Lawmakers were all over the airwaves Sunday following the Senate's procedural vote on the health care overhaul bill -- and like the chamber's vote, the rhetoric and the predictions for going forward lined up along predictable partisan lines.
Senate Democrats cleared the first major hurdle in their efforts to retool the health care system Saturday night, voting to adopt a motion and begin debating an overhaul plan assembled by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The Senate voted along party lines, 60-39, to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to the bill (HR 3590). It was the first of what will likely be several similar procedural votes that will have to be taken before the Senate can actually vote on passage of the measure.
Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said the Republicans' next goal is "to let the American people know what it does for them and to them, that it has higher premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, puts 15 million more low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid."
Alexander, who appeared on "Fox News Sunday," said once Americans become aware of the bill's onerous provisions, it "will collapse of its own weight. And we can get then started on going step by step toward reducing costs, which is what we've been trying to do ... And I think most people would be much more comfortable with us biting off what we could chew instead of this arrogance of thinking we can fix the whole system all at once."
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., appearing on the same program, was asked about certain lawmakers who voted yes Saturday but would vote against the bill on final passage if it contains provisions they cannot accept.
"We will keep working," she said. "We're working on a number of different options that will bring us together. And I believe at the end of the day we will be together because we know that we can't afford not to act, whether it's saving lives, saving money."
"Look, there are still many bumps in the road, discussions, arguments, disagreements. But I think, now, the wind is at our back. There's real momentum," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer on CBS's "Face the Nation," "... And now the time is to act. And, frankly, you know, there are a lot of people on the other side of the aisle who don't want health care. They haven't put together an alternative proposal that's out there on the Web the way our proposal is. And I think what Orrin Hatch [R-Utah] said is right. It's dilatory tactics."
Countering that argument on the same program was Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who said "the American people, by public opinion surveys, have made it very clear they want this whole thing aired out. They would rather have us do it right than do it quickly. ... The reality is this is a huge issue affecting every American. And we do need to do it right. And the object is not to delay for delay's sake but rather to have an opportunity for everyone to see what's in it, to understand it, to know how much it costs and to know how it's going to impact their lives."
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," said Saturday night's party-line vote to begin debate on the bill was "an amazing victory" for President Obama and Reid.
"We didn't have a Republican vote, but we are going to move forward after Thanksgiving," Durbin said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said the bill "must" pass this year and urged Republicans to work with Democrats and not engage in a "filibuster-loaded debate where we don't get down to the basic issues."
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the "important thing is for the American people to understand that this bill doesn't fix what's wrong with health care. We're treating symptoms, not the disease, and it's really malpractice what we're doing."
The problem with U.S. health care, Coburn said on ABC's "This Week," "is that it costs too much... And there's nothing to address that. And one out of every three dollars that Americans spend today doesn't help anybody get well and doesn't keep anybody from getting sick. So why would we not want to go and fix the problems in health care, not the symptoms that all the politicians play around with, but the real problems?"
Monday, November 23, 2009
Children who lack continuity with a regular health care provider miss needed services
PORTLAND, Ore. — Low-income children who don't access health care from the same place or provider over the long term are significantly more likely to have unmet health care needs compared with those do, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics.
Studies like this are crucial to informing the financing and delivery of quality health care for children, the researchers report.
"In the current policy debates about health insurance reform, much of the focus has been on the importance of stable health insurance. This study confirmed that having a stable usual source of care is also an important factor in accessing needed health care," said Jennifer E. DeVoe, M.D., D.Phil., principal investigator and research professor in family medicine, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Previous studies have shown that patients who maintain an ongoing relationship with a primary care facility or provider, also known as a "usual source of care," are more likely to use preventive health care, not use emergency services and have shorter hospital stays. In this study, DeVoe and colleagues expanded on that research by examining whether having a consistent place or person from whom to access regular health care over time affects low-income children's ability to access needed services.
To collect data, they created a statewide survey with questions adapted from several vetted national surveys and sent it to 8,636 families who were enrolled in Oregon's food stamp program at the end of January 2005. One focal child per family was randomly selected for each survey. The researchers received 2,681 completed responses and applied statistical weights to ensure that these responses were representative of the 84,087 households in the food stamp population.
The survey asked parents whether their child had experienced an "unmet need" in the previous 12 months, which the researchers defined as: an unmet medical need; an unmet prescription need; missed medication doses; delayed urgent care; no outpatient visits; and reports of problems obtaining necessary dental care or specialty care, and counseling.
Parents were also asked where they took their child for needed medical care. Children whose parents responded that their child received care at a community health center, private clinic or school-based clinic were considered to have a usual source of care. Those who reported no current usual source of care, or whose children received regular care only an emergency department or at an urgent care facility, were considered to have no usual source of care.
Based on these responses, the researchers report that 79 percent of the children who lacked a usual source of health care had an unmet need compared with 45 percent who reported having a usual source of care.
The researchers then compared their findings with a comparable national sample and found 67.5 percent of low-income children nationwide who lacked a usual source of care had an unmet need compared with 37 percent who reported having a usual source of care.
"A child without a usual source of care had at least two times the odds of experiencing an unmet need than a child with a usual source of care both in the Oregon population and in the national sample," DeVoe explained.
In addition, the researchers were interested in knowing whether children whose insurance changes had prompted a change in their usual source of care were more vulnerable to experiencing unmet need. They found that an estimated 23 percent of low-income children in Oregon had changed their usual source of care because of insurance reasons. Compared to children with a stable usual source of care, the group that had changed their usual source of care had 2.6 times the odds of experiencing unmet medical care needs.
"Although this study confirms the importance of a stable usual source of care, our findings do warn against any notion that having a regular source of care can substitute for stabilizing the U.S. insurance system. Financial and structural reforms are both needed to ensure better access to health care for low-income children" said DeVoe.
Studies like this are crucial to informing the financing and delivery of quality health care for children, the researchers report.
"In the current policy debates about health insurance reform, much of the focus has been on the importance of stable health insurance. This study confirmed that having a stable usual source of care is also an important factor in accessing needed health care," said Jennifer E. DeVoe, M.D., D.Phil., principal investigator and research professor in family medicine, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine.
Previous studies have shown that patients who maintain an ongoing relationship with a primary care facility or provider, also known as a "usual source of care," are more likely to use preventive health care, not use emergency services and have shorter hospital stays. In this study, DeVoe and colleagues expanded on that research by examining whether having a consistent place or person from whom to access regular health care over time affects low-income children's ability to access needed services.
To collect data, they created a statewide survey with questions adapted from several vetted national surveys and sent it to 8,636 families who were enrolled in Oregon's food stamp program at the end of January 2005. One focal child per family was randomly selected for each survey. The researchers received 2,681 completed responses and applied statistical weights to ensure that these responses were representative of the 84,087 households in the food stamp population.
The survey asked parents whether their child had experienced an "unmet need" in the previous 12 months, which the researchers defined as: an unmet medical need; an unmet prescription need; missed medication doses; delayed urgent care; no outpatient visits; and reports of problems obtaining necessary dental care or specialty care, and counseling.
Parents were also asked where they took their child for needed medical care. Children whose parents responded that their child received care at a community health center, private clinic or school-based clinic were considered to have a usual source of care. Those who reported no current usual source of care, or whose children received regular care only an emergency department or at an urgent care facility, were considered to have no usual source of care.
Based on these responses, the researchers report that 79 percent of the children who lacked a usual source of health care had an unmet need compared with 45 percent who reported having a usual source of care.
The researchers then compared their findings with a comparable national sample and found 67.5 percent of low-income children nationwide who lacked a usual source of care had an unmet need compared with 37 percent who reported having a usual source of care.
"A child without a usual source of care had at least two times the odds of experiencing an unmet need than a child with a usual source of care both in the Oregon population and in the national sample," DeVoe explained.
In addition, the researchers were interested in knowing whether children whose insurance changes had prompted a change in their usual source of care were more vulnerable to experiencing unmet need. They found that an estimated 23 percent of low-income children in Oregon had changed their usual source of care because of insurance reasons. Compared to children with a stable usual source of care, the group that had changed their usual source of care had 2.6 times the odds of experiencing unmet medical care needs.
"Although this study confirms the importance of a stable usual source of care, our findings do warn against any notion that having a regular source of care can substitute for stabilizing the U.S. insurance system. Financial and structural reforms are both needed to ensure better access to health care for low-income children" said DeVoe.
Health care fight swells lobbying
WASHINGTON — Companies and groups hiring lobbying firms on health issues nearly doubled this year as special interests rushed to shape the massive revamp of the nation's health care system now in its final stretch before Congress.
About 1,000 organizations have hired lobbyists since January, compared with 505 during the same period in 2008, according to a USA TODAY analysis of congressional records compiled by the non-partisan CQ MoneyLine.
Overall, health care lobbying has increased, exceeding $422 million during the first ninth months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. That's more than any other industry and a nearly 10% jump over the same period in 2008. The center's Dave Levinthal said the frenzy of new lobbying activity makes financial sense. "If lobbying didn't work, people wouldn't do it," he said.
The vast scope of the health care legislation, which cleared a major hurdle Saturday when the Senate voted 60-39 to begin debating it, has spurred some to lobby for the first time. Gaylord Hospital in Wallingford, Conn., a 137-bed long-term care facility, decided it needed professional help after scrambling last year – aided by state lawmakers – to avoid losing Medicare payments, said Janine Epright, hospital chief financial officer.
