a priority for the President.
So the President in his values-based statement about what this means to the health of the American people and to our economy -- this is about our economy as well -- well, his leadership has gotten us to where we are now and will be essential as we go forward.
His leadership will also continue to bring us together. We have our three tenors who have worked in harmony in the House. We continue -- we hope to -- we know that that harmony will continue as we move to conference with the Senate. The President's role will be essential in all of this, whether it's speaking to many audiences, speaking to the American people about this, speaking to the Congress in general, speaking to individual Members, speaking to the aspirations of the American people to have this problem behind them as they go forward.
(CROSSTALK)
Chairman Waxman. I've got my answer. What's your question?
(LAUGHTER)
Q: My question...
Speaker Pelosi. (Inaudible) solo now.
Q: My question relates to the notion that tax increases should be held in reserve until the recession is over, and they can be applied to reducing the deficit. And also that the only way to reduce health costs is to change the way doctors and hospitals are paid for dealing with a patient writ large, rather than for every little jab that they do.
Chairman Waxman. As we mentioned, the changes in this proposal today, compared to the original draft, includes something on small businesses, to give more small businesses an exemption, not to place a greater burden on them. And we do that by $250,000 and below completely exempted; $250,000 to $400,000 will have a sliding scale. The original draft had it at $100,000 payroll.
The second big change is -- relates to the pharmaceutical area. While there are ideas of how to hold down the costs from the pharmaceutical side of the expenditures, we are -- have in our bill a requirement that the windfall that the pharmaceutical industry received from categorizing people who were in Medicaid as well as Medicare as Medicare instead of Medicaid, and losing the rebate that we used to get, that rebate will be reinstated and the money will be used to close -- to help close that donut hole that seniors face on their pharmaceuticals.
And the last issue that's a major one of the changes is pertinent to your question, so I'm not completely ignoring what you asked. And that is the fact that we have changes in this proposal from the original draft that will hold down the cost of health care by pilot projects of accountable organizations that will organize the delivery of care to reduce the individual fees for services that some people have claimed gives an incentive for more services and more fees.
We'll have accountability organizations, a greater combination of how to manage the delivery of care. And we're continuing to work on other ways to hold down the cost.
Having said that, we cannot hold down the cost sufficiently in health care to do all that we want to do. And so we are going to look to increasing revenues to help pay for this major reform.
Now, these revenue increases are targeted at making sure that health care is affordable, because providing someone with the opportunity to finally get a health insurance policy when in the fact -- in the past they've been discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition or excluded because an insurance company thought that that might be a person who could raise the possibility of more costs for their treatment and therefore exclude them from overage, we can't just have insurance reform without making health insurance affordable by assisting people in buying their insurance coverage. And that is going to require the expenditures not only by cuts in the system, but also by bringing in greater revenues.
I know that Chairman Rangel will talk about the revenue side.
You will get, by the way, a CBO estimate today of the total cost of this bill, and given the speculation of the range, I think that most people expect the range is going to be an amount that CBO will fill in later when they give you...
(LAUGHTER)
... the estimates.
So...
(CROSSTALK)
And I'm going to yield to Charlie Rangel.
Chairman Rangel. The Congressional Budget Office is not our friend in terms of answering a question like that because they don't record the actual savings that people would feel in their pocketbooks, in their bank accounts, in their everyday conduct of trying to get health care paying off bills.
But it's safe to say as a guideline that when those people who get paid who have stakeholders in this can come together at the White House and say that this bill over 10 years will save the American people $2 trillion, those are real dollars even though they cannot be scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
So I'm satisfied that our country, our economy, individuals will be saving money by the investment that we make now.
Speaker Pelosi. Thank you all very much.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Below is a transcript of the entire press conference.
Speaker Pelosi. Good afternoon.
This is indeed a happy day, for today we are introducing historic and transformative legislation that will benefit all Americans -- America's Affordable Health Choices Act. It is a health insurance act for the great middle class of America.
I'd like to thank our committee chairs for the work they have done to ensure quality, affordability, and accessibility for America's middle class. In doing so, I am joining the praise of the President of the United States and the praise that he heaped upon them earlier today when the bill was filed. I'd like to acknowledge the great work of Chairman Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee, and to all of their staffs who have worked so hard to make this day possible.
I especially want to acknowledge Chairman Dingell. I said to Chairman Dingell just before we came in here, "Are you happy? Isn't this a great day?" He said, "I'm happy, and my father would be happy, too." Chairman Dingell, every year in his long service in Congress, has introduced universal health care legislation, and now he is the lead author on this historic legislation that will take us to that place. Thank you Mr. Dingell.
I'd also like to acknowledge some other members of the leadership who are here. Mr. Hoyer, whom you'll be hearing from later, important leader at organizing and coordinating this effort; Mr. Clyburn, our distinguished Whip; Mr. Larson, the chair of the Caucus; Mr. Becerra, the Vice-Chair; Mr. Van Hollen wears two leadership hats as Assistant to the Speaker and Chair of the DCCC. In addition to that, the chairs of the subcommittees who've worked very hard on this, bringing their extensive knowledge and experience in health care and health care insurance reform -- Chairman Stark of the of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Andrews of Education and Labor, and Chairman Pallone of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Have I acknowledged everyone? I can acknowledge everyone in the Caucus, this has been such a joint effort.
Over the coming weeks Congress will continue working with President Obama to make health care reform work for middle-class Americans. This bill is a starting point and a path to success. To lower costs to consumers and businesses, to give greater choice to Americans, including keeping your doctor or plan if you like them, better quality of care putting doctors, not insurance companies back in charge, and to provide stability and peace of mind that you cannot be denied care or coverage for a pre-existing condition.
This is so important to the middle class. You cannot be denied care from a pre-existing condition. If you change jobs, lose your job, or start a new business, you still have health care. This is very important to the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Inaction is not an option for us. That is why we are still on schedule to do what we have planned, to vote on this legislation before we leave for the August recess.
I'm now pleased to introduce the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I do so with admiration and appreciation for his great leadership in bringing us to where we are today along with the other chairs, Mr. Waxman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
This legislation is landmark legislation, and this is a defining moment for our country. We are about to undertake what has eluded so many Presidents and Congresses for far too long, and that is the objective of getting good quality, affordable health care insurance to every American.
