/PRNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Barbara Kennelly of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Dr. Ben Williamowsky of Silver Spring, Md., a Medicare recipient, held a news conference today to discuss benefits of and misconceptions about the Affordable Care Act and Medicare.
The participants highlighted a four-page brochure, "Medicare and the New Health Care Law, What it Means for You," which was mailed by HHS this week to seniors. It outlines the benefits for Medicare recipients in the new health insurance reform law.
Below are Speaker Pelosi's opening remarks and selected quotes from each of the other participants:
Speaker Pelosi Opening Remarks:
"Good afternoon. I know you are out there. [Laughter.] Good afternoon.
"And a good afternoon it is when we have the Secretary of Health and Human Services with us at the Capitol--Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a champion in promoting health care for all Americans as a right, not a privilege. I am here with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. A special guest for all of us, Dr. Ben Williamowsky, a retired dentist and local senior. Steny will introduce him, but I want to say that my father gave him his diploma from dental school in 1948. Where is he? There. We go way back. [Laughter.]
"Four decades ago, Congress created Medicare, a bedrock promise to our seniors. This year, we passed health care reform to improve Medicare, to protect seniors and people with disabilities, and to ensure that seniors can count on Medicare now and for generations to come.
"We are here to draw attention to a critical piece of mail our seniors will get this week. This four-page brochure outlines the new benefits in health reform for Medicare recipients. There it is.
"Perhaps most significantly it begins with what stays the same for Medicare. No change in guaranteed benefits and no change in eligibility. During open enrollment this fall, seniors will continue to have a choice between original Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Medicare will continue to cover health cost the way it always has for seniors. Barbara Kennelly is here, our former colleague, to attest to that.
"Members of Congress will head home to their districts this weekend for Memorial Day. One of our top jobs is to clear up confusion and correct misinformation around health reform. This brochure for seniors is a good place to start.
"We also have to make clear that Congressional Republicans calling for repeal also oppose those benefits and would return us to a system of higher drug cost, shrinking benefits, and insecurity for our seniors. In fact, they have a budget--that's the nature of their budget--that ends Medicare as we know it and turns Social Security over to the whims of Wall Street.
"Republicans in Congress chose the side of the insurance industry and its profits, over the care of what seniors need and deserve. Democrats have been on the side of America's seniors -- securing Medicare for the long-term, ensuring accountability for the insurance industry -- accountability for the insurance industry -- and giving seniors, families, and doctors greater control over their care.
"It is now my honor, as I mentioned earlier, to introduce a great woman who is with us today. And I mention that my father gave Dr. Williamowsky his diploma in 1948. I want to mention that Barbara Kennelly, former Congresswoman, now the head of the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Kathleen Sebelius and I are all graduates of Trinity College in Washington, D.C. -- a women's college in Washington, D.C. And we all had fathers in politics -- the governor of Ohio, the mayor of Baltimore, and Mr. Bailey, the king of the Democratic Party in Connecticut and nationally, as a matter of fact. We had fathers who encouraged their daughters. I hope that there is a message here.
"Again, now, it's my honor to yield the floor to the distinguished Secretary of Health and Human Services. As governor -- as insurance commissioner in her home state of Kansas, as governor of the state -- she knows the ramifications and the implications of legislative language very well. As a person with a vision for health care for all Americans, she is an inspiration to all of us and a major reason why we were able to pass that important legislation. Welcome, Secretary Sebelius."
***
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:
"There has been a lot of misinformation promoted about what the Affordable Care Act will and won't do, particularly as it regards seniors and their benefits. Unfortunately, some of that has distracted from: What are the real benefits available in the new law to seniors?"
"The Affordable Care Act will finally close the prescription drug donut hole, an issue that has been a hot topic for seniors and disabled Americans. It starts this year with seniors receiving $250 checks and will gradually, over the course of the program, close the donut hole for the 8 million seniors who end up in that category right now where they are paying 100 percent out of pocket for critical prescription drugs..."
"We want to inform America's seniors what the act actually contains, what benefits they have coming their way, how to take advantage of those benefits, and what sort of priorities they will be. And this is the beginning of what will continue to be an aggressive outreach campaign."
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
"Older Americans faced an enormous amount of misinformation over the course of the health care debate. It was conscious, it was intended to misinform, and it was intended for political reasons, not for policy reasons."
"But now that the health insurance reform is law, the world hasn't ended, older Americans are learning about all the benefits and policies that are working to strengthen Medicare and their peace of mind."
Dr. Ben Williamowsky:
"I am here because I support the Affordable Care Act, and I believe it is important for seniors like myself to understand how the legislation will improve Medicare in the future."