"It was an eye-opener," she said of the Medicare fight. "We realized that we didn't have enough pull individually or as an industry to drive the process" in Washington. Epright said the non-profit hospital will spend about $50,000 on lobbying.
Others are beefing up their lobbying presence. Language Line Services, which has spent $90,000 on federal lobbying since 2007, hired a second firm this year as it pushed to boost federal funding for medical translation services. The firm, which employs 8,000 translators, says interpreters can reduce medical errors for patients who don't speak English.
The lobbyists arranged meetings between company executives and House staffers, said Marty Conroy of Language Line. The health bill passed by the House this month would require Medicaid to match up to 75% of translation costs, up from 50%.
The American Beverage Association hired a fifth lobbying firm this year as it worked to kill a proposed federal excise tax on sugary drinks to help pay for the bill. The group spent $7.3 million on lobbying during a three-month period, federal records show. That included $5 million on advertising to fight the tax, spokesman Kevin Keane said.
About 1,000 organizations have hired lobbyists since January, compared with 505 during the same period in 2008, according to a USA TODAY analysis of congressional records compiled by the non-partisan CQ MoneyLine.
Overall, health care lobbying has increased, exceeding $422 million during the first ninth months of the year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. That's more than any other industry and a nearly 10% jump over the same period in 2008. The center's Dave Levinthal said the frenzy of new lobbying activity makes financial sense. "If lobbying didn't work, people wouldn't do it," he said.
The vast scope of the health care legislation, which cleared a major hurdle Saturday when the Senate voted 60-39 to begin debating it, has spurred some to lobby for the first time. Gaylord Hospital in Wallingford, Conn., a 137-bed long-term care facility, decided it needed professional help after scrambling last year – aided by state lawmakers – to avoid losing Medicare payments, said Janine Epright, hospital chief financial officer.
"It was an eye-opener," she said of the Medicare fight. "We realized that we didn't have enough pull individually or as an industry to drive the process" in Washington. Epright said the non-profit hospital will spend about $50,000 on lobbying.
Others are beefing up their lobbying presence. Language Line Services, which has spent $90,000 on federal lobbying since 2007, hired a second firm this year as it pushed to boost federal funding for medical translation services. The firm, which employs 8,000 translators, says interpreters can reduce medical errors for patients who don't speak English.
The lobbyists arranged meetings between company executives and House staffers, said Marty Conroy of Language Line. The health bill passed by the House this month would require Medicaid to match up to 75% of translation costs, up from 50%.
The American Beverage Association hired a fifth lobbying firm this year as it worked to kill a proposed federal excise tax on sugary drinks to help pay for the bill. The group spent $7.3 million on lobbying during a three-month period, federal records show. That included $5 million on advertising to fight the tax, spokesman Kevin Keane said.
Senate Democrats at odds over health care bill
WASHINGTON – Moderate Senate Democrats threatened Sunday to scuttle health-care legislation if their demands aren't met, while more liberal members warned their party leaders not to bend.
The dispute among Democrats foretells of a rowdy floor debate next month on legislation that would extend health care coverage to roughly 31 million Americans. Republicans have already made clear they aren't supporting the bill.
Final passage is in jeopardy, even after the chamber's historic 60-39 vote Saturday night to begin debate.
"I don't want a big-government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the ... private insurance that 200 million Americans now have," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Nebraska Democrat.
Nelson and three other moderates — Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman — agreed to open debate despite expressing reservations on the measure. Each of them has warned that they might not support the final bill.
One major sticking point is a provision that would allow Americans to buy a federal-run insurance plan if their state allows it. Moderates say they worry the so-called public option will become a huge and costly entitlement program and that other requirements in the bill could cripple businesses.
"I don't want to fix the problems in our health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis," said Lieberman.
The sway held by such a small group of senators has annoyed their more liberal colleagues, who could vote against a final bill if it becomes too watered down.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he didn't think rank-and-file Democrats would feel compelled to go that far. At the same time, Brown warned Democratic leaders not to make too many concessions.
"I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country — when the public option has this much support — that (a public option is) not going to be in it," said Brown.
The Senate bill would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their work force. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and say it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.
The House approved its version of the bill earlier this month on a near party-line vote of 220-215.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said the health care bill must be passed by the end of the year so that President Barack Obama and lawmakers can shift their attention to the economy and improving employment rates.
Such a timeline also would enable Obama to claim victory on a major domestic priority when he delivers his State of the Union speech in January.
But with one-third of Senate seats up for election in 2010, politics will factor heavily into the outcome of the debate on health care.
Sen. Michael Bennet, a junior Democrat who will be seeking his first full term next year in Colorado, where many districts lean conservative, said he would support the health care overhaul even if doing so means losing his seat.
"The thing that our working families need more than anything else is to end these double-digit cost increases that they're having every single year with health insurance," Bennet said.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said he believes there are enough votes to include a public insurance option in the bill as long as states are allowed to opt out. To do so, all 58 Democrats and independent Sens. Lieberman and Bernie Sanders of Vermont would have to support it.
Sanders issued a statement Sunday saying, "I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option."
Lieberman and Nelson have said they object to the public option. On Sunday, Nelson said he is open to negotiating the provision; he said he would prefer allowing states to opt into the program, instead of having to remove themselves.
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said the lingering reservations by moderate Democrats indicate that the party's leaders have gone too far. On Saturday, no Republican voted to begin debate on the bill, which they said would cripple industry and drive up costs for the average American.
"I believe there are a number of Democratic senators who do care what the American people think and are not interested in this sort of arrogant approach that everybody sort of shut up and sit down, get out of the way, we know what's best for you," said McConnell.
Brown, Bennet and McConnell appeared on CNN's "State of the Union." Lieberman appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Nelson appeared on ABC's "This Week."
The dispute among Democrats foretells of a rowdy floor debate next month on legislation that would extend health care coverage to roughly 31 million Americans. Republicans have already made clear they aren't supporting the bill.
Final passage is in jeopardy, even after the chamber's historic 60-39 vote Saturday night to begin debate.
"I don't want a big-government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the ... private insurance that 200 million Americans now have," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Nebraska Democrat.
Nelson and three other moderates — Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman — agreed to open debate despite expressing reservations on the measure. Each of them has warned that they might not support the final bill.
One major sticking point is a provision that would allow Americans to buy a federal-run insurance plan if their state allows it. Moderates say they worry the so-called public option will become a huge and costly entitlement program and that other requirements in the bill could cripple businesses.
"I don't want to fix the problems in our health care system in a way that creates more of an economic crisis," said Lieberman.
The sway held by such a small group of senators has annoyed their more liberal colleagues, who could vote against a final bill if it becomes too watered down.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he didn't think rank-and-file Democrats would feel compelled to go that far. At the same time, Brown warned Democratic leaders not to make too many concessions.
"I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the rest of the country — when the public option has this much support — that (a public option is) not going to be in it," said Brown.
The Senate bill would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their work force. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and say it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population.
The House approved its version of the bill earlier this month on a near party-line vote of 220-215.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said the health care bill must be passed by the end of the year so that President Barack Obama and lawmakers can shift their attention to the economy and improving employment rates.
Such a timeline also would enable Obama to claim victory on a major domestic priority when he delivers his State of the Union speech in January.
But with one-third of Senate seats up for election in 2010, politics will factor heavily into the outcome of the debate on health care.
Sen. Michael Bennet, a junior Democrat who will be seeking his first full term next year in Colorado, where many districts lean conservative, said he would support the health care overhaul even if doing so means losing his seat.
"The thing that our working families need more than anything else is to end these double-digit cost increases that they're having every single year with health insurance," Bennet said.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said he believes there are enough votes to include a public insurance option in the bill as long as states are allowed to opt out. To do so, all 58 Democrats and independent Sens. Lieberman and Bernie Sanders of Vermont would have to support it.
Sanders issued a statement Sunday saying, "I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option."
Lieberman and Nelson have said they object to the public option. On Sunday, Nelson said he is open to negotiating the provision; he said he would prefer allowing states to opt into the program, instead of having to remove themselves.
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell said the lingering reservations by moderate Democrats indicate that the party's leaders have gone too far. On Saturday, no Republican voted to begin debate on the bill, which they said would cripple industry and drive up costs for the average American.
"I believe there are a number of Democratic senators who do care what the American people think and are not interested in this sort of arrogant approach that everybody sort of shut up and sit down, get out of the way, we know what's best for you," said McConnell.
Brown, Bennet and McConnell appeared on CNN's "State of the Union." Lieberman appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Nelson appeared on ABC's "This Week."
New baseline of opinion on health care
CULPEPER, Va. — On the day President Clinton went on national television in 1993 to prescribe his remedy for the nation's ailing health care system, emergency room director Michael Bost was too busy treating uninsured patients to believe change would mean improvement.
Sixteen years later, Bost has seen enough physical and financial suffering to convince him that major change is needed. He has watched his sons grow up and become uninsured, bringing their children to emergency rooms and paying hospital bills in installments. He has seen thousands of uninsured patients face the trauma of illness and destitution.
"What I see every day in the ER is magnified 10 times worse than what we experienced back in the '70s," says Bost, 59, now an emergency room physician in Fishersville, Va. "Not only does it hurt them physically, but it hurts them financially."
In Culpeper and across the nation, the years since Clinton's failed effort have seen the cost of medical services nearly double and softened some of the skepticism voiced by Americans in 1993 and 1994. The percentage who say Congress should pass comprehensive legislation, rather than dealing with health care incrementally over several years, has increased by 10 points, USA TODAY/Gallup Polls show.