The President was elected with the mandate that he undertake this very ambitious goal. And he outlined how he wanted to achieve it, by building on the system that we have now, by giving people the option to keep the insurance that they have, if they like it, and to allow the seniors to stay in Medicare but improve that system.
But for those who have no insurance, or for those small businesses that cannot afford insurance, our legislation will allow people to choose an insurance option. And I emphasize the word "choice" because that choice and competition is one very formidable way to hold down the costs.
We are trying to achieve a number of different objectives. But holding down the costs in health care is certainly, by far, our number one objective. The system is unsustainable. We cannot continue to put more and more money into health care, especially when you recognize that this country spends more money on health care than any other Western industrialized nation.
And yet, we have 46 million to 50 million people uninsured, and more and more stories of people who have insurance that doesn't work for them when they need that insurance to kick in and pay for their medical bills.
We can't afford it as a country, paying for Medicare and Medicaid. We can't afford it for those who are buying insurance that's going up every year. We can't afford it for governments at the local level that help pay for health care as well.
So our system is dysfunctional, and this legislation, we hope, will bring a system together that will serve all of the American people and all those who provide care for those people.
The legislation that we are rolling out today is an improvement on the draft that was released a couple of weeks ago. It reflects the input from many of our colleagues.
We have a number of items, from making sure that we protect small businesses to making sure that people have more options, and a number of other changes that you'll be able to look at when you see the draft.
This draft, which is the product of the three committees, will now be presented to each of our three committees. And in our committee, on the Energy and Commerce, we will work through some of the differences we have among the members, both Democrats and Republicans, with the objective that we are going to get a bill.
We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again. We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system.
And that is what we're going to be doing in the next three weeks, accomplishing this goal in the House and the Senate, so that we can get together and work out one final piece of legislation for the President to sign.
I'm pleased that we've had such strong leadership from our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and our Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, and our Whip, Jim Clyburn, and others in our caucus.
And we are -- we are moving forward. We are going to -- we are going to accomplish what many people have felt wouldn't come in our lifetime, but we are going to make it happen in the House this next few weeks, and in the Congress by the end of this year, to the President's desk for his signature.
I'm pleased now to yield the floor to the very distinguished Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a key participant in the legislation that we are rolling out today, Chairman Charlie Rangel.
Chairman Rangel. Thank you, Henry.
Madam Speaker, I almost feel like I'm one of the luckiest people in the world, to have stayed here so long to wait for a President that has made a personal political commitment to provide health care for all of America.
To go through so many Speakers and to have such a dynamic Speaker to be working with to bring all these Indian chiefs together and to read from one page for America, to let people know that those 50 million people that don't have insurance, they're getting health care, but to remind America that they're paying for it, the doctors are charging for it, the hospitals are charging for it, the health insurance people are charging for it, the rates are just soaring.
There's not anybody in America that's an adult that doesn't have some horror story about somebody that lost their lives, lost their home, lost their jobs, lost their insurance.
And just to think that these people will be able to work anyplace with their families knowing that they are insured, to have the self-esteem to know that such a large part of their disposable income would not have to be for insurance, but America and our government will be there to effectively compete, to have people to be able to make decisions based on what's good for them and their families, and to know that we're going to provide the providers there so that people can now look into the future and know that if they really just don't want to make a buck, but want to do what doctors are supposed to do, to serve people and to cure people and to prevent illness, how lucky we are to be in a Congress with such leadership, and to have a President that's going to give us an opportunity that if we do nothing else, we can say we were a part of the team that brought universal health to the people of the United States of America.
I want to really thank Pete Stark. As old as he is, he spent so much of his time working on this subject, and (inaudible)...
He keeps calling me "Dad." But Chairman Miller's been a dynamic person to work with -- this whole team. And we have promised the President and we promised the American people that we've been challenged and we will produce. And thank you for giving us an opportunity.
George Miller, the dynamic chairman of Education and Labor.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very exciting day for so many of us that have been involved in public service and in the Congress of the United States most of our lives, to stand here today with the introduction of our legislation that will embrace the desires of the American people to have real health care, real coverage, real affordability and real access, and to stand here with the introduction of legislation that meets the goals that were articulated by President Obama, to lower the cost, to preserve choice, and expand access to care.
Our bill addresses America's economic and fiscal health and its medical well being of all our people. Let me be specific about what our bill means to the average American. Our bill will lower costs for health care. There will be no more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care; no more rate increases because of pre-existing conditions or because of your gender or where you happen to work.
There will be an annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses. Group rates will be available for individuals who have to purchase insurance for themselves. Guaranteed and affordable oral, hearing and vision care for our children.
Our bill will provide choice of care. You can keep your doctor and your current plan if you like them. Your choices will be protected and enhanced. You will have access to a wide variety of choices for quality and affordable plans, including a high-quality public health insurance option to compete with the private insurers.
Our bill will increase the quality of care. You and your doctor will make health care decisions, not your insurance company. More family doctors and nurses will be able to enter the workforce, helping to guarantee your access to better treatment that meets your needs. Mental health care will be covered.
Our bill will offer stability and a peace of mind. Never again will you go without health insurance. You will have the peace of mind of knowing that you will never lose coverage. If you lose your job, you switch jobs, you start a business, you will keep your coverage.
You will never be denied coverage because of those pre-existing conditions. And you won't -- and you won't face any lifetime limits on how much instance companies will pay, meaning that never again will you be one treatment away from bankruptcy.
And our reforms will cover 97 percent of the Americans by year 2019.
Beginning this week -- or beginning tomorrow or the next day -- our committees will mark up in our respective areas of jurisdiction. Our Republican and Democratic colleagues are already busy drafting amendments to the bill, and they will have an opportunity to offer their amendments.
We will continue to improve our bill by working with those with constructive ideas, and we'll endeavor to satisfy the many competing demands that naturally accompany a bill of this scope and importance.