"There are a lot of reasons why I believe the Affordable Care Act will be good for Medicare. And I also believe it will be good for my family, and that's a thought I would like to leave you today. People ask me, people my friends who are one of the anti-groups, who will say: 'What is it going to do for you? Why are you so much in favor of this bill?' I said: 'Well, I will tell you two very important things it is going to do for me. Number one, it is going to allow me to live out my life.
...And the other reason I give them is this, we have a granddaughter--Minna and I, Minna is in the audience--who at the age of three had a malignant brain tumor. She was operated on. She has gone through treatments all of her life. She is now 25 and functioning fairly well, but still under the care and treatment from time to time. She is 25 years old. She has been taken care of on her parents' health insurance. Now without this bill, what was going to happen when she was 26? When they could not find a job for her that has health benefits to pay that? When she could not have it any longer under her parents' insurance? She would be cut off without insurance at the age of 26 and be faced with a terrible, terrible dilemma and challenges to her going on in her life. Now I can say that she can, with this bill, that she can get health insurance and it will not be dependent on any pre-existing conditions"
Barbara Kennelly:
"So now as President of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I watched this bill develop -- I read about this bill, I studied this bill. Our members -- we have 4 million members and supporters. And I went around the country telling my members and mailing to my members that this is a good idea."
"Doing nothing was not an option. Because you know why? Because we could not afford Medicare. The government couldn't afford it and the people on Medicare couldn't afford it."
"Once I tell my members what's in this bill. Once I explain to them about this bill -- they are for it. And therefore I urge all former friends of mine in the Congress: Get out there and sell this bill. Because if we don't have this bill, Medicare will be broke down the line."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label financial reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Dodd's Retirement Highlights Untenable Campaign Finance Regime
/PRNewswire/ -- Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-Conn.) retirement has led many observers to suggest that overhauling our financial system will be easier, a clear sign that our money-driven political system is broken, according to campaign finance watchdogs Public Campaign and Common Cause.
"As the Senate begins work on the financial system overhaul, a tough reelection battle would have had Sen. Dodd dialing for dollars and attending fundraisers with the same interests he would be working to regulate," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "That it takes retirement to boost the likelihood of good policy is an indictment of our broken campaign financing system."
"It's a sad commentary that many think that Sen. Dodd's announced retirement will free him to act in the public interest, since he doesn't have to worry about special interest campaign donors," said Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause. "We need a system that allows members of Congress to act in the public's interest at all times. It's time for Congress to change the way Washington works by passing the Fair Elections Now Act."
The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, H.R. 1826) would give candidates for Congress the option to run a competitive race with a blend of small dollar donations and limited public funds. Sen. Dodd, a co-sponsor of the legislation, has long supported the measure. "Whether you're a Washington lobbyist or a Chicago lobbyist, what we ought to have is public financing for congressional and presidential campaigns. That would solve the whole problem," Sen. Dodd told an audience at the YearlyKos convention in 2007.
Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), this legislation would put people in office unencumbered by special interest campaign cash. In addition to Rep. Larson, the House bill has the broad bipartisan and cross-caucus support of 124 co-sponsors.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"As the Senate begins work on the financial system overhaul, a tough reelection battle would have had Sen. Dodd dialing for dollars and attending fundraisers with the same interests he would be working to regulate," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "That it takes retirement to boost the likelihood of good policy is an indictment of our broken campaign financing system."
"It's a sad commentary that many think that Sen. Dodd's announced retirement will free him to act in the public interest, since he doesn't have to worry about special interest campaign donors," said Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause. "We need a system that allows members of Congress to act in the public's interest at all times. It's time for Congress to change the way Washington works by passing the Fair Elections Now Act."
The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, H.R. 1826) would give candidates for Congress the option to run a competitive race with a blend of small dollar donations and limited public funds. Sen. Dodd, a co-sponsor of the legislation, has long supported the measure. "Whether you're a Washington lobbyist or a Chicago lobbyist, what we ought to have is public financing for congressional and presidential campaigns. That would solve the whole problem," Sen. Dodd told an audience at the YearlyKos convention in 2007.
Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), this legislation would put people in office unencumbered by special interest campaign cash. In addition to Rep. Larson, the House bill has the broad bipartisan and cross-caucus support of 124 co-sponsors.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Citizen Petition Supporting Medical Liability Reform Delivered to the Senate
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, two leading health care groups sent a petition signed by 14,266 patients, physicians, and concerned citizens to members of the Senate Committee on Finance, urging them to include meaningful changes to our nation's broken medical liability system during today's markup of health care reform legislation.
"It is clear from our petition drive that there is widespread public support for medical liability reform," said Doctors for Medical Liability Reform's Chairman Stuart L. Weinstein, MD. "President Obama, Democrat and Republican Members of Congress, leading health care policy experts, and opinion leaders all agree that the current system costs too much, and does not serve the needs of patients. It is our hope that members of the Senate Finance Committee will listen to these important voices and include medical liability reform in the Senate's health care bill," said Weinstein.