That could help President Obama and Democrats in Congress as the Senate begins debate next week on an $848 billion plan that would fundamentally revamp the nation's health care system — the first such effort in 15 years. Unlike Clinton's plan, which would have created a new government regulatory system to monitor premiums and benefits, Obama's builds more on the current private insurance system. And unlike Clinton, Obama got most of the affected interest groups — doctors, hospitals, drugmakers, even insurers — to acknowledge that the system needs to be fixed.
To gauge how Americans' views have changed since 1993, USA TODAY spoke to many of the same people from Maine to Washington that the paper's reporters interviewed during Clinton's effort.
Here in Culpeper, a town of 16,000 with a median household income of $44,000 and a history of voting for both Democrats and Republicans, nothing tells the story better than Mort Chiles' path last year from private medical practice to chief medical officer at Culpeper Regional Hospital. He had planned on retiring last July at 60 but decided to keep working — in part to get health insurance through his employer.
On the day of Clinton's September 1993 speech, Chiles doubted Americans would give up any of the expensive care they were used to. Today he's ready to give it a try because the present system, he says, isn't sustainable.
"At some point, there has to be some limit on what we think we can do in health care," he says.
Health care costs, combined with the economic downturn, have caused Don Shuman to cut his small payroll from seven people in 1993 to just three today.
Then, "the economy was rocking and rolling. We were making money hand over fist," says Shuman, who has run Shuman Builders since 1974. His workers had excellent health benefits, he says. As a result, he opposed the Clinton plan, fearing it could lead to higher costs and fewer benefits.
Now, he has been forced to switch carriers and increase deductibles and co-payments, yet he's paying $6,600 a month.
"Change is inevitable, and this is the closest that we've ever come," says Shuman, 66. "If we don't do anything at all, we've missed an opportunity."
'Times have greatly changed'
Personal experiences with the health care system since 1993 have convinced many people that something has to be done.
Lynne Brauser ran a general store in Bradford, Pa., in 1994 and worried that a redesigned health care system would force her to pay her three employees' insurance premiums. "I don't believe Clinton's plan," she said then.
Since then, her husband had a serious illness requiring three months in the hospital, and the couple's insurance paid most of the costs — something she says the uninsured deserve. She also worked as a registered nurse and saw how the uninsured get care today — in the emergency room.
"Times have greatly changed," Brauser, 60, says. "I honestly think that we do need some type of change."
It took a death in the family to convince Judy Grabinski of Rockham, S.D., that insurance coverage should be expanded. The last time Congress considered it, her mother-in-law, Sharon Grabinski, was an uninsured cook in Faulkton, S.D., with diabetes and Raynaud's disease, which reduced circulation to her hands and feet.
In 1994, Sharon Grabinski succumbed to uterine cancer. If the types of low-income subsidies under consideration at the time had been available earlier, Judy Grabinski says, they could have helped pay for regular checkups.
"Some type of reform should be done," Judy Grabinski, 41, says. "Screening should maybe be available for all people."
Barely 12 hours after Clinton unveiled his plan in 1993, Rhonda Yeagerwas treated to a personal sales job by then-Treasury secretary Lloyd Bentsen on the concrete production floor at Philadelphia's Stockwell Rubber. She didn't buy it.
"I think we're all going to get smacked," Yeager said after Bentsen's pitch.
Since then, Yeager's father was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, and neither Medicare nor his private supplemental policy pays for his full $479 monthly drug bill. Then she was diagnosed with lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease that is causing numbness in her legs, and the costs for medical tests and treatments are mounting.
"We're just going completely broke with the co-payments," says Yeager, 43, who still works at Stockwell, as a finisher.
"At this time, everybody is heading for trouble in terms of medical coverage," she says. "I see it getting worse."
For most of those who date back to Clinton's effort, cost was the big concern then and now.
Maryan Kearney noticed it in 1993 when son John's birth cost the family three times as much as her son Robbie's birth 11 years earlier. She notices it today because her father was billed $8,000 for eight hours in the emergency room with stomach pain, her 27-year-old son struggles to pay his premiums on the individual market, and another son can't afford insurance at all.
"Things have gotten very far out of hand," says Kearney, 53, a dental hygienist in Culpeper. "I don't know how we're ever going to fix it."
It cost David Cousens $546 a month to insure his family in 1993, when his lobsters were bringing in $2.70 a pound. Today, he's paying about $1,200 a month for health insurance. Lobsters? Just $2.50 a pound.
That's the main reason why Cousens, president of the Maine Lobstermen's Association, has shed the hesitation he voiced to Hillary Rodham Clinton during a Boston forum in 1993 and now supports Obama's efforts. It's not the only reason. He wishes he could afford to provide coverage for his one employee. And he regrets that his two children, ages 27 and 23, can't afford it, either.
"I think we need to get it done," says Cousens, 51, of South Thomaston. "Is it going to be perfect? No way. But it's got to be better than what we have now."
'Each one of us is at risk'
In 1993, Eugene Wigglesworthhad five auto repair shops in Vancouver, Wash., and a message for President Clinton. "Call me," he said at the time. "Get back in touch with the people making the jobs."
Sixteen years later, his opposition to changing the health care system has subsided. He and his wife just switched carriers for their Medicare supplemental policy. The old policy was going from $121 to $175 a month and dropping his sole medication.
"I think it's absolutely essential that we get health care reform," says Wigglesworth, 66. "There's just no getting around it now."
Illinois family physician Arvind Goyalread the entire Clinton plan in 1993 and determined that it would "destroy the practice of medicine as we know it." He brought his concerns to the American Medical Association.
Since then, Goyal informally polled his doctors at Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights, Ill., where he chaired the family medicine department. Faced with reduced reimbursements, liability insurance premiums and overhead costs, he found, 30% of them had dropped health insurance for themselves, their families or employees.
"That amazed me," says Goyal, now 61. "These people would be at tremendous risk if they were hospitalized."
With 10% unemployment nationally, Goyal says, "our employer-based system is not protecting us. Each one of us is at risk."
Can government help?
Despite complaints about medical care and rising costs, some of those who opposed Clinton in 1993 see a repeat performance from Obama.
Richard Lee ran his own business, Gayheart's Drugstore, in Culpeper in 1993. Clinton's plan, he said then, would have meant higher insurance costs and more paperwork. Since then, Lee sold the business because insurance reimbursements were late and inadequate. He became the pharmacist at Culpeper's Safeway, a company that has taken costs into its own hands by offering lower premiums to employees who are in good health and offering generic drugs for $4 per month.
"The insurance companies and the drug companies are driving the health care system, and that's not the way it should be," Lee, 55, says. But with reform, he says, "the cost is going to climb."
Dorothy Crone didn't hesitate when she learned Democrats planned to cut Medicare to help pay for their plan. She ran out and got the surgeries she needed.
"I'd advise anybody nearing their 70s, if they have to get any work done, they better get it done while they can," she says.
Crone, a former small businesswoman from Horseshoe Bend, Ark., complained to her congresswoman about the Clinton plan in 1994. Today she's more convinced that government is the problem. "When has anything that the government does saved money?" she says.
Kentucky accountant Kenneth Wolfecomputes the tax burden for small businesses for a living. In 1993, it didn't take him long to predict that Clinton's health care plan would force some of them out of business.
When it comes to Obama's plan, Wolfe, 63, hasn't changed his mind. Still, he's convinced the current system doesn't work. Wolfe pays about $15,000 a year to insure himself, his wife and son, plus co-payments. He wants a high-deductible plan that isn't offered in Kentucky but in Ohio, within "rock-throwing distance" of his Park Hills home.
For Wolfe and many others, the need for cost controls remains paramount. He recalls going to the hospital for a small outpatient procedure and asking what it would cost. "You'd have thought I just landed from Mars," he says. "She said, 'Nobody's ever asked that before.'
Sixteen years later, Bost has seen enough physical and financial suffering to convince him that major change is needed. He has watched his sons grow up and become uninsured, bringing their children to emergency rooms and paying hospital bills in installments. He has seen thousands of uninsured patients face the trauma of illness and destitution.
"What I see every day in the ER is magnified 10 times worse than what we experienced back in the '70s," says Bost, 59, now an emergency room physician in Fishersville, Va. "Not only does it hurt them physically, but it hurts them financially."
In Culpeper and across the nation, the years since Clinton's failed effort have seen the cost of medical services nearly double and softened some of the skepticism voiced by Americans in 1993 and 1994. The percentage who say Congress should pass comprehensive legislation, rather than dealing with health care incrementally over several years, has increased by 10 points, USA TODAY/Gallup Polls show.
That could help President Obama and Democrats in Congress as the Senate begins debate next week on an $848 billion plan that would fundamentally revamp the nation's health care system — the first such effort in 15 years. Unlike Clinton's plan, which would have created a new government regulatory system to monitor premiums and benefits, Obama's builds more on the current private insurance system. And unlike Clinton, Obama got most of the affected interest groups — doctors, hospitals, drugmakers, even insurers — to acknowledge that the system needs to be fixed.
To gauge how Americans' views have changed since 1993, USA TODAY spoke to many of the same people from Maine to Washington that the paper's reporters interviewed during Clinton's effort.
Here in Culpeper, a town of 16,000 with a median household income of $44,000 and a history of voting for both Democrats and Republicans, nothing tells the story better than Mort Chiles' path last year from private medical practice to chief medical officer at Culpeper Regional Hospital. He had planned on retiring last July at 60 but decided to keep working — in part to get health insurance through his employer.