We will in this year produce a bill that is fair and fully paid for, reduces cost, preserves choice, and expands access for all Americans. That was the charge that President Obama gave this Congress when he was sworn into office. It was the charge that the American people gave President Obama when they voted for him in the election. And this Congress is delivering on that promise for the first time in the history of this country.
And one who has worked on this longer and harder than any of us, Chairman John Dingell.
Chairman Dingell. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller.
Madam Speaker, our leader, my colleagues, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and our leader, Mr. Hoyer, I am proud, indeed, to be here with my great colleagues who have worked so hard on this undertaking. And I'm delighted to be a participant in this great undertaking.
As mentioned, this is the first time we have gotten to this point. We're going to cover every American. We're going to see to it that they have choice. We're going to see to it that not only are the humanitarian concerns of people with regard to health care met, but that an economic calamity, which is coming unless we do so, will be headed off because of the work that has been done today.
This is a good bill. It is a uniquely American solution to address the insecurities in health care felt by the American people. The burden of costs of health care has been placed on the economy. And the competitive disadvantages experienced by our businesses will be removed.
Today, it marks a major step in this long journey of ours. However, it is not the last step. And while we greet this day with delight, we know that we have a lot of work before us.
My old dad would be pleased. He started this out in 1943 with Harry Truman. And we have been working on it ever since.
And, Madam Speaker, I want to tell you how pleased we are that we can finally say the House is going to consider this and that we are going to pass it.
And I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Caucus and the larger House of Representatives to solving the greatest single humanitarian and health care problem that's faced by our people.
This nation has a proud history of protecting our elders, our newborns, our sick, and those who are the weakest and least capable of taking care of themselves.
We created Social Security during a time of economic calamity. We passed Medicare legislation during a period of civil unrest and a divisive war. Some of our greatest acts of compassion have come at the most difficult and trying of moments.
We are working to accomplish something that is greater than us as Members of Congress, and something which must, should and I hope, will transcend partisan divides and bickering. This has been tried by many Presidents and congresses before. However, this time is different. This time we will be successful. This time we must be successful.
This American solution of ours will help those needing care gain access to the finest medical care in the world. And there's an interesting thing about this country. We have the finest medical care, but a lot of our people can't afford it and don't get it. We're going to cure that.
Not only do we have a chance to do the right thing for our and about our people, but also for our economy. The high cost of health care is not only a part of today's economic woes, but it will cause a still greater problem in the years to come because if you draw on the line -- draw on the graph two lines, the first being the cost of medical care and the second the gross domestic product, the two of them will cross sometime around 2070 or 2080.
We have an opportunity then to prevent the next great economic catastrophe, but we must learn from the current economic crisis that we've inherited. To protect the health and the well being of our citizens and our country, and our help to our businesses to remain competitive, we must be bold. We must be strong, and we must respond to the challenge that we have before us and that we are confronted with now on behalf of our nation's citizens. And we have to address the problem, cure it, and pass this legislation now.
I'm proud to be a part of it.
And I have the privilege of introducing the great majority leader who is going to lead us in that undertaking, Mr. Hoyer.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Before I speak, I would be pleased to yield to my friend the Whip, if he would like to say something.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Thank you very much.
Speaker Pelosi. He's going to get the votes.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Madam Speaker, congratulations to you for your single- minded focus, your purposeful direction of all of us to work together to accomplish this day.
Six decades we have been trying to make sure that every American had the availability of quality, affordable health care -- six decades. There's been a Dingell in every decade.
John Dingell, we owe a great gratitude to your father, because your father was the leader on health care, and you have been a leader on health care.
To Henry Waxman, to Charlie Rangel and to George Miller, who have worked together in an unprecedented fashion, who have said, yes, each of us have jurisdiction, yes, each of us could produce a product, but we believe that this issue is so important that we must come together to produce a product -- a product for the American people.
President Obama has, as Speaker Pelosi indicated today, issued a very strong statement of how pleased he is that this product is today being put on the table and that it will be marked up later this week and perhaps into next week we enter a process of improvement.
As Henry Waxman said, this is not the original document that was introduced or put on the table as a draft. It has been improved. It has responded to the views and concerns of not only those Members of Congress, but those outside Congress, those who are users of health care and those who are providers of health care.
As Chairman Waxman has indicated, they're going to be continuing to consider ways and means to improve this legislation.
As the President indicates, this is an excellent work for the American people.
It seeks to bring costs down and it will bring costs down, not just costs down for government, but more importantly, costs down for individuals and families who are being priced out of the market, who understand that they've got health care now, but are worried about losing it. That's what this issue is about.
And I've had some Americans say, "Don't mess with my health care." We heard what they said. And if they like what they have, they keep what they have. This does not mandate any changes and they will have choice of doctor and hospital. This does not in any way undermine. But what it does do, it gives them the security that if they should lose their job or their economic circumstances should change and they can't afford health insurance that they used to have, now have, this ensures that they will have that insurance.
So as we proceed in this process, let me say to you as the Majority Leader who's talked to you a lot about our schedule, we're on schedule. We're going to be paid for. I don't know if we'll be under budget, but we'll be on budget. We're going to pay for this bill. We're not going to add additional debt to the American people.
And we will produce a product that will give to the American people a sense of security and well being for them, for their husbands, their wives and their children that they so desperately want.
The overwhelming majority of the American public says, "We want health reform." John McCain said, "I want health reform." Hillary Clinton said, "I want health reform." And Barack Obama said, "I want health reform," and the American people overwhelmingly elected him President of the United States.
And I want to tell you, in closing, I've talked to almost every member of our caucus and there is not a member of the caucus who is not for health care reform, to making sure that we bring costs down, make health care affordable and available to all, and make sure that they have the quality that American has to offer.
So again, Madam Speaker, in closing let me congratulate you, John Dingell -- no one here has kept the faith longer and more focused than you have. God bless you, sir.
Chairman Dingell. Thank you.
Majority Leader Hoyer. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Speaker Pelosi. I thank all of you all of you and again join you in saluting the great leadership of President Barack Obama. Without that leadership, this day would not be possible. More importantly, a day when he signs the bill into law, making tremendous progress to the American people on this important issue that is relevant to their economic and physical well-being.