"If Congress is truly serious about reforming our health care system, they must put the personal injury lawyers' interests aside and include reforms to the medical liability system," said Health Coalition on Liability and Access Chair Mike Stinson. "Reforming our medical liability system is essential to reduce costs and protect access to care for all patients. States across the country, like California and Texas, have enacted reforms with a proven track record for success that should be a model for reform at the federal level."
DMLR, a national grassroots organization that includes physicians and patients, and the HCLA, a broad national coalition of health care providers and medical liability insurers, joined forces to ensure that medical liability reform is addressed in the health care reform debate.
The proposal introduced thus far in the Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark does not seriously address medical liability reform. Instead, the proposal expresses a "Sense of the Senate" that there should be consideration of state-based demonstration projects on liability reform.
While DMLR and HCLA believe that voluntary state demonstration projects may be a step in the right direction, the Senate's mere expression of support is insufficient -- these projects must be formalized and codified into law. Furthermore, state demonstration projects alone do not address the immediate need to lower health care costs and reduce the practice of defensive medicine.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"It is clear from our petition drive that there is widespread public support for medical liability reform," said Doctors for Medical Liability Reform's Chairman Stuart L. Weinstein, MD. "President Obama, Democrat and Republican Members of Congress, leading health care policy experts, and opinion leaders all agree that the current system costs too much, and does not serve the needs of patients. It is our hope that members of the Senate Finance Committee will listen to these important voices and include medical liability reform in the Senate's health care bill," said Weinstein.
"If Congress is truly serious about reforming our health care system, they must put the personal injury lawyers' interests aside and include reforms to the medical liability system," said Health Coalition on Liability and Access Chair Mike Stinson. "Reforming our medical liability system is essential to reduce costs and protect access to care for all patients. States across the country, like California and Texas, have enacted reforms with a proven track record for success that should be a model for reform at the federal level."
DMLR, a national grassroots organization that includes physicians and patients, and the HCLA, a broad national coalition of health care providers and medical liability insurers, joined forces to ensure that medical liability reform is addressed in the health care reform debate.
The proposal introduced thus far in the Senate Finance Committee Chairman's Mark does not seriously address medical liability reform. Instead, the proposal expresses a "Sense of the Senate" that there should be consideration of state-based demonstration projects on liability reform.
While DMLR and HCLA believe that voluntary state demonstration projects may be a step in the right direction, the Senate's mere expression of support is insufficient -- these projects must be formalized and codified into law. Furthermore, state demonstration projects alone do not address the immediate need to lower health care costs and reduce the practice of defensive medicine.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
LNC Chairman statement in response to President Obama's AMA address
Libertarian National Committee Chairman William Redpath issued the following statement Tuesday in response to President Obama's address to the American Medical Association:
"There is no question our health care system is broken and in need of serious reform. Americans deserve health care that is affordable, effective and universally available. However, President Obama’s $1 trillion government takeover of hospitals and doctor’s offices is not the answer.
The Obama plan makes health care more expensive, less effective and less accessible through rationing and bureaucratic inefficiency. The fact is government-run health care systems are more expensive and less effective than systems run by doctors and health care professionals.
When President Obama told the story of Laura Klitzka, a Wisconsin mother suffering from breast cancer, he conveniently neglected to tell the audience that in nations with a government-run health care system much like the one he proposes, breast cancer is deadlier than in the United States.
According to health care policy expert Dr. John Goodman, among women diagnosed with breast cancer, like Laura, only one in five die in the United States. That death rate escalates to one in three in France and Germany and nearly half in the Britain and New Zealand. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2004 the deaths from cancer in the United States were 157.8 per 100,000 people. In Canada the rate was 169.0 and in the United Kingdom it was 175.6. Allowing more women to die from breast cancer is hardly the kind of reform we need in the United States.
The main causes of those increased deaths are the long waiting lists for treatment, the decreased amount of time a doctor can spend with the patient and the shortages of advanced medical equipment that are a hallmark of rationing – the method by which government-run systems attempt to cut skyrocketing costs.
The White House brushed on that topic in an April 19 appearance on “Meet The Press” in which economic advisor Lawrence Summers promised a government-run health care would cut costs by simply denying treatments and procedures to patients until the government decided it was acceptable.
President Obama once again touched on the promise of rationed health care in yesterday’s speech, blaming the rising costs of medical care not on government interference, but on the claim that Americans get too many medical tests and procedures.
For too many breast cancer patients in nations like Britain and France, the Obama model of government control and rationing has already a deadly failure. Doctors, not politicians and government accountants, should decide what tests a patient needs.