On the day of Clinton's September 1993 speech, Chiles doubted Americans would give up any of the expensive care they were used to. Today he's ready to give it a try because the present system, he says, isn't sustainable.
"At some point, there has to be some limit on what we think we can do in health care," he says.
Health care costs, combined with the economic downturn, have caused Don Shuman to cut his small payroll from seven people in 1993 to just three today.
Then, "the economy was rocking and rolling. We were making money hand over fist," says Shuman, who has run Shuman Builders since 1974. His workers had excellent health benefits, he says. As a result, he opposed the Clinton plan, fearing it could lead to higher costs and fewer benefits.
Now, he has been forced to switch carriers and increase deductibles and co-payments, yet he's paying $6,600 a month.
"Change is inevitable, and this is the closest that we've ever come," says Shuman, 66. "If we don't do anything at all, we've missed an opportunity."
'Times have greatly changed'
Personal experiences with the health care system since 1993 have convinced many people that something has to be done.
Lynne Brauser ran a general store in Bradford, Pa., in 1994 and worried that a redesigned health care system would force her to pay her three employees' insurance premiums. "I don't believe Clinton's plan," she said then.
Since then, her husband had a serious illness requiring three months in the hospital, and the couple's insurance paid most of the costs — something she says the uninsured deserve. She also worked as a registered nurse and saw how the uninsured get care today — in the emergency room.
"Times have greatly changed," Brauser, 60, says. "I honestly think that we do need some type of change."
It took a death in the family to convince Judy Grabinski of Rockham, S.D., that insurance coverage should be expanded. The last time Congress considered it, her mother-in-law, Sharon Grabinski, was an uninsured cook in Faulkton, S.D., with diabetes and Raynaud's disease, which reduced circulation to her hands and feet.
In 1994, Sharon Grabinski succumbed to uterine cancer. If the types of low-income subsidies under consideration at the time had been available earlier, Judy Grabinski says, they could have helped pay for regular checkups.
"Some type of reform should be done," Judy Grabinski, 41, says. "Screening should maybe be available for all people."
Barely 12 hours after Clinton unveiled his plan in 1993, Rhonda Yeagerwas treated to a personal sales job by then-Treasury secretary Lloyd Bentsen on the concrete production floor at Philadelphia's Stockwell Rubber. She didn't buy it.
"I think we're all going to get smacked," Yeager said after Bentsen's pitch.
Since then, Yeager's father was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, and neither Medicare nor his private supplemental policy pays for his full $479 monthly drug bill. Then she was diagnosed with lupus, a chronic autoimmune disease that is causing numbness in her legs, and the costs for medical tests and treatments are mounting.
"We're just going completely broke with the co-payments," says Yeager, 43, who still works at Stockwell, as a finisher.
"At this time, everybody is heading for trouble in terms of medical coverage," she says. "I see it getting worse."
For most of those who date back to Clinton's effort, cost was the big concern then and now.
Maryan Kearney noticed it in 1993 when son John's birth cost the family three times as much as her son Robbie's birth 11 years earlier. She notices it today because her father was billed $8,000 for eight hours in the emergency room with stomach pain, her 27-year-old son struggles to pay his premiums on the individual market, and another son can't afford insurance at all.
"Things have gotten very far out of hand," says Kearney, 53, a dental hygienist in Culpeper. "I don't know how we're ever going to fix it."
It cost David Cousens $546 a month to insure his family in 1993, when his lobsters were bringing in $2.70 a pound. Today, he's paying about $1,200 a month for health insurance. Lobsters? Just $2.50 a pound.
That's the main reason why Cousens, president of the Maine Lobstermen's Association, has shed the hesitation he voiced to Hillary Rodham Clinton during a Boston forum in 1993 and now supports Obama's efforts. It's not the only reason. He wishes he could afford to provide coverage for his one employee. And he regrets that his two children, ages 27 and 23, can't afford it, either.
"I think we need to get it done," says Cousens, 51, of South Thomaston. "Is it going to be perfect? No way. But it's got to be better than what we have now."
'Each one of us is at risk'
In 1993, Eugene Wigglesworthhad five auto repair shops in Vancouver, Wash., and a message for President Clinton. "Call me," he said at the time. "Get back in touch with the people making the jobs."
Sixteen years later, his opposition to changing the health care system has subsided. He and his wife just switched carriers for their Medicare supplemental policy. The old policy was going from $121 to $175 a month and dropping his sole medication.
"I think it's absolutely essential that we get health care reform," says Wigglesworth, 66. "There's just no getting around it now."
Illinois family physician Arvind Goyalread the entire Clinton plan in 1993 and determined that it would "destroy the practice of medicine as we know it." He brought his concerns to the American Medical Association.
Since then, Goyal informally polled his doctors at Northwest Community Hospital in Arlington Heights, Ill., where he chaired the family medicine department. Faced with reduced reimbursements, liability insurance premiums and overhead costs, he found, 30% of them had dropped health insurance for themselves, their families or employees.
"That amazed me," says Goyal, now 61. "These people would be at tremendous risk if they were hospitalized."
With 10% unemployment nationally, Goyal says, "our employer-based system is not protecting us. Each one of us is at risk."
Can government help?
Despite complaints about medical care and rising costs, some of those who opposed Clinton in 1993 see a repeat performance from Obama.
Richard Lee ran his own business, Gayheart's Drugstore, in Culpeper in 1993. Clinton's plan, he said then, would have meant higher insurance costs and more paperwork. Since then, Lee sold the business because insurance reimbursements were late and inadequate. He became the pharmacist at Culpeper's Safeway, a company that has taken costs into its own hands by offering lower premiums to employees who are in good health and offering generic drugs for $4 per month.
"The insurance companies and the drug companies are driving the health care system, and that's not the way it should be," Lee, 55, says. But with reform, he says, "the cost is going to climb."
Dorothy Crone didn't hesitate when she learned Democrats planned to cut Medicare to help pay for their plan. She ran out and got the surgeries she needed.
"I'd advise anybody nearing their 70s, if they have to get any work done, they better get it done while they can," she says.
Crone, a former small businesswoman from Horseshoe Bend, Ark., complained to her congresswoman about the Clinton plan in 1994. Today she's more convinced that government is the problem. "When has anything that the government does saved money?" she says.
Kentucky accountant Kenneth Wolfecomputes the tax burden for small businesses for a living. In 1993, it didn't take him long to predict that Clinton's health care plan would force some of them out of business.
When it comes to Obama's plan, Wolfe, 63, hasn't changed his mind. Still, he's convinced the current system doesn't work. Wolfe pays about $15,000 a year to insure himself, his wife and son, plus co-payments. He wants a high-deductible plan that isn't offered in Kentucky but in Ohio, within "rock-throwing distance" of his Park Hills home.
For Wolfe and many others, the need for cost controls remains paramount. He recalls going to the hospital for a small outpatient procedure and asking what it would cost. "You'd have thought I just landed from Mars," he says. "She said, 'Nobody's ever asked that before.'
Health care reform may hurt hospital credit
NEW YORK (Reuters) – High-cost urban U.S. hospitals may face debt rating downgrades if large cuts to Medicare funding are implemented as part of U.S. health care reform, Moody's Investors Service said on Monday.
The U.S. Senate voted on Saturday to debate a reform bill two weeks after the House of Representatives passed its own version of a bill. Both bills seek to expand the number of insured patients, while reining in future health care costs.
"Achievement of these goals will affect hospitals in different ways, but cost control measures could be especially negative for the credit position of many high-cost urban hospitals even if the number of insured patients expands," Moody's said in a report.
The push to cut costs is driven by the rising costs of Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly.
Research shows there are massive cost differences between hospitals in different regions. A recent report by Dartmouth College revealed costs per Medicare enrollee ranged from $5,300 to $16,000 in 2006.
Most of the 17 highest cost hospitals are in urban or densely populated areas, which tend to have a higher cost of living, higher poverty and unemployment levels, diverse populations with diverse health care needs and expensive research arms.
The cost differences also highlight the local nature of health care markets with most hospitals drawing more than 90 percent of patients from a 50-mile radius.
If reform involves large Medicare cuts, the best-placed hospitals are those that are part of multi-state systems that have economies of scale or those that gain the most new patients with health insurance.
"The most vulnerable hospitals will be stand-alone hospitals dependent on high cost referral practices and which do not gain many new paying patients," the agency said.
The U.S. Senate voted on Saturday to debate a reform bill two weeks after the House of Representatives passed its own version of a bill. Both bills seek to expand the number of insured patients, while reining in future health care costs.
"Achievement of these goals will affect hospitals in different ways, but cost control measures could be especially negative for the credit position of many high-cost urban hospitals even if the number of insured patients expands," Moody's said in a report.
The push to cut costs is driven by the rising costs of Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly.
Research shows there are massive cost differences between hospitals in different regions. A recent report by Dartmouth College revealed costs per Medicare enrollee ranged from $5,300 to $16,000 in 2006.
Most of the 17 highest cost hospitals are in urban or densely populated areas, which tend to have a higher cost of living, higher poverty and unemployment levels, diverse populations with diverse health care needs and expensive research arms.
The cost differences also highlight the local nature of health care markets with most hospitals drawing more than 90 percent of patients from a 50-mile radius.
If reform involves large Medicare cuts, the best-placed hospitals are those that are part of multi-state systems that have economies of scale or those that gain the most new patients with health insurance.
"The most vulnerable hospitals will be stand-alone hospitals dependent on high cost referral practices and which do not gain many new paying patients," the agency said.