Leader Hoyer mentioned, and I associate myself with his praise of Mr. Dingell, once again, Chairman Dingell and his father in saying the last six decades that every one of those decades has had a Dingell. And that's for sure. Every decade has had a Kennedy as well, and I am so pleased that Patrick Kennedy is here -- his eyes lit up when George Miller mentioned mental health.
And as we gather here, the HELP Committee -- my understanding is that today they will be passing the bill in the United States Senate -- the HELP Committee, will be passing out their bill. So please give our thanks and best wishes to your father, Patrick, because he too was so important in making this day possible.
With that, I would be pleased to take any questions you may have.
Q: Can you address how you're going to deal in committee with the -- I mean, the Blue Dogs, the 40 who signed that letter last week, they have enough Members to significantly change the legislation in committee, and they're still against the public option be implemented right away, and they have reservations about the surtax going in before doing more cost cutting.
How are you going to address your fellow Democrats' concerns in committee while keeping the structure of this bill?
Speaker Pelosi. I'm going to yield to the chairman on that, but to say that we all associate ourselves with any additional cost cutting we can do. We want to squeeze every dollar we can have out of the system to have more savings, to reduce the need for revenues.
And we will have a strong level-playing-field public option, and some of the concerns raised by the Blue Dogs were well taken.
And with that, I will yield to Mr. Waxman, and then Mr. Hoyer.
Chairman Waxman. The Blue Dogs are the Democrats from especially the rural areas, and who have a specific fiscal conservative point of view that many of us share -- they play a very constructive role. I thought their letter last week was an outstanding letter, setting out the issues that concern them and concern all of us.
We are going to have to work through those issues. It's not a correct statement to say they're against a public option. They want some changes in the public option. Some would prefer not to have a public option, but we have to bring everybody together, because a large part of our Democratic Caucus wants a public option, as does the President of the United States.
But their main focus -- and I welcome this -- is to reduce the costs in this legislation, and in that regard we're going to work with them to achieve those goals and to get a bill that all of us can support.
The Democratic Party's a big tent. We have different parts of it pushing for different aspects of the problem, and we all have to come together, compromise, and work out our differences, and then stand behind legislation that will accomplish this important goal.
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Hoyer? Mr. Leader?
Majority Leader Hoyer. The chairman's absolutely right, I think. But I want to just reiterate for you, when I articulated that every member of the caucus wants to see health reform enacted, that included all 52 members of the Blue Dogs.
The Blue Dogs have a perspective, like all of us. It's not unanimous, but a very significant focus, which is shared by them. But because they are in favor of the objective, I expect and have seen them working very hard to get to a place where we would create the consensus for a significant majority for this bill before we leave here in August.
So I have great confidence in the chairmen, all three chairmen, bringing together a bill, one bill, that will enjoy the broad support of our caucus.
Speaker Pelosi. I might add that under Steny's leadership we'll be bringing to the floor legislation by Baron Hill, George Miller, who else are the co-sponsors on...
Majority Leader Hoyer. Peter Welch.
Speaker Pelosi. Peter Welch, on PAYGO.
Majority Leader Hoyer. And Bobby Scott.
Speaker Pelosi. And Bobby Scott. So a cross-section of our Caucus supporting PAYGO, really an issue that the Blue Dogs have taken the lead on and that the Congress, the Democratic Caucus has adopted. So we thank them for their leadership there.
We are all committed to fiscal soundness. We thank them for their leadership in that regard.
Q: Madam Speaker, can you tell us what the total CBO estimate is on the bill? And can you give us a couple of examples of where you've changed the bill, from the few weeks ago until now?
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Miller and Mr. Waxman can talk about the changes.
Chairman Rangel. Well, one of the things that we had concern with -- and I have to admit I learned a lot as we moved along, especially the diversity that exists throughout this great country, where people have different needs, people have different ways of providing health care, and not all of it appears to be equitable.
As a result of the deep interest and concern that some Members had, we directed that there would be an investigation, a study, to see where the best possible medicine is being given at the -- at the most efficient way and the most efficient price, and we set aside $10 billion to make up for any inequities that could exist, and that would be handled by the federal administration.
So it's not the end; it's just the beginning. So many reforms, of course, as a result of this, that were in the bill, the people just didn't know where to find them. So we had to bring those things together, and a lot of people were pleased.
The small businesses that we are able to change the threshold, to be able to provide credits, for all of these, small business as well as big, want and many can't afford to provide care for their employees. And we provide incentives for them to do that.
So many of the concerns that had been in the bill, we brought them up, and we're pretty certain -- now, we've got a long way to go, but we really have eased a lot of concern that people have had.
Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Waxman?
Chairman Waxman. The Congressional Budget Office works its own measures of the costs at a process that is laborious and, for many of us, slower than we would like.
As a matter of fact, on our committee, we're going to have a bipartisan briefing by the CBO to try to understand how they come to some of their conclusions.
Some of our members get perplexed when we have very important preventive service that aren't scored as saving any money. I think CBO looks at the idea that maybe people stay alive longer and collect more Social Security, even though we don't have to pay for treatment of diseases that we can prevent.
But I want to go into that when we meet with the CBO soon.
I don't know if we have a specific CBO estimate, but we will have one very soon. And it is going to be in the -- in the context of what we've expected all along, that we are going to be holding down the costs, and that is going to be used to pay for a lot of this bill. And we're going to have need for revenue-raisers as well, which the Ways and Means Committee is providing because it's within their jurisdiction to help us meet that obligation.
Q: Just to follow up on that, Chairman Waxman, it seems that you probably must have some idea of the (inaudible) overall (inaudible) at this point -- I mean, since you're unveiling this bill to the American public, you must have an idea of how much it is going to cost.
Chairman Waxman. Well, I wouldn't want to speculate. I wouldn't want to speculate about exact amounts because CBO is going to come up with their official score, and that's the score we abide by.
So we should get that very soon, and we'll share it with everybody.
Speaker Pelosi. And the bill will be paid for.
Q: (Inaudible) proposed legislation. In this case, what do you see as the role of the President and Mr. Emanuel in helping to get votes in the House and perhaps in helping to pull the Senate toward your vision in the House bill?
Speaker Pelosi. Would any of my colleagues like to address that?