We need health care reform and we need it now. But the Obama plan – a federal government takeover – isn’t reform. It’s simply a plan to take the worst aspects of our current problems, namely the high costs and increasingly limited access, and magnify them. The Obama plan for a federal takeover of the health care system cuts costs, not through innovation or improved care, but by rationing access, putting the sick and suffering on waiting lists and denying Americans the medical care they need.
Libertarians have a better idea. Cut the costs of prescription drugs, insurance and technology by removing barriers put up by health care lobbyists in the form of protectionist laws and unneeded FDA regulations intended to price out the competition and block competing drugs and technologies from the market.
It is no coincidence that America’s health care system, once the best in the world, has become more unaffordable and ineffective as government has seeped further and further into it. The only way to make health care affordable, effective and universally available as the many other services we enjoy in the United States is to defeat the Obama plan for a government takeover and restore a competitive and efficient health care system."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"There is no question our health care system is broken and in need of serious reform. Americans deserve health care that is affordable, effective and universally available. However, President Obama’s $1 trillion government takeover of hospitals and doctor’s offices is not the answer.
The Obama plan makes health care more expensive, less effective and less accessible through rationing and bureaucratic inefficiency. The fact is government-run health care systems are more expensive and less effective than systems run by doctors and health care professionals.
When President Obama told the story of Laura Klitzka, a Wisconsin mother suffering from breast cancer, he conveniently neglected to tell the audience that in nations with a government-run health care system much like the one he proposes, breast cancer is deadlier than in the United States.
According to health care policy expert Dr. John Goodman, among women diagnosed with breast cancer, like Laura, only one in five die in the United States. That death rate escalates to one in three in France and Germany and nearly half in the Britain and New Zealand. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2004 the deaths from cancer in the United States were 157.8 per 100,000 people. In Canada the rate was 169.0 and in the United Kingdom it was 175.6. Allowing more women to die from breast cancer is hardly the kind of reform we need in the United States.
The main causes of those increased deaths are the long waiting lists for treatment, the decreased amount of time a doctor can spend with the patient and the shortages of advanced medical equipment that are a hallmark of rationing – the method by which government-run systems attempt to cut skyrocketing costs.
The White House brushed on that topic in an April 19 appearance on “Meet The Press” in which economic advisor Lawrence Summers promised a government-run health care would cut costs by simply denying treatments and procedures to patients until the government decided it was acceptable.
President Obama once again touched on the promise of rationed health care in yesterday’s speech, blaming the rising costs of medical care not on government interference, but on the claim that Americans get too many medical tests and procedures.
For too many breast cancer patients in nations like Britain and France, the Obama model of government control and rationing has already a deadly failure. Doctors, not politicians and government accountants, should decide what tests a patient needs.
We need health care reform and we need it now. But the Obama plan – a federal government takeover – isn’t reform. It’s simply a plan to take the worst aspects of our current problems, namely the high costs and increasingly limited access, and magnify them. The Obama plan for a federal takeover of the health care system cuts costs, not through innovation or improved care, but by rationing access, putting the sick and suffering on waiting lists and denying Americans the medical care they need.
Libertarians have a better idea. Cut the costs of prescription drugs, insurance and technology by removing barriers put up by health care lobbyists in the form of protectionist laws and unneeded FDA regulations intended to price out the competition and block competing drugs and technologies from the market.
It is no coincidence that America’s health care system, once the best in the world, has become more unaffordable and ineffective as government has seeped further and further into it. The only way to make health care affordable, effective and universally available as the many other services we enjoy in the United States is to defeat the Obama plan for a government takeover and restore a competitive and efficient health care system."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Libertarians: Obama health care rationing plan makes America sick
America’s third largest party Tuesday blasted comments by White House chief economic advisor Lawrence Summers that Americans are getting too much health care and the government should begin rationing access to medical procedures.
“Decisions on medical care should be made by patient and his or her doctor, not by a government employee with a calculator figuring out whether treating your illness is in Washington’s fiscal interest,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“Whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies…procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there’s no benefit in terms of the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kind of investments and protection, some experts…estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system,” said Summers on “Meet the Press” Sunday, quoted in The Washington Times.
“Summers’ statement that Americans have too much health care, and it’s up to Barack Obama to cut off their access is chilling,” said Ferguson. “Even more disturbing is the White House’s view that private decisions on your medical care should be viewed as a government-run ‘investment.’”
“The same people who gave us Agent Orange, the IRS and the Hurricane Katrina response have no business making my doctor’s decisions for him.”
Despite assurances from the White House that rationing health care leads to better treatment, information from rationed health care systems tells a different story.
Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, Cato Institute scholar John Goodman finds, citing statistics from their national health care services. Goodman’s research finds among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.
The culprit is often the kind waiting lists the White House proposed Sunday. In 2000, the British medical journal Clinical Oncology, studying lung cancer patients waiting for government permission to get medical treatment found that about 20 percent “of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.”