Schumer: Dems ready to go-it-alone on health care
WASHINGTON – A leading Senate Democrat said Monday his party is determined to push through a health care overhaul bill with or without Republican support because the "system is broken." "We prefer to go at it with Republicans if we can reach compromises in some areas," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "But we're not going to not pass a bill."
Schumer dueled with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on a network morning news show in the wake of a key Senate vote Saturday night that advanced a 10-year, $959 billion health bill to full debate. Hutchison argued that "you're going to put taxes and mandates on business" that would be a drag on an economy still struggling to recover from recession.
Congressional Democrats are trying to resolve differences within their rank and file over abortion, taxes and letting the government sell health insurance as a competitor with private insurers. Those are all crucial policy questions, and House and Senate Democrats have taken conflicting approaches.
Appearing on NBC's "Today" show Monday, Schumer said, "We all know we have to give a little. ... If we don't do anything, that is the worst situation, and we have a good bill." He said lawmakers must come together because "the health care system is broken."
Schumer argued that Republican critics "haven't put any alternative on the floor."
Hutchison called it "a terrible idea at this time." She said that Republicans "have put alternatives on the floor," including individual tax credits that would not include cutting Medicare and permitting a government takeover of the health care system.
Hutchison is challenging incumbent Republican Rick Perry for Texas' governorship and is a near certain vote against any Democratic health care plan. However, Senate leaders hope to persuade moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who voted for a Democratic bill in the Finance Committee, to back final legislation.
The Democratic measures would leave 12 million or more eligible Americans uninsured. Many middle-class families who'd now be required to buy coverage would still find the premiums a stretch, even with government aid. A new federal fund to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash.
For now, these bread-and-butter concerns take a back seat to more pressing issues for Democratic lawmakers trying to deliver on President Barack Obama's signature issue.
The House passed its health care bill 220-215 earlier this month. The Senate cleared the way Saturday for debate on legislation unveiled by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The bill, a compromise between two committee-passed versions, could undergo significant changes as senators amend it during weeks of arduous debate ahead.
Both bills would require all Americans to carry health insurance, with government help to make premiums more affordable. They would ban insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more to people with health problems. They would set up new insurance markets for those who now have the hardest time finding and keeping coverage — self-employed people and small businesses. Americans insured through big employer plans would gain new consumer protections but wouldn't face major changes. Seniors would get better prescription coverage.
"For the first time, we're going to allow American consumers to be involved in a buyers' market for health insurance," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., one of the authors of the Senate bill. "This Congress is going to pass, and this president is going to sign, a national health care program for all Americans."
Before any signing ceremony, lawmakers must clear some tall hurdles.
On abortion funding, the House adopted strict limitations as the price for getting anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the final bill. Abortion rights supporters are backing Reid's approach in the Senate bill, which tries to preserve coverage for abortion while stipulating that federal dollars may not be used except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
In the end, Reid may have to bend. Catholic bishops say they can't accept his approach because it would let federally subsidized plans cover abortion. They vow to oppose the health care bill unless, like the House, the Senate enacts stronger language. Democratic senators opposed to abortion are already threatening a battle.
On financing, the House relies mainly on an income tax hike for upper-earners to pay for expanded coverage. The Senate opted for a tax on high-cost insurance plans, a Medicare payroll tax hike on the wealthy and fees on medical industries. In polls, the House approach is more popular. The Obama administration has signaled it likes the Senate's insurance tax.
That leaves the controversy over a creating a government health plan to compete with the insurance industry. It has dominated the debate and remains unresolved.
Both House and Senate bills now provide for a government insurance plan, but Reid's bill would let states opt out. It's not clear that Reid has the votes. He may be able to get a compromise to allow a government plan only if, after a reasonable time, insurance companies fail to deliver lower premiums.
Resolving these policy issues would be a historic accomplishment for Democrats. But the bill could still leave consumers feeling a little cheated.
Schumer dueled with Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on a network morning news show in the wake of a key Senate vote Saturday night that advanced a 10-year, $959 billion health bill to full debate. Hutchison argued that "you're going to put taxes and mandates on business" that would be a drag on an economy still struggling to recover from recession.
Congressional Democrats are trying to resolve differences within their rank and file over abortion, taxes and letting the government sell health insurance as a competitor with private insurers. Those are all crucial policy questions, and House and Senate Democrats have taken conflicting approaches.
Appearing on NBC's "Today" show Monday, Schumer said, "We all know we have to give a little. ... If we don't do anything, that is the worst situation, and we have a good bill." He said lawmakers must come together because "the health care system is broken."
Schumer argued that Republican critics "haven't put any alternative on the floor."
Hutchison called it "a terrible idea at this time." She said that Republicans "have put alternatives on the floor," including individual tax credits that would not include cutting Medicare and permitting a government takeover of the health care system.
Hutchison is challenging incumbent Republican Rick Perry for Texas' governorship and is a near certain vote against any Democratic health care plan. However, Senate leaders hope to persuade moderate Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who voted for a Democratic bill in the Finance Committee, to back final legislation.
The Democratic measures would leave 12 million or more eligible Americans uninsured. Many middle-class families who'd now be required to buy coverage would still find the premiums a stretch, even with government aid. A new federal fund to provide temporary coverage for people with health problems would quickly run out of cash.
For now, these bread-and-butter concerns take a back seat to more pressing issues for Democratic lawmakers trying to deliver on President Barack Obama's signature issue.
The House passed its health care bill 220-215 earlier this month. The Senate cleared the way Saturday for debate on legislation unveiled by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The bill, a compromise between two committee-passed versions, could undergo significant changes as senators amend it during weeks of arduous debate ahead.
Both bills would require all Americans to carry health insurance, with government help to make premiums more affordable. They would ban insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more to people with health problems. They would set up new insurance markets for those who now have the hardest time finding and keeping coverage — self-employed people and small businesses. Americans insured through big employer plans would gain new consumer protections but wouldn't face major changes. Seniors would get better prescription coverage.
"For the first time, we're going to allow American consumers to be involved in a buyers' market for health insurance," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., one of the authors of the Senate bill. "This Congress is going to pass, and this president is going to sign, a national health care program for all Americans."
Before any signing ceremony, lawmakers must clear some tall hurdles.
On abortion funding, the House adopted strict limitations as the price for getting anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the final bill. Abortion rights supporters are backing Reid's approach in the Senate bill, which tries to preserve coverage for abortion while stipulating that federal dollars may not be used except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
In the end, Reid may have to bend. Catholic bishops say they can't accept his approach because it would let federally subsidized plans cover abortion. They vow to oppose the health care bill unless, like the House, the Senate enacts stronger language. Democratic senators opposed to abortion are already threatening a battle.
On financing, the House relies mainly on an income tax hike for upper-earners to pay for expanded coverage. The Senate opted for a tax on high-cost insurance plans, a Medicare payroll tax hike on the wealthy and fees on medical industries. In polls, the House approach is more popular. The Obama administration has signaled it likes the Senate's insurance tax.
That leaves the controversy over a creating a government health plan to compete with the insurance industry. It has dominated the debate and remains unresolved.
Both House and Senate bills now provide for a government insurance plan, but Reid's bill would let states opt out. It's not clear that Reid has the votes. He may be able to get a compromise to allow a government plan only if, after a reasonable time, insurance companies fail to deliver lower premiums.
Resolving these policy issues would be a historic accomplishment for Democrats. But the bill could still leave consumers feeling a little cheated.
Health reform: Is tax on 'Cadillac' plans fair?
Schoolteacher Kinzi Blair makes only $46,000 a year, but she has what many would consider a "Cadillac" health plan, now targeted for a big tax increase by health reformers.
She has $10 copays and no deductible. She gets generic prescription drugs for $10. Her plan covers mental health counseling, organ transplants, acupuncture. It covers speech therapy for preschoolers and in vitro fertilization.
Sound pretty good?
It surely must to millions of Americans who pay high deductibles, hundreds of dollars for prescription drugs or who have no insurance at all. Blair's circumstance illustrates the debate over taxes and fairness when it comes to health reform.
"For me, it's security," Blair says. "I'm thankful I'm in a job where there is health insurance."
Taxing plans like hers is unfair, says Blair, a kindergarten teacher in San Jose, Calif. Like 57 percent of Americans surveyed in a recent Associated Press poll, she favors a new income tax on wealthy Americans, which the House would impose in its bill to pay for expanding insurance coverage to millions.
But the Senate takes a different approach, including an unprecedented tax on the health insurance of people like Blair. The Senate plan would also increase the Medicare payroll tax for high-income Americans and tax elective cosmetic surgery.
The tax on high-dollar health plans would hit only a few very wealthy Americans and many more in the middle class, experts agree. But it also might bring down health care costs by discouraging companies from offering coverage with so many benefits.
Whatever method is chosen to pay for health reform, Congress and President Barack Obama must persuade Americans about its fairness. When it comes to taxes, Americans are hard to convince.
The Senate Democrats' bill, unveiled last week, would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance premiums above $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family. Those thresholds represent the total paid by both employer and employee.
Blair's premiums cost $11,000 so her insurance company would be taxed 40 percent of the premium that exceeds $8,500 — a total tax of $1,000.
The Senate bill also would increase the Medicare payroll tax to 1.95 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Most Americans don't know whether the tax on health plan premiums would hit them or not, says John Desser, a health policy adviser to John McCain during his presidential campaigns who now coordinates public policy for eHealth Inc., an online marketer of health insurance.