The President's leadership is essential to the success of this legislation. As Mr. Miller said, the American people called out for this in the election. The President has called upon the Congress to pass this legislation for health care to lower costs, improve quality, get better choices and to improve the quality of life of the American people.
Lowering costs is essential to this. As the President said, health care reform is entitlement reform. So a great deal of our fiscal health, to borrow a word, is dependent on this bill being paid for and with its prevention and wellness initiatives, to take down the cost of health care, therefore Medicare, Medicaid, reducing entitlements, lowering the national deficit. This is a priority for all of us. It is a priority for the President.
So the President in his values-based statement about what this means to the health of the American people and to our economy -- this is about our economy as well -- well, his leadership has gotten us to where we are now and will be essential as we go forward.
His leadership will also continue to bring us together. We have our three tenors who have worked in harmony in the House. We continue -- we hope to -- we know that that harmony will continue as we move to conference with the Senate. The President's role will be essential in all of this, whether it's speaking to many audiences, speaking to the American people about this, speaking to the Congress in general, speaking to individual Members, speaking to the aspirations of the American people to have this problem behind them as they go forward.
(CROSSTALK)
Chairman Waxman. I've got my answer. What's your question?
(LAUGHTER)
Q: My question...
Speaker Pelosi. (Inaudible) solo now.
Q: My question relates to the notion that tax increases should be held in reserve until the recession is over, and they can be applied to reducing the deficit. And also that the only way to reduce health costs is to change the way doctors and hospitals are paid for dealing with a patient writ large, rather than for every little jab that they do.
Chairman Waxman. As we mentioned, the changes in this proposal today, compared to the original draft, includes something on small businesses, to give more small businesses an exemption, not to place a greater burden on them. And we do that by $250,000 and below completely exempted; $250,000 to $400,000 will have a sliding scale. The original draft had it at $100,000 payroll.
The second big change is -- relates to the pharmaceutical area. While there are ideas of how to hold down the costs from the pharmaceutical side of the expenditures, we are -- have in our bill a requirement that the windfall that the pharmaceutical industry received from categorizing people who were in Medicaid as well as Medicare as Medicare instead of Medicaid, and losing the rebate that we used to get, that rebate will be reinstated and the money will be used to close -- to help close that donut hole that seniors face on their pharmaceuticals.
And the last issue that's a major one of the changes is pertinent to your question, so I'm not completely ignoring what you asked. And that is the fact that we have changes in this proposal from the original draft that will hold down the cost of health care by pilot projects of accountable organizations that will organize the delivery of care to reduce the individual fees for services that some people have claimed gives an incentive for more services and more fees.
We'll have accountability organizations, a greater combination of how to manage the delivery of care. And we're continuing to work on other ways to hold down the cost.
Having said that, we cannot hold down the cost sufficiently in health care to do all that we want to do. And so we are going to look to increasing revenues to help pay for this major reform.
Now, these revenue increases are targeted at making sure that health care is affordable, because providing someone with the opportunity to finally get a health insurance policy when in the fact -- in the past they've been discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition or excluded because an insurance company thought that that might be a person who could raise the possibility of more costs for their treatment and therefore exclude them from overage, we can't just have insurance reform without making health insurance affordable by assisting people in buying their insurance coverage. And that is going to require the expenditures not only by cuts in the system, but also by bringing in greater revenues.
I know that Chairman Rangel will talk about the revenue side.
You will get, by the way, a CBO estimate today of the total cost of this bill, and given the speculation of the range, I think that most people expect the range is going to be an amount that CBO will fill in later when they give you...
(LAUGHTER)
... the estimates.
So...
(CROSSTALK)
And I'm going to yield to Charlie Rangel.
Chairman Rangel. The Congressional Budget Office is not our friend in terms of answering a question like that because they don't record the actual savings that people would feel in their pocketbooks, in their bank accounts, in their everyday conduct of trying to get health care paying off bills.
But it's safe to say as a guideline that when those people who get paid who have stakeholders in this can come together at the White House and say that this bill over 10 years will save the American people $2 trillion, those are real dollars even though they cannot be scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
So I'm satisfied that our country, our economy, individuals will be saving money by the investment that we make now.
Speaker Pelosi. Thank you all very much.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Insurance Leader Praises Senator Kennedy for Promoting Long-Term Care Aid for All Americans as Part of Health Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- The traditionally conservative insurance industry can come to terms with a Democratic Congress on health reform, according to one insurance leader, Denise Gott, who today heaped praise on Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) for his crusading efforts. "He sees more clearly than anyone the need to reform not only acute health care, but long-term care, which affects the quality of life and pocketbooks of virtually every American family," she says. Gott is Chairman of the Board of LTC Financial Partners LLC (LTCFP) -- http://www.ltcfp.com/ -- one of the nation's largest and most experienced long-term care insurance agencies.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Kennedy chairs, is now working on a comprehensive health bill, the "The American Health Choices Act," that is expected to include key provisions covering long-term care. "I agree with the major thrust, that we need a program embracing the long-term care needs of all Americans," Gott says, "but have concerns on two points." They are --
1. The "public option" which would create a government-run program insuring people in competition with private carriers.
GOTT'S CONCERNS: "Instead of competing with insurance companies, unfairly I believe, I'd rather have the government offer new tax incentives to make long-term care policies more affordable." She points to recently-introduced bills, H.R. 2096 and S. 702, that would allow LTC insurance to be included in employer-sponsored cafeteria plans and flexible spending accounts, enabling people to pay their LTC premiums using pre-tax dollars. "These bills, with bipartisan sponsorship, show the way to go," she says.
"However, if Kennedy and Congress are determined to offer a public option for long term care, competing with the private plans, there's a way it could work. Instead of automatically enrolling everyone in the public LTC option, the government would have people make one of the following choices: the public option, or a private plan (which they could choose from any state-certified carrier), or the public option plus a supplemental private plan." The benefit amount of the public option is expected to be $50 to $100 a day depending on the degree of disability. "This isn't enough to cover all one's care needs. A minimal private plan pays $200 a day."