Another 2003 British study found that after major surgery, 2.5 percent of American patients died in hospital, compared to 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill patients in U.S. hospitals die at only one-seventh the rate of those in the British system, where government controls, prices and rations health care, according to Atlas Economic Research Foundation senior fellow Deroy Murdock.
“The proper way to reform health care is to get government out of the way, drive down prices by opening up a health insurance market closed off to competition by politicians doing the bidding of insurance lobbyists and remove FDA roadblocks that keep medication off the market and drive up the costs to develop lifesaving drugs,” said Ferguson.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
“Decisions on medical care should be made by patient and his or her doctor, not by a government employee with a calculator figuring out whether treating your illness is in Washington’s fiscal interest,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“Whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies…procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there’s no benefit in terms of the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kind of investments and protection, some experts…estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system,” said Summers on “Meet the Press” Sunday, quoted in The Washington Times.
“Summers’ statement that Americans have too much health care, and it’s up to Barack Obama to cut off their access is chilling,” said Ferguson. “Even more disturbing is the White House’s view that private decisions on your medical care should be viewed as a government-run ‘investment.’”
“The same people who gave us Agent Orange, the IRS and the Hurricane Katrina response have no business making my doctor’s decisions for him.”
Despite assurances from the White House that rationing health care leads to better treatment, information from rationed health care systems tells a different story.
Among women diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, Cato Institute scholar John Goodman finds, citing statistics from their national health care services. Goodman’s research finds among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.
The culprit is often the kind waiting lists the White House proposed Sunday. In 2000, the British medical journal Clinical Oncology, studying lung cancer patients waiting for government permission to get medical treatment found that about 20 percent “of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.”
Another 2003 British study found that after major surgery, 2.5 percent of American patients died in hospital, compared to 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill patients in U.S. hospitals die at only one-seventh the rate of those in the British system, where government controls, prices and rations health care, according to Atlas Economic Research Foundation senior fellow Deroy Murdock.
“The proper way to reform health care is to get government out of the way, drive down prices by opening up a health insurance market closed off to competition by politicians doing the bidding of insurance lobbyists and remove FDA roadblocks that keep medication off the market and drive up the costs to develop lifesaving drugs,” said Ferguson.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Republican National Committee: As Former Sen. Tom Daschle Faces Senate Confirmation Hearings, a Reminder of His Past on Health Care
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Republican National Committee:
Today, The U.S. Senate Will Hold Hearings For President-Elect Obama's Health And Human Services Nominee, Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD):
Daschle Will Be Testifying At His Senate Confirmation Hearing On Thursday. "Obama's choice to lead the reform effort, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, testifies at his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday -- beginning a process to change the nation's healthcare that could be one of the most ambitious and expensive undertakings of the Obama presidency." (David Alexander, "Obama Building Grassroots Support For Health Reform," Reuters, 1/7/09)
Obama Announced That Daschle Will Serve As The "Lead Architect" On Health Care Reform In Addition To His Role As Health And Human Services Secretary:
Obama Announced That Daschle Will "Be The Lead Architect" Of Health Care Reform In Addition To Serving As HHS Secretary. Obama: "I've asked Tom to serve not just as my secretary of Health and Human Services, but also as my director of White House -- of my White House Office of Health Reform. As such, he will be responsible not just for implementing our health care plan, he will also be the lead architect of that plan." (Barack Obama, Press Conference, 12/11/08)
Obama Said No One Is "Better Suited To Lead This Effort" Than Daschle. Obama: "I can think of no one better suited to lead this effort than the man standing beside me today. Tom Daschle is one of America's foremost health care experts." (Barack Obama, Press Conference, 12/11/08)
DASCHLE WAS MAJOR PLAYER IN FAILED CLINTON HEALTH CARE PLAN
Daschle "Played A Major Part" In Advocating Sen. Clinton's Doomed Health Care Plan Of 1993:
Daschle "Played A Major Part" In The Failed Clinton Attempt To Reform Health Care In 1993. "He also devotes a section of the book to 'What Went Wrong And Models For Making It Right,' with a heavy concentration on the Clinton plan. 'I think it's important that we learn the lessons of the past,' he said ... Daschle is well aware of those lessons, having played a major part in the failed campaign for universal health care and learned many of the mistakes that were made from a Capitol Hill perspective." (Erin McPike, "Daschle Warm To Obama Health Role," CongressDaily, 6/5/08)