"I don't think most American have any idea what the cost of their premiums is. And I don't think most Americans know that the cost of their insurance could go up as a result of this legislation because we're making it more fair for people who have been treated unfairly in this system," Desser says.
The idea is that taxing high-cost health plans would discourage unnecessary health spending and pay for reform out of the health care system itself.
Blair's health plan would be taxed under the Cadillac tax proposal. Here's how her plan stacks up with an average one:
Blair's annual premium (paid entirely by her employer): $11,000.
Average U.S. premium for employer-sponsored individual plans (usually split between worker and employer): $4,824.
Blair's annual deductible: $0.
Average U.S. deductible for HMO plans: $699.
Blair's office visit copay: $10.
Average U.S. copay: $20.
The numbers cited above for employer-sponsored plans don't reflect people who buy their own health insurance. They usually buy plans with high deductibles, around $2,000, and low monthly premiums — that's the only way many people whose employers don't provide health benefits can afford insurance at all.
Many Americans never think about the fact that health insurance premiums are now tax-free by law. Employers don't pay taxes on what they contribute, nor do workers pay taxes on their portion of premiums. And self-employed workers can take a deduction for their premiums.
Tax-exempt health insurance is an accident of history. During World War II, the government froze wages, so employers lured workers with health benefits. Employers' contributions were made tax exempt. Congress later made sure the tax exemption became law.
The system has led to "bloated" health benefits for some with coverage for "in vitro fertilization, marriage counseling and acupuncture," says economist John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Dallas-based conservative think tank favors private solutions over government involvement.
Taxing wealthy Americans to pay for health care — as the House bill would do — is bad for the economy, Goodman said, because it would take money out of the system that could be used to invest in growing businesses.
Goodman doesn't like the Senate's proposed tax, either. He'd rather give everyone the same lump sum tax credit for core health insurance, as John McCain proposed when he was running for president, and let people use their taxed income to buy more insurance if they chose.
"The big mistake that Obama made in all of this is not explaining that we have a big mess on our hands and we ought to solve it in a way that, as much as possible, treats everybody the same," Goodman says.
One of the arguments for the Cadillac tax is that companies would spend their money to pay higher wages instead of providing rich benefits. Or so the thinking goes.
"The notion that there will be a corresponding increase in wages? You walk into a teachers' lounge or a break room in a factory and say that, you get laughed out of there. Maybe they'd chase you out of there," says Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn.
The House bill includes a 5.4 percent tax on individuals making more than $500,000 and families making more than $1 million. Courtney says that's the fair way to pay for reform.
"This is a slice of American society that has gotten a very good ride over the past 10 years," Courtney said.
Higher health insurance premiums in the Northeast have made many of Courtney's constituents potentially subject to the Cadillac tax. The Senate Finance proposal adjusts for some regional differences, but the adjustment is "feeble" and expires too soon, Courtney said. And he doesn't think a higher threshold for firefighters and others in risky jobs is high enough.
Losers would include small businesses and companies with older workers, says Paul Fronstin, director of health research for the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. Small businesses lack purchasing power and older workers drive up the cost of health premiums.
But the Cadillac tax does raise revenue, Fronstin says, "and it has to come from someplace if you want to pay for health reform."
Tax analysts for Congress say the 40 percent tax on very generous health plans likely would be passed on to consumers, in Blair's case raising her annual premiums by $1,000.
Or perhaps her benefits would be cut instead and she'd have a higher deductible and higher copays. She recently spent $50 on an emergency room copay after she sprained her ankle slipping in the dark on a phone book that had been delivered to her porch.
Blair was grateful then she had insurance. The ankle sprain reminded her what it was like to be uninsured when she was a preschool teacher in her 20s. She was afraid to go inline skating with friends back then.
"Is it going to get to the same point where I'm worried I can't go to the emergency room?" she says about rising premiums and copays.
She says she doesn't know the answers or what lawmakers should do. Is it possible to rebuild a health insurance system without some degree of tax unfairness? Or is somebody going to get hurt, no matter what, so that uninsured people, like she once was, can get coverage?
"It's definitely a fairness issue," she says.
She has $10 copays and no deductible. She gets generic prescription drugs for $10. Her plan covers mental health counseling, organ transplants, acupuncture. It covers speech therapy for preschoolers and in vitro fertilization.
Sound pretty good?
It surely must to millions of Americans who pay high deductibles, hundreds of dollars for prescription drugs or who have no insurance at all. Blair's circumstance illustrates the debate over taxes and fairness when it comes to health reform.
"For me, it's security," Blair says. "I'm thankful I'm in a job where there is health insurance."
Taxing plans like hers is unfair, says Blair, a kindergarten teacher in San Jose, Calif. Like 57 percent of Americans surveyed in a recent Associated Press poll, she favors a new income tax on wealthy Americans, which the House would impose in its bill to pay for expanding insurance coverage to millions.
But the Senate takes a different approach, including an unprecedented tax on the health insurance of people like Blair. The Senate plan would also increase the Medicare payroll tax for high-income Americans and tax elective cosmetic surgery.
The tax on high-dollar health plans would hit only a few very wealthy Americans and many more in the middle class, experts agree. But it also might bring down health care costs by discouraging companies from offering coverage with so many benefits.
Whatever method is chosen to pay for health reform, Congress and President Barack Obama must persuade Americans about its fairness. When it comes to taxes, Americans are hard to convince.
The Senate Democrats' bill, unveiled last week, would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance premiums above $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family. Those thresholds represent the total paid by both employer and employee.
Blair's premiums cost $11,000 so her insurance company would be taxed 40 percent of the premium that exceeds $8,500 — a total tax of $1,000.
The Senate bill also would increase the Medicare payroll tax to 1.95 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Most Americans don't know whether the tax on health plan premiums would hit them or not, says John Desser, a health policy adviser to John McCain during his presidential campaigns who now coordinates public policy for eHealth Inc., an online marketer of health insurance.
"I don't think most American have any idea what the cost of their premiums is. And I don't think most Americans know that the cost of their insurance could go up as a result of this legislation because we're making it more fair for people who have been treated unfairly in this system," Desser says.
The idea is that taxing high-cost health plans would discourage unnecessary health spending and pay for reform out of the health care system itself.
Blair's health plan would be taxed under the Cadillac tax proposal. Here's how her plan stacks up with an average one:
Blair's annual premium (paid entirely by her employer): $11,000.
Average U.S. premium for employer-sponsored individual plans (usually split between worker and employer): $4,824.
Blair's annual deductible: $0.
Average U.S. deductible for HMO plans: $699.
Blair's office visit copay: $10.
Average U.S. copay: $20.
The numbers cited above for employer-sponsored plans don't reflect people who buy their own health insurance. They usually buy plans with high deductibles, around $2,000, and low monthly premiums — that's the only way many people whose employers don't provide health benefits can afford insurance at all.
Many Americans never think about the fact that health insurance premiums are now tax-free by law. Employers don't pay taxes on what they contribute, nor do workers pay taxes on their portion of premiums. And self-employed workers can take a deduction for their premiums.
Tax-exempt health insurance is an accident of history. During World War II, the government froze wages, so employers lured workers with health benefits. Employers' contributions were made tax exempt. Congress later made sure the tax exemption became law.
The system has led to "bloated" health benefits for some with coverage for "in vitro fertilization, marriage counseling and acupuncture," says economist John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Dallas-based conservative think tank favors private solutions over government involvement.
Taxing wealthy Americans to pay for health care — as the House bill would do — is bad for the economy, Goodman said, because it would take money out of the system that could be used to invest in growing businesses.
Goodman doesn't like the Senate's proposed tax, either. He'd rather give everyone the same lump sum tax credit for core health insurance, as John McCain proposed when he was running for president, and let people use their taxed income to buy more insurance if they chose.
"The big mistake that Obama made in all of this is not explaining that we have a big mess on our hands and we ought to solve it in a way that, as much as possible, treats everybody the same," Goodman says.
One of the arguments for the Cadillac tax is that companies would spend their money to pay higher wages instead of providing rich benefits. Or so the thinking goes.
"The notion that there will be a corresponding increase in wages? You walk into a teachers' lounge or a break room in a factory and say that, you get laughed out of there. Maybe they'd chase you out of there," says Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn.
The House bill includes a 5.4 percent tax on individuals making more than $500,000 and families making more than $1 million. Courtney says that's the fair way to pay for reform.
"This is a slice of American society that has gotten a very good ride over the past 10 years," Courtney said.
Higher health insurance premiums in the Northeast have made many of Courtney's constituents potentially subject to the Cadillac tax. The Senate Finance proposal adjusts for some regional differences, but the adjustment is "feeble" and expires too soon, Courtney said. And he doesn't think a higher threshold for firefighters and others in risky jobs is high enough.
Losers would include small businesses and companies with older workers, says Paul Fronstin, director of health research for the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. Small businesses lack purchasing power and older workers drive up the cost of health premiums.
But the Cadillac tax does raise revenue, Fronstin says, "and it has to come from someplace if you want to pay for health reform."
Tax analysts for Congress say the 40 percent tax on very generous health plans likely would be passed on to consumers, in Blair's case raising her annual premiums by $1,000.
Or perhaps her benefits would be cut instead and she'd have a higher deductible and higher copays. She recently spent $50 on an emergency room copay after she sprained her ankle slipping in the dark on a phone book that had been delivered to her porch.
Blair was grateful then she had insurance. The ankle sprain reminded her what it was like to be uninsured when she was a preschool teacher in her 20s. She was afraid to go inline skating with friends back then.