2. New "insurance exchanges" where people would shop for a policy from multiple carriers.
GOTT'S CONCERNS: "This might be a good idea but could turn bad if the government itself designs and runs it. As an analogy, imagine -- before the days of YouTube -- Washington creating a video-sharing service. How good would it be with bureaucratic coders and no competition to assure constant improvement?" Gott might approve, however, of a plan that offers guidelines and incentives for entrepreneurs to create insurance-selection exchanges.
"There are many complexities that government employees aren't likely to take into account," she says. "Selecting the right long-term care policy is much more important and complex than buying a car. And who would buy their car just by going to a website? Also, a government exchange would probably send people directly to insurance carriers, as the online prescription-drug system did. This would be like sending people to auto manufacturers for their cars, when auto agencies, with their hand-holding and value-added services, are the right destination." In Gott's view, a proper exchange for long-term care insurance would send people to independent agents who know which carriers are soundest, and can advise on the right policy features at the lowest cost.
"With the online system for choosing a prescription-drug plan, people went crazy with all the complexity," Gott says. "They'd really tear their hair out with a long-term care choice system. An informed, unbiased advisor is absolutely essential."
When rectified with another plan being crafted by the Senate Finance Committee, Kennedy's plan could gain momentum. But will it find enough bipartisan support to pass? "With the right adjustments, I think so," says Gott. "With the tweaks I suggest, I believe it would be much more acceptable to Republicans and conservative Democrats."
On the central point she agrees 100% with Senator Kennedy: "We desperately need reform, for long-term care as well as acute health care. About 46 million Americans lack regular health insurance, but many times that number lack long-term care insurance. Only about 9 million have it out of a population of more than 300 million; and among those at greatest risk, 45 and older, more than 90% go uncovered."
Gott encourages concerned citizens to make their views known to their representatives in Congress. Legislators' phone numbers and fill-in forms may be found at -- http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. "Women in particular should speak up," Gott says. "They're at risk even when they themselves stay well and fit. Typically they're the ones forced into unpaid care giving when a family member suddenly develops a care need."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Kennedy chairs, is now working on a comprehensive health bill, the "The American Health Choices Act," that is expected to include key provisions covering long-term care. "I agree with the major thrust, that we need a program embracing the long-term care needs of all Americans," Gott says, "but have concerns on two points." They are --
1. The "public option" which would create a government-run program insuring people in competition with private carriers.
GOTT'S CONCERNS: "Instead of competing with insurance companies, unfairly I believe, I'd rather have the government offer new tax incentives to make long-term care policies more affordable." She points to recently-introduced bills, H.R. 2096 and S. 702, that would allow LTC insurance to be included in employer-sponsored cafeteria plans and flexible spending accounts, enabling people to pay their LTC premiums using pre-tax dollars. "These bills, with bipartisan sponsorship, show the way to go," she says.
"However, if Kennedy and Congress are determined to offer a public option for long term care, competing with the private plans, there's a way it could work. Instead of automatically enrolling everyone in the public LTC option, the government would have people make one of the following choices: the public option, or a private plan (which they could choose from any state-certified carrier), or the public option plus a supplemental private plan." The benefit amount of the public option is expected to be $50 to $100 a day depending on the degree of disability. "This isn't enough to cover all one's care needs. A minimal private plan pays $200 a day."
2. New "insurance exchanges" where people would shop for a policy from multiple carriers.
GOTT'S CONCERNS: "This might be a good idea but could turn bad if the government itself designs and runs it. As an analogy, imagine -- before the days of YouTube -- Washington creating a video-sharing service. How good would it be with bureaucratic coders and no competition to assure constant improvement?" Gott might approve, however, of a plan that offers guidelines and incentives for entrepreneurs to create insurance-selection exchanges.
"There are many complexities that government employees aren't likely to take into account," she says. "Selecting the right long-term care policy is much more important and complex than buying a car. And who would buy their car just by going to a website? Also, a government exchange would probably send people directly to insurance carriers, as the online prescription-drug system did. This would be like sending people to auto manufacturers for their cars, when auto agencies, with their hand-holding and value-added services, are the right destination." In Gott's view, a proper exchange for long-term care insurance would send people to independent agents who know which carriers are soundest, and can advise on the right policy features at the lowest cost.
"With the online system for choosing a prescription-drug plan, people went crazy with all the complexity," Gott says. "They'd really tear their hair out with a long-term care choice system. An informed, unbiased advisor is absolutely essential."
When rectified with another plan being crafted by the Senate Finance Committee, Kennedy's plan could gain momentum. But will it find enough bipartisan support to pass? "With the right adjustments, I think so," says Gott. "With the tweaks I suggest, I believe it would be much more acceptable to Republicans and conservative Democrats."
On the central point she agrees 100% with Senator Kennedy: "We desperately need reform, for long-term care as well as acute health care. About 46 million Americans lack regular health insurance, but many times that number lack long-term care insurance. Only about 9 million have it out of a population of more than 300 million; and among those at greatest risk, 45 and older, more than 90% go uncovered."
Gott encourages concerned citizens to make their views known to their representatives in Congress. Legislators' phone numbers and fill-in forms may be found at -- http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml. "Women in particular should speak up," Gott says. "They're at risk even when they themselves stay well and fit. Typically they're the ones forced into unpaid care giving when a family member suddenly develops a care need."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
White House Makes Correct Decision On Veterans Insurance Proposal
/PRNewswire-- "The White House made the correct decision to withdraw its proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs to have military veterans' personal insurance companies pay for their service-connected disability and wounds," said VAdm. Norb Ryan, Jr., USN-Ret., president of the Military Officers Association of America.
Adm. Ryan said he advised President Obama that "pursuing this insurance proposal would detract from the outstanding 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget he has put forth -- the best budget for veterans care in 30 years and the largest annual increase proposed by any President."
Adm. Ryan and leaders from several military and veterans service organizations (MSO/VSOs) met with President Obama Monday and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Monday and again Wednesday with Emanuel to voice their concerns and attempt to reach a workable solution to the Administration's payment idea. All organizations were against the initiative, and numerous Members of Congress also voiced their strenuous objections. The White House asked for the meeting after receiving a February 27 letter signed by 11 VSO and MSO leaders opposing the plan.