The Clinton Administration Expected Daschle To Help "Carry The Ball" On Their Health Care Platform. "[Sec. Lloyd] Bentsen and [Sec. Donna] Shalala, joined by the members of the economic team argued against the proposed price ceilings on insurance premiums. Those so-called premiums caps would be viewed, correctly, as proxies for price controls -- and Congress despised price controls. They argued that the alliances were too regulatory, the overall plan too bureaucratic. And they said that Medicare cuts were too extreme and would cause severe problems, both in urban states like New York and rural ones like South Dakota. These, Bensten knew well, were potential time bombs for the Senate Finance Committee, where Democratic senators from those states, Pat Moynihan and Tom Daschle, were expected to carry the ball for the President." (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, p. 161)
Daschle Was One Of Only Two Democrats On The Senate Finance Committee That Held "Out For The Clinton Plan" Against Other Health Care Proposals In Congress. "[Rep. Jim] Cooper had told [Rep. Mike] Synar that his co-sponsor, Senator John Breaux, was convinced that only two Democrats on Finance -- Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Mitchell's protg and 1995 successor as leader of the Senate Democrats -- would hold out for the Clinton plan." (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, p. 336)
Daschle Was Considered A "Foot Soldier" For The Clinton Health Care Reform Effort, During The Time When The Senate Had Become "Increasingly Hostile To Bi-Partisanship." "The Senate environment was also increasingly hostile to bi-partisanship. Something new-and destructive- was at work. ... It was true that in the clash over health care reform, some senators acted out assigned roles -- or roles others suspected them of playing. Jay Rockefeller thus was regarded by other Democrats as the foot soldier for the First Lady; Tom Daschle of South Dakota as the foot soldier for the Senate Majority Leader Mitchell; Mitchell as the foot soldier for the President's bill..." (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, pp. 382-383)
Daschle Pushed For A Vote On The Clinton Plan Despite Opposition In The Senate:
Daschle Pressed For A Vote On The Clinton Plan "To Force Accountability" Among Those Opposed To The Plan. "Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Mitchell's deputy and soon to be his successor as Democratic leader, was as devoted as anyone to passage; but he conceded in conversations with us that August, because the Democrats lacked consensus on whether to fight or let the issue fade, 'there is a belief that to have it trail off may be the best approach.' Daschle was among the senators who argued they needed 'to force accountability,' to 'force the Republicans to vote on something.' In the end, though, his was a minority view. 'There is a feeling,' Daschle added, 'that we are putting as many Democrats on the line as Republicans' by pressing for a vote on the unpopular bill, and that feeling was even stronger among House Democrats. In recalling his private conversations with House Democratic leaders, Daschle remembered, 'They were just really worried about crawling out there on a limb as they've done in the past this close to an election. The votes weren't there for that.'" (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, p. 515)
DASCHLE'S WORK FOR LOBBYING FIRM CREATES POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Daschle Is An Adviser For Washington, D.C. Lobbying Firm, Which Has Earned Millions Lobbying For Health Care Industry:
Daschle Is A "Special Policy Adviser" For Prominent D.C. Lobbying Firm, Which Has Earned More Than $16 Million Representing The Health Care Industry During Daschle's Tenure. "Barack Obama's expected pick of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be secretary of health and human services bumps up against the president-elect's pledge to rid the White House of special interests. The former Democratic senator from South Dakota is a special policy adviser for the lobbying law firm Alston & Bird. And in his three years there, the firm has earned more than $16 million representing some of the health care industry's most powerful interests before the department he's in line to lead." (Chris Frates, "Daschle Lobby Ties Bump Obama Vow," Politico, 12/1/08)
Daschle's Work As A Paid Adviser "Appears To Run Counter To Obama's Pledge 'To Free The Executive Branch From Special Interest Influence'" Since According To Obama's Team, Political Appointees Are Not "Permitted To Work On Regulations Or Contracts Directly And Substantially Related To Their Prior Employer For Two Years." "Daschle is not himself a lobbyist. But he has advised the firm's clients on health care issues, according to the firm's website. His work as a paid adviser appears to run counter to Obama's pledge to 'free the executive branch from special interest influence.' No political appointee, Obama's transition team has declared, 'will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.' As health and human services secretary, Daschle would oversee myriad regulations, ranging from the drugs that can come to market to Medicare and Medicare reimbursements." (Chris Frates, "Daschle Lobby Ties Bump Obama Vow," Politico, 12/1/08)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City,Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Today, The U.S. Senate Will Hold Hearings For President-Elect Obama's Health And Human Services Nominee, Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD):
Daschle Will Be Testifying At His Senate Confirmation Hearing On Thursday. "Obama's choice to lead the reform effort, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, testifies at his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday -- beginning a process to change the nation's healthcare that could be one of the most ambitious and expensive undertakings of the Obama presidency." (David Alexander, "Obama Building Grassroots Support For Health Reform," Reuters, 1/7/09)
Obama Announced That Daschle Will Serve As The "Lead Architect" On Health Care Reform In Addition To His Role As Health And Human Services Secretary:
Obama Announced That Daschle Will "Be The Lead Architect" Of Health Care Reform In Addition To Serving As HHS Secretary. Obama: "I've asked Tom to serve not just as my secretary of Health and Human Services, but also as my director of White House -- of my White House Office of Health Reform. As such, he will be responsible not just for implementing our health care plan, he will also be the lead architect of that plan." (Barack Obama, Press Conference, 12/11/08)
Obama Said No One Is "Better Suited To Lead This Effort" Than Daschle. Obama: "I can think of no one better suited to lead this effort than the man standing beside me today. Tom Daschle is one of America's foremost health care experts." (Barack Obama, Press Conference, 12/11/08)
DASCHLE WAS MAJOR PLAYER IN FAILED CLINTON HEALTH CARE PLAN
Daschle "Played A Major Part" In Advocating Sen. Clinton's Doomed Health Care Plan Of 1993:
Daschle "Played A Major Part" In The Failed Clinton Attempt To Reform Health Care In 1993. "He also devotes a section of the book to 'What Went Wrong And Models For Making It Right,' with a heavy concentration on the Clinton plan. 'I think it's important that we learn the lessons of the past,' he said ... Daschle is well aware of those lessons, having played a major part in the failed campaign for universal health care and learned many of the mistakes that were made from a Capitol Hill perspective." (Erin McPike, "Daschle Warm To Obama Health Role," CongressDaily, 6/5/08)
The Clinton Administration Expected Daschle To Help "Carry The Ball" On Their Health Care Platform. "[Sec. Lloyd] Bentsen and [Sec. Donna] Shalala, joined by the members of the economic team argued against the proposed price ceilings on insurance premiums. Those so-called premiums caps would be viewed, correctly, as proxies for price controls -- and Congress despised price controls. They argued that the alliances were too regulatory, the overall plan too bureaucratic. And they said that Medicare cuts were too extreme and would cause severe problems, both in urban states like New York and rural ones like South Dakota. These, Bensten knew well, were potential time bombs for the Senate Finance Committee, where Democratic senators from those states, Pat Moynihan and Tom Daschle, were expected to carry the ball for the President." (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, p. 161)
Daschle Was One Of Only Two Democrats On The Senate Finance Committee That Held "Out For The Clinton Plan" Against Other Health Care Proposals In Congress. "[Rep. Jim] Cooper had told [Rep. Mike] Synar that his co-sponsor, Senator John Breaux, was convinced that only two Democrats on Finance -- Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Mitchell's protg and 1995 successor as leader of the Senate Democrats -- would hold out for the Clinton plan." (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, p. 336)
Daschle Was Considered A "Foot Soldier" For The Clinton Health Care Reform Effort, During The Time When The Senate Had Become "Increasingly Hostile To Bi-Partisanship." "The Senate environment was also increasingly hostile to bi-partisanship. Something new-and destructive- was at work. ... It was true that in the clash over health care reform, some senators acted out assigned roles -- or roles others suspected them of playing. Jay Rockefeller thus was regarded by other Democrats as the foot soldier for the First Lady; Tom Daschle of South Dakota as the foot soldier for the Senate Majority Leader Mitchell; Mitchell as the foot soldier for the President's bill..." (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, pp. 382-383)
Daschle Pushed For A Vote On The Clinton Plan Despite Opposition In The Senate:
Daschle Pressed For A Vote On The Clinton Plan "To Force Accountability" Among Those Opposed To The Plan. "Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Mitchell's deputy and soon to be his successor as Democratic leader, was as devoted as anyone to passage; but he conceded in conversations with us that August, because the Democrats lacked consensus on whether to fight or let the issue fade, 'there is a belief that to have it trail off may be the best approach.' Daschle was among the senators who argued they needed 'to force accountability,' to 'force the Republicans to vote on something.' In the end, though, his was a minority view. 'There is a feeling,' Daschle added, 'that we are putting as many Democrats on the line as Republicans' by pressing for a vote on the unpopular bill, and that feeling was even stronger among House Democrats. In recalling his private conversations with House Democratic leaders, Daschle remembered, 'They were just really worried about crawling out there on a limb as they've done in the past this close to an election. The votes weren't there for that.'" (Haynes Johnson and David Broder, The System, 1996, p. 515)
DASCHLE'S WORK FOR LOBBYING FIRM CREATES POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Daschle Is An Adviser For Washington, D.C. Lobbying Firm, Which Has Earned Millions Lobbying For Health Care Industry:
Daschle Is A "Special Policy Adviser" For Prominent D.C. Lobbying Firm, Which Has Earned More Than $16 Million Representing The Health Care Industry During Daschle's Tenure. "Barack Obama's expected pick of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be secretary of health and human services bumps up against the president-elect's pledge to rid the White House of special interests. The former Democratic senator from South Dakota is a special policy adviser for the lobbying law firm Alston & Bird. And in his three years there, the firm has earned more than $16 million representing some of the health care industry's most powerful interests before the department he's in line to lead." (Chris Frates, "Daschle Lobby Ties Bump Obama Vow," Politico, 12/1/08)