"Is it going to get to the same point where I'm worried I can't go to the emergency room?" she says about rising premiums and copays.
She says she doesn't know the answers or what lawmakers should do. Is it possible to rebuild a health insurance system without some degree of tax unfairness? Or is somebody going to get hurt, no matter what, so that uninsured people, like she once was, can get coverage?
"It's definitely a fairness issue," she says.
The debt for U.S. hospitals
The hospitals in the U.S. will be undergoing some debt if cuts to Medicare go through. The reason for these cuts is due to the increase of costs in Medicare. On Saturday the U.S. Senate disputed the reform that the House of Representatives sent out two weeks earlier. But, these cuts to the hospitals will vary in different regions.
For further information:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9157185
For further information:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9157185
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
VOP fighting for Healthcare Reform
As most people know, change arises out of dedication and hard work. With this in mind, the members of the UMW chapter of the Virginia Organizing Project have been following these guidelines, along with the rest of the Organization, making strides towards health care reform in the state of Virginia. The UMW chapter is brand new to the Mary Washington campus this semester. The Virginia Organizing Project is a statewide organization that focuses on a variety of issues and was able to team up with the UMW chapter to conduct phone bankings. To read more about VOP and UMW chapter click the link provided below: http://umwbullet.com/2009/11/11/phone-banking-for-healthcare/
Virginia's Ranking
Virginia has consistently excelled in attracting competitive businesses to the state, remaining fiscally sound, and providing a high quality education to its children and young adults. For over 70 years, Virginia has maintained a AAA bond rating. In addition,
Virginia is ranked:
• #1 state for business [Forbes Magazine ]
• #8 nationally in per capita personal income ($42,876 a year in 2008)
• Best managed state [Governing Magazine ]
Yet, by many measures, Virginia has failed to achieve as much success in the availability and delivery of health care to its citizens. The Commonwealth lags behind many states in maintaining safety net protections and ensuring affordable private insurance options. To learn more click the link provided below:
http://www.havcare.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=eJLbYURv8RQ%3d&tabid=928&mid=2150
Virginia is ranked:
• #1 state for business [Forbes Magazine ]
• #8 nationally in per capita personal income ($42,876 a year in 2008)
• Best managed state [Governing Magazine ]
Yet, by many measures, Virginia has failed to achieve as much success in the availability and delivery of health care to its citizens. The Commonwealth lags behind many states in maintaining safety net protections and ensuring affordable private insurance options. To learn more click the link provided below:
http://www.havcare.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=eJLbYURv8RQ%3d&tabid=928&mid=2150
Virginia Citizens & Health care Providers
Virginia's Medicaid program contributes to cost shifting in the Commonwealth, because it does not provide adequate payment to our hospitals, physicians and nursing homes. This is not a sustainable model. HOSPITALS: Paid $.72 on the Dollar All of Virginia’s hospitals accept Medicaid patients. This year, Medicaid payments to hospitals were reduced. As a result, hospitals are now only compensated $.72 for every dollar of care provided. The graph illustrates the downward trend of underpayments. To learn more about provider information click the link provided below:
Provider Facts about Health care Insurance
WHAT is cost-shifting?
Cost shifting occurs when providers do not receive sufficient payment to cover what it costs them to render treatment, either because their patients are uninsured, or Medicaid payment is too low. This causes them to charge private insurers more than it costs to render treatment, thus “shifting” the cost burden. Cost shifting occurs everyday, in Virginia and nationwide. It is estimated that this added $1,107 to the cost of each family premium, and $368 to the cost of each individual premium throughout the country in 2008.
Importance of Healthcare for Children
Health care insurance is so important for our children. Well-child exams ensure they are developing on schedule and properly immunized. 32% of children without health insurance had no usual source of care in 2007. Uninsured children were also six times more likely to go without needed medical care because they could not afford it. There is a direct connection between health insurance and educational achievement. Uninsured children lose 30% more school days than insured children, resulting in lower academic performance.
Currently only 68% of Virginia’s children have private health insurance. Another 8% have military coverage. For more information on health care for children click the provided link below:
http://www.havcare.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gwHtQW3tDvw%3d&tabid=928&mid=2150
Currently only 68% of Virginia’s children have private health insurance. Another 8% have military coverage. For more information on health care for children click the provided link below:
http://www.havcare.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=gwHtQW3tDvw%3d&tabid=928&mid=2150
Health care for Parents
Health care insurance is important for parents because parents need to remain well and productive so they can effectively raise their children. A study by the Institute of Medicine found that working age Americans without health insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care and receive it too late; and they are more likely to be sicker and die sooner.
Parents with health care coverage are more likely to make sure their children obtain preventive and wellness services. Many of Virginia's working low income parents do not have health care insurance. In fact 44% of working, low-income adults in Virginia are uninsured. For more information about health care for parents visit the click provided below:
http://www.havcare.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AnLzzly8efM%3d&tabid=928&mid=2150
Parents with health care coverage are more likely to make sure their children obtain preventive and wellness services. Many of Virginia's working low income parents do not have health care insurance. In fact 44% of working, low-income adults in Virginia are uninsured. For more information about health care for parents visit the click provided below:
http://www.havcare.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AnLzzly8efM%3d&tabid=928&mid=2150
Monday, November 9, 2009
Affordable Health Care for America Act includes comprehensive reforms to created a transparent consumer-friendly insurance marketplace that protects consumers and provides them with choices among quality, affordable health care plans. the bill includes strong reforms to the insurance market so that consumers will be more secure in their health coverage.
Strengthening Primary Care
Primary care providers can provide lower-cost and higher-quality for many ailments. Affordable Health Care for America Act:
- Improves payments for family doctors and other primary care providers
- Increases training of primary care doctors
- Expands Community Health Centers
- Encourages physicians training outside the hospital, where most primary care is delivered
Lower Cost!
What the House care bill means for you:
- No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care (2013, 2010 for Medicare)
- Requires State Medicaid programs to cover preventative services recommended to the Secretary of HHS based on evidence.
- No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender or occupation
- An annual cap on your outof pocket expenses
- Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing and vision care for your kids
Thursday, November 5, 2009
60 Minutes on Healthcare with Steve Kroft
Last night on CBS’ 60 minutes show, Steve Kroft discusses and investigates Medicare and Medicaid fraud .
During the segment on healthcare, Steve Kroft discusses the severity of healthcare. President Obama stated that, “rising costs are driving huge federal budget deficits that imperil our future, and that there is enough waste and fraud in the system to pay for health care reform if it was eliminated.” Kroft discussed how “healthcare” is an industry .He talks about the unconsciousness of American taxpayers and how they have no knowledge of how they are being robbed. FBI Special Agent Brian Waterman, said that “the only visible evidence of the crimes are the thousands of tiny clinics and pharmacies that dot the low-rent strip malls”.
"You're wakin' up every day makin' $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. Every day, almost literally. And you're like 'Wow I just won the lottery,'" a man named "Tony" told Kroft. Before he (Tony) was brought down by the government he was making a lot of money using a fake medical supply company out of a building that were supposedly maunfacturing wheel chairs and to Medicare patients. He told Kroft he stole about $20 million from Medicare. He told Kroft it was "real easy." "And you're not exactly a criminal mastermind,Kroft asked. "No. No," Tony said. "No, not really. It's more like common sense." Kroft ended by saying that that he doesn’t like to refer to the healthcare industry as that because he feels that his health should be more than an industry.
During the segment on healthcare, Steve Kroft discusses the severity of healthcare. President Obama stated that, “rising costs are driving huge federal budget deficits that imperil our future, and that there is enough waste and fraud in the system to pay for health care reform if it was eliminated.” Kroft discussed how “healthcare” is an industry .He talks about the unconsciousness of American taxpayers and how they have no knowledge of how they are being robbed. FBI Special Agent Brian Waterman, said that “the only visible evidence of the crimes are the thousands of tiny clinics and pharmacies that dot the low-rent strip malls”.
"You're wakin' up every day makin' $20,000, $30,000, $40,000. Every day, almost literally. And you're like 'Wow I just won the lottery,'" a man named "Tony" told Kroft. Before he (Tony) was brought down by the government he was making a lot of money using a fake medical supply company out of a building that were supposedly maunfacturing wheel chairs and to Medicare patients. He told Kroft he stole about $20 million from Medicare. He told Kroft it was "real easy." "And you're not exactly a criminal mastermind,Kroft asked. "No. No," Tony said. "No, not really. It's more like common sense." Kroft ended by saying that that he doesn’t like to refer to the healthcare industry as that because he feels that his health should be more than an industry.
AARP and Health Care Reform
AARP will be supporting the health care reform bill that will possibly make it to the House floor this Saturday. But, while that will be going on by the democrats of the House, republicans are trying to throw it off it's trail by using public pressure as their tactic. The republicans have their own version of a health care reform bill drafted.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Healthy Market Competition
The Affordable Health Care for America Act will discourage excessive price increases by insurance companies by requiring disclosure and justification of insurance rate increases. The act will also promotes competition among health insurers and medical malpractice insurers by removing the antitrust exemption so that it no longer shields them from liability for price fixing, dividing up territories, or monopolizing their market. http://twitter.com/vaorganizepro
Affordable Health Care for America Act Promotes Competition
Insurance reforms and Health Insurance Exchange will promote healthy competition in the market. Affordable Health Care for America Act:
· Implements insurance reforms and standardized benefit packages that will require insurers to compete on the basis of price and quality, not on the basis of the medical underwriting of sicker patients.