"The VA has a solemn obligation to care for those who have served in the military and fought for this nation," said Adm. Ryan. "We deeply appreciate that the President asked the veterans organizations to meet with him to discuss the issue and present our case."
According to Ryan, "The President indicated on Monday that he was there to listen to our concerns and was willing to drop the proposal if we could not support its merits. Both he and his Chief of Staff kept their promises by promptly withdrawing the proposal after today's meeting. To their credit, they listened and responded promptly, and we appreciate that."
"MOAA looks forward to working with the President and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki to maximize the impact on this unprecedented budget that supports veterans and their families," Adm. Ryan said.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Adm. Ryan said he advised President Obama that "pursuing this insurance proposal would detract from the outstanding 2010 Department of Veterans Affairs budget he has put forth -- the best budget for veterans care in 30 years and the largest annual increase proposed by any President."
Adm. Ryan and leaders from several military and veterans service organizations (MSO/VSOs) met with President Obama Monday and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel Monday and again Wednesday with Emanuel to voice their concerns and attempt to reach a workable solution to the Administration's payment idea. All organizations were against the initiative, and numerous Members of Congress also voiced their strenuous objections. The White House asked for the meeting after receiving a February 27 letter signed by 11 VSO and MSO leaders opposing the plan.
"The VA has a solemn obligation to care for those who have served in the military and fought for this nation," said Adm. Ryan. "We deeply appreciate that the President asked the veterans organizations to meet with him to discuss the issue and present our case."
According to Ryan, "The President indicated on Monday that he was there to listen to our concerns and was willing to drop the proposal if we could not support its merits. Both he and his Chief of Staff kept their promises by promptly withdrawing the proposal after today's meeting. To their credit, they listened and responded promptly, and we appreciate that."
"MOAA looks forward to working with the President and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki to maximize the impact on this unprecedented budget that supports veterans and their families," Adm. Ryan said.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Economic Recovery Watch: Sobering Jobless Data Highlight Need for Recovery Package to Focus On Hard-Hit Families and States
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Since a decline in overall demand is the main cause of rising unemployment and the weak economy, the economic recovery package should focus on putting money in the hands of people who will spend it quickly, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Most economists agree that two cost-effective ways to do this are by helping hard-pressed families, such as those with low incomes and those that have experienced layoffs, and helping states avert steep budget cuts and tax increases that would reduce overall demand. In fact, these measures would do more to protect jobs and the economy than the business tax cuts and certain other measures that some in Congress are promoting as "job creators."
These conclusions are widely shared among economists. Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com and a former advisor to presidential candidate John McCain, endorsed them earlier this week, stating: "To provide the largest bang for the buck, a well-designed stimulus plan should include a temporary increase in government spending... The most efficacious spending includes extending unemployment insurance benefits, expanding the food stamp program, and increasing aid to hard-pressed state and local governments."(1)
-- Poor families are more likely than businesses or higher-income families to spend quickly any new income they receive. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that "the efficacy of fiscal stimulus depends critically on households' tendency to spend the income placed in their hands."(2) CBO has also stated, "Lower-income households are... more likely to be among those with the highest propensity to spend. Therefore, policies aimed at lower-income households tend to have greater stimulative effects."(3)
The reason is simple. Families that are having difficulty affording food, shelter, and other necessities will spend any new income they receive to cover those basic costs. Higher-income families, in contrast, are likely to save more of any extra income.
So are businesses. As Goldman Sachs has stated, "companies don't spend money just because it's there to spend. To justify outlays for new projects, the expected returns have to exceed the costs, and that usually requires growth in demand strong enough to put pressure on existing resources."(4) This is why a 2008 CBO analysis comparing different stimulus proposals put corporate tax cuts in the lowest category for cost-effectiveness.(5)
-- Food stamps and unemployment insurance are two of the most effective forms of stimulus. The CBO analysis cited above put expanded food stamps and unemployment insurance in the highest category for cost-effectiveness as stimulus. "Additional [food stamp] benefits are likely to be spent rapidly by recipients, who tend to be experiencing periods of economic difficulty," CBO noted.
As for unemployment insurance, then-CBO director Peter Orszag told Congress in 2007 that "research has shown that the unemployment insurance system is among the most effective dollar-for-dollar economic stabilizers that we have in terms of counterbalancing periods of economic weakness."(6) Supporting spending by unemployed workers in hard-pressed communities helps prevent the spread of layoffs and loss of jobs in those communities.
-- But unemployment insurance reforms are needed. Fewer than half of unemployed workers actually receive jobless benefits because the unemployment insurance program, designed in the 1930s, is seriously out of date in many states. Most states, for example, require applicants to look for a full-time job, even if they are parents raising very young children and were working part-time before being laid off. These laws -- designed when most workers were married men who were the sole breadwinners for their family -- particularly disadvantaged women, who are much more likely to work part-time than men.
Congress is considering financial incentives to encourage more states to adopt reforms that would allow more part-time and other laid-off workers to qualify for benefits. States that adopt the reforms would receive temporary federal funds to cover the cost of paying the associated benefits for several years, but there would be no ongoing cost to the federal government, because regular unemployment insurance benefits are fully state-funded.
-- Fiscal relief is also badly needed. Prior to the recession, states not only balanced their budgets every year but also had built up the largest budget reserves in recent history. (This refutes the claim by some that states' budget problems reflect fiscal mismanagement.) The recession has largely wiped out these reserves. Already 30 states have had to cut services ranging from health care to education, and more than a dozen have raised revenues.
As a result of the deepening recession, state deficits are likely to total $350 billion to $370 billion over the next 2 1/2 years. Without fiscal relief to close part of that gap, states will have to institute exceedingly deep budget cuts and tax and fee increases. Both kinds of measures reduce overall demand: tax increases leave consumers with less money to spend, and budget cuts reduce state payments to vendors, benefit recipients, and others, thereby taking money out of the economy. These measures would undercut the stimulus Washington is trying to provide.