Daschle's Work As A Paid Adviser "Appears To Run Counter To Obama's Pledge 'To Free The Executive Branch From Special Interest Influence'" Since According To Obama's Team, Political Appointees Are Not "Permitted To Work On Regulations Or Contracts Directly And Substantially Related To Their Prior Employer For Two Years." "Daschle is not himself a lobbyist. But he has advised the firm's clients on health care issues, according to the firm's website. His work as a paid adviser appears to run counter to Obama's pledge to 'free the executive branch from special interest influence.' No political appointee, Obama's transition team has declared, 'will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.' As health and human services secretary, Daschle would oversee myriad regulations, ranging from the drugs that can come to market to Medicare and Medicare reimbursements." (Chris Frates, "Daschle Lobby Ties Bump Obama Vow," Politico, 12/1/08)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City,Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Financial Reforms Being Neglected by Policy Makers Could Be More Effective Than Emergency Measures
/PRNewswire/ -- RCF, Inc. announces Housing and the Financial Crisis: Overlooked Perspectives, a study calling for more attention to financial fundamentals in combating the nation's economic woes. Time, not government measures, will be needed to work off the excesses of the housing boom. Fiscal policy has become an emergency tool of choice but is blunt and takes time. Non-punitive bank-type regulation of financial intermediaries, and measures to achieve debt transparency, could bring a quicker end to the recession.
"Fears that housing foreclosures will prolong the credit crisis are exaggerated," says Dr. George Tolley, President of RCF and co-author of the study. "Although foreclosures and subprime lending have received media attention, the untold story of the housing problems goes much deeper." The study appears in Economic Insights, a newsletter published on behalf of the Chicago Economic Observatory that analyzes current events affecting the U.S. and Chicago economies.
The study points out that foreclosures have affected less than 1% of all houses in the U.S. Alarmist discussion that mortgage indebtedness exceeds market value for up to one in six homes ignores the fact that most homeowners realize that home values are likely to recover. Many home buyers with questionable credit and speculators who counted on price appreciation are out of the market by now or soon will be.
The housing boom that ended in 2006 has left a bloated housing stock that will be a drag on growth for several years. Overly easy credit led young households to purchase homes at an earlier point in their lives. More than one million first-time home buyers own homes now who would have bought at a later time if it had not been for the housing boom.
Housing is normally one of the main shock absorbers in combating recessions, but this tool is not available for the current downturn. In the past, in combating recessions, Fed monetary policy lowered interest rates as a chief tool. Today, because of past housing excesses, we have too much housing supply and can expect little response from changes in already low interest rates.
Emphasis is shifting from monetary policy to stimulus payments, unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects and green jobs. These are less flexible than monetary policy and require more time to take effect. The moves now being proposed to stimulate the economy could actually lead to inflation as the economy recovers. Once again, attention to long-run financial reform is being neglected as a way of working ourselves out of the present problems.
The co-authors of the study are George Tolley and Ella Revzin, both at RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc., a Chicago-based economic consulting firm. Tolley is also Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Fears that housing foreclosures will prolong the credit crisis are exaggerated," says Dr. George Tolley, President of RCF and co-author of the study. "Although foreclosures and subprime lending have received media attention, the untold story of the housing problems goes much deeper." The study appears in Economic Insights, a newsletter published on behalf of the Chicago Economic Observatory that analyzes current events affecting the U.S. and Chicago economies.
The study points out that foreclosures have affected less than 1% of all houses in the U.S. Alarmist discussion that mortgage indebtedness exceeds market value for up to one in six homes ignores the fact that most homeowners realize that home values are likely to recover. Many home buyers with questionable credit and speculators who counted on price appreciation are out of the market by now or soon will be.
The housing boom that ended in 2006 has left a bloated housing stock that will be a drag on growth for several years. Overly easy credit led young households to purchase homes at an earlier point in their lives. More than one million first-time home buyers own homes now who would have bought at a later time if it had not been for the housing boom.
Housing is normally one of the main shock absorbers in combating recessions, but this tool is not available for the current downturn. In the past, in combating recessions, Fed monetary policy lowered interest rates as a chief tool. Today, because of past housing excesses, we have too much housing supply and can expect little response from changes in already low interest rates.
Emphasis is shifting from monetary policy to stimulus payments, unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects and green jobs. These are less flexible than monetary policy and require more time to take effect. The moves now being proposed to stimulate the economy could actually lead to inflation as the economy recovers. Once again, attention to long-run financial reform is being neglected as a way of working ourselves out of the present problems.
The co-authors of the study are George Tolley and Ella Revzin, both at RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc., a Chicago-based economic consulting firm. Tolley is also Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)