-- Loans are no substitute for fiscal relief. A few policymakers support converting the fiscal relief to loans. This would render it ineffective as stimulus. Many states have legal barriers that explicitly prohibit them from borrowing funds to cover operating expenses. Even states that could accept the loans would be reluctant to do so, since they cannot know when their budgets will recover sufficiently to begin repaying the loans. In the last two recessions, most states' fiscal problems continued two to three years after the economy hit bottom.
Funds for infrastructure projects that can be undertaken in the next couple of years constitute effective stimulus, as well. Such infrastructure investments are appropriate measures to include in a recovery package.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
NOTES:
(1) Mark Zandi, "The Economic Impact of a $750 Billion Fiscal Stimulus Package," testimony before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Forum, January 6, 2009.
(2) Congressional Budget Office, "Economic Stimulus: Evaluating Proposed Changes in Tax Policy," January 2002, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3251&type=0.
(3) Congressional Budget Office, "Options for Responding to Short-Term Economic Weakness," January 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8916/01-15-Econ_Stimulus.pdf.
(4) GS Weekly, September 21, 2007.
(5) CBO, 2008.
(6) "State of the U.S. Economy and Implications for the Federal Budget," Hearing before the House Budget Committee, House of Representatives, December 5, 2007.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Most economists agree that two cost-effective ways to do this are by helping hard-pressed families, such as those with low incomes and those that have experienced layoffs, and helping states avert steep budget cuts and tax increases that would reduce overall demand. In fact, these measures would do more to protect jobs and the economy than the business tax cuts and certain other measures that some in Congress are promoting as "job creators."
These conclusions are widely shared among economists. Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com and a former advisor to presidential candidate John McCain, endorsed them earlier this week, stating: "To provide the largest bang for the buck, a well-designed stimulus plan should include a temporary increase in government spending... The most efficacious spending includes extending unemployment insurance benefits, expanding the food stamp program, and increasing aid to hard-pressed state and local governments."(1)
-- Poor families are more likely than businesses or higher-income families to spend quickly any new income they receive. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that "the efficacy of fiscal stimulus depends critically on households' tendency to spend the income placed in their hands."(2) CBO has also stated, "Lower-income households are... more likely to be among those with the highest propensity to spend. Therefore, policies aimed at lower-income households tend to have greater stimulative effects."(3)
The reason is simple. Families that are having difficulty affording food, shelter, and other necessities will spend any new income they receive to cover those basic costs. Higher-income families, in contrast, are likely to save more of any extra income.
So are businesses. As Goldman Sachs has stated, "companies don't spend money just because it's there to spend. To justify outlays for new projects, the expected returns have to exceed the costs, and that usually requires growth in demand strong enough to put pressure on existing resources."(4) This is why a 2008 CBO analysis comparing different stimulus proposals put corporate tax cuts in the lowest category for cost-effectiveness.(5)
-- Food stamps and unemployment insurance are two of the most effective forms of stimulus. The CBO analysis cited above put expanded food stamps and unemployment insurance in the highest category for cost-effectiveness as stimulus. "Additional [food stamp] benefits are likely to be spent rapidly by recipients, who tend to be experiencing periods of economic difficulty," CBO noted.
As for unemployment insurance, then-CBO director Peter Orszag told Congress in 2007 that "research has shown that the unemployment insurance system is among the most effective dollar-for-dollar economic stabilizers that we have in terms of counterbalancing periods of economic weakness."(6) Supporting spending by unemployed workers in hard-pressed communities helps prevent the spread of layoffs and loss of jobs in those communities.
-- But unemployment insurance reforms are needed. Fewer than half of unemployed workers actually receive jobless benefits because the unemployment insurance program, designed in the 1930s, is seriously out of date in many states. Most states, for example, require applicants to look for a full-time job, even if they are parents raising very young children and were working part-time before being laid off. These laws -- designed when most workers were married men who were the sole breadwinners for their family -- particularly disadvantaged women, who are much more likely to work part-time than men.
Congress is considering financial incentives to encourage more states to adopt reforms that would allow more part-time and other laid-off workers to qualify for benefits. States that adopt the reforms would receive temporary federal funds to cover the cost of paying the associated benefits for several years, but there would be no ongoing cost to the federal government, because regular unemployment insurance benefits are fully state-funded.
-- Fiscal relief is also badly needed. Prior to the recession, states not only balanced their budgets every year but also had built up the largest budget reserves in recent history. (This refutes the claim by some that states' budget problems reflect fiscal mismanagement.) The recession has largely wiped out these reserves. Already 30 states have had to cut services ranging from health care to education, and more than a dozen have raised revenues.
As a result of the deepening recession, state deficits are likely to total $350 billion to $370 billion over the next 2 1/2 years. Without fiscal relief to close part of that gap, states will have to institute exceedingly deep budget cuts and tax and fee increases. Both kinds of measures reduce overall demand: tax increases leave consumers with less money to spend, and budget cuts reduce state payments to vendors, benefit recipients, and others, thereby taking money out of the economy. These measures would undercut the stimulus Washington is trying to provide.
-- Loans are no substitute for fiscal relief. A few policymakers support converting the fiscal relief to loans. This would render it ineffective as stimulus. Many states have legal barriers that explicitly prohibit them from borrowing funds to cover operating expenses. Even states that could accept the loans would be reluctant to do so, since they cannot know when their budgets will recover sufficiently to begin repaying the loans. In the last two recessions, most states' fiscal problems continued two to three years after the economy hit bottom.
Funds for infrastructure projects that can be undertaken in the next couple of years constitute effective stimulus, as well. Such infrastructure investments are appropriate measures to include in a recovery package.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.
NOTES:
(1) Mark Zandi, "The Economic Impact of a $750 Billion Fiscal Stimulus Package," testimony before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Forum, January 6, 2009.
(2) Congressional Budget Office, "Economic Stimulus: Evaluating Proposed Changes in Tax Policy," January 2002, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3251&type=0.
(3) Congressional Budget Office, "Options for Responding to Short-Term Economic Weakness," January 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8916/01-15-Econ_Stimulus.pdf.
(4) GS Weekly, September 21, 2007.
(5) CBO, 2008.
(6) "State of the U.S. Economy and Implications for the Federal Budget," Hearing before the House Budget Committee, House of Representatives, December 5, 2007.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)