· Establishes the Exchange, a transparent marketplace that replaces today’s dysfunctional small group and individual market, to lower administrative costs and provide incentives to insurers to maintain lower premiums in order to attract millions of Exchange enrollees.
· Injects further competitive pressure into the Exchange by adding a public health insurance option in many markets that have little competition.
· The public option will be a low cost, transparent insurance option that can exert price pressure on all other plans in the Exchange.
· Implements insurance reforms and standardized benefit packages that will require insurers to compete on the basis of price and quality, not on the basis of the medical underwriting of sicker patients.
· Establishes the Exchange, a transparent marketplace that replaces today’s dysfunctional small group and individual market, to lower administrative costs and provide incentives to insurers to maintain lower premiums in order to attract millions of Exchange enrollees.
· Injects further competitive pressure into the Exchange by adding a public health insurance option in many markets that have little competition.
· The public option will be a low cost, transparent insurance option that can exert price pressure on all other plans in the Exchange.
Strengthening Primary Care
Primary care providers can provide lower-cost and higher-quality care for many ailments. Affordable Health Care for America:
· Improves payments for family doctors and other primary care providers
· Increase training of primary care doctors
· Expands Community Health Centers.
· Encourages physician training outside the hospital, where most primary care is delivered.
· Improves payments for family doctors and other primary care providers
· Increase training of primary care doctors
· Expands Community Health Centers.
· Encourages physician training outside the hospital, where most primary care is delivered.
Health Care Reform: Prevention & Wellness Programs
Benjamin Franklin was right- “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Prevention and wellness programs will help Americans live longer, healthier lives, and help reduce the need for more costly treatments of health conditions later in life. Affordable Health Care for America Act:
· Eliminates patient co-pays for preventive services in Medicare, Medicaid, and private plan
· Creates community-based programs that deliver prevention and wellness services
· Creates a new grant program to encourage small employers to develop employee wellness programs
· Invests in the science of prevention so that physicians know which preventive treatments work best
· Eliminates patient co-pays for preventive services in Medicare, Medicaid, and private plan
· Creates community-based programs that deliver prevention and wellness services
· Creates a new grant program to encourage small employers to develop employee wellness programs
· Invests in the science of prevention so that physicians know which preventive treatments work best
Improving Accuracy & Eliminating Waste
In trying to get health care costs under control, it’s important that we know what we-re paying for. That means cracking down on waste, fraud, abuse, and making sure that payments are made accurately and for the right services and coverage. Affordable Health Care for America Act:
· Improves screening and requires providers and suppliers to adopt compliance programs as a condition of participating in Medicare and Medicaid
· Increase funding for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Fund to fight Medicare and Medicaid fraud
· Eliminates wasteful overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans that increase private plan profits, not patient care
· Improves payment accuracy for numerous other providers, following recommendations by the non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
· Requires drug and device companies to disclose their payments to physicians to reduce excessive utilization of services
· Improves screening and requires providers and suppliers to adopt compliance programs as a condition of participating in Medicare and Medicaid
· Increase funding for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Fund to fight Medicare and Medicaid fraud
· Eliminates wasteful overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans that increase private plan profits, not patient care
· Improves payment accuracy for numerous other providers, following recommendations by the non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
· Requires drug and device companies to disclose their payments to physicians to reduce excessive utilization of services
VOP & Twitter
The Virginia Organizing Project is now on Twitter. Follow us for all your latest health care reform organizing and information. http://twitter.com/vaorganizepro
More Efficient Delivery Of Health Care
Delivery reform means making sure that the right patient gets the right treatment at the right time in the most efficient way possible. This bill includes reforms in Medicare that will reward the quality of care, not the quantity of care. Affordable Health Care for America Act:
· Creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmissions. Those incentives reward transition planning and coordination for patients who move from a hospital back home or to another facility.
· Encourages the formation of Accountable Care Organizations that allow hospitals and doctors to work together to manage and coordinate care.
· Advances “bundling” payment methodology under which one payment would be made- rather than separate payments- to any combination of physicians, acute or post-acute providers.
· Promotes patient-centered medical homes that encourage primary care providers to manage and coordinate their patients’ care over time.
· Ensures that physicians and nurses have access to the most accurate and up-to-date research when making treatment decisions.
· Builds productivity adjustments into provider payment systems, encouraging providers to improve efficiency on pace with the rest of the economy.
http://twitter.com/vaorganizepro
· Creates incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmissions. Those incentives reward transition planning and coordination for patients who move from a hospital back home or to another facility.
· Encourages the formation of Accountable Care Organizations that allow hospitals and doctors to work together to manage and coordinate care.
· Advances “bundling” payment methodology under which one payment would be made- rather than separate payments- to any combination of physicians, acute or post-acute providers.
· Promotes patient-centered medical homes that encourage primary care providers to manage and coordinate their patients’ care over time.
· Ensures that physicians and nurses have access to the most accurate and up-to-date research when making treatment decisions.
· Builds productivity adjustments into provider payment systems, encouraging providers to improve efficiency on pace with the rest of the economy.
http://twitter.com/vaorganizepro
Vital Reform
Finding savings in the current health care system is not about paying for reform in the short-term. It’s about controlling unsustainable health care costs in the long run or “bending the curve” on healthcare spending. We cannot keep adding patients to a broken system. Without controlling health care costs, families will continue to be burdened with higher premiums, businesses will be forced to drop coverage or lay off workers, and our national and state budgets will be fiscally unsustainable.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicare reforms in this bill will save more than $500 billion over the next ten years. In addition, many of the reforms to the health care system are designed to create long-term savings like preventive care and research, but will not be counted by CBO. All of these reforms are critical to the long-term sustainability of our health care system.
www.virginia-organizing.org
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicare reforms in this bill will save more than $500 billion over the next ten years. In addition, many of the reforms to the health care system are designed to create long-term savings like preventive care and research, but will not be counted by CBO. All of these reforms are critical to the long-term sustainability of our health care system.
www.virginia-organizing.org
Healthcare For America NOW!
No more lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will pay (2013) Employers are required to offer coverage to their workers and their worker’s families with minimum contributions and meet standards for that coverage or pay a penalty of 8% of their payroll to help offset the cost of their workers obtaining coverage through the Exchange. (2013) Establishes a list of ‘minimum services to be covered’ in all plans which are referred to as the ‘essential benefits’ including, Inpatient hospital service, outpatient hospital services, physician services, equipment and supplies incident to physician services, preventive services, maternity services, and prescription drugs. (Takes effect 2013 inside exchange and 2018 for employers outside exchange)
More Peace of Mind to put You at Ease
Rate review to prevent insurers from price gouging. Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases. (2010)
Allows individuals to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is up and running. (2010)
Immediate help for the uninsured. Creates a fund to finance an immediate, temporary insurance program for those who are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. (2010)
Provides for a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the Part D donut hole, and immediately shrinks the size of the donut hole $500 in 2010.
Allows individuals to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is up and running. (2010)
Immediate help for the uninsured. Creates a fund to finance an immediate, temporary insurance program for those who are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. (2010)
Provides for a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the Part D donut hole, and immediately shrinks the size of the donut hole $500 in 2010.
Healthcare: Greater Choices and Higher Quality
Greater Choice (These Provisions begin in 2013)
· Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them
· The choice of a public health insurance plan option, available across the country
· The public plan will be required to meet the same benefit requirements, and comply with the same insurance market reforms as private plans.
· Plan premiums would vary by geographic area based on costs in the local markets.
· Individuals in the exchange, including individuals eligible for affordability credits, can choose among the private insurers and the public option.
Higher Quality
· Strengthen and expand programs that promote diversity in the health workforce. (2012)
· Require HHS Secretary to identify key health and health care disparities as part of a National Prevention and Wellness Strategy initiative. (2012)
· Direct the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services to take relevant health and health care disparities into account as they develop and disseminate evidence-based recommendations on the use of preventive services. (2013)
· Target at least half of the funding in a new grants program for the delivery of preventive health services at the community level to proposals with the primary purpose of addressing health care disparities. Eligible grantees include “health empowerment zones”, areas in which a community partnership provides multiple preventive health services. (2013)
· Enhance the scholarship programs for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. (2012)
· Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them
· The choice of a public health insurance plan option, available across the country
· The public plan will be required to meet the same benefit requirements, and comply with the same insurance market reforms as private plans.
· Plan premiums would vary by geographic area based on costs in the local markets.
· Individuals in the exchange, including individuals eligible for affordability credits, can choose among the private insurers and the public option.
Higher Quality
· Strengthen and expand programs that promote diversity in the health workforce. (2012)
· Require HHS Secretary to identify key health and health care disparities as part of a National Prevention and Wellness Strategy initiative. (2012)
· Direct the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services to take relevant health and health care disparities into account as they develop and disseminate evidence-based recommendations on the use of preventive services. (2013)
· Target at least half of the funding in a new grants program for the delivery of preventive health services at the community level to proposals with the primary purpose of addressing health care disparities. Eligible grantees include “health empowerment zones”, areas in which a community partnership provides multiple preventive health services. (2013)
· Enhance the scholarship programs for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. (2012)
House Care Bill means to You
Lower Costs
· No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care (2013, 2010 for Medicare)
· Requires State Medicaid programs to cover preventive services recommended to the Secretary of HHS based on evidence. (2010)
· No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation (2013)
· An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses (2013)
· Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids (2013)
Stability & Peace of Mind
· No more coverage denials for pre-existing conditions. (2013)
· Insurers cannot consider pre-existing conditions beyond 30 days. (2010)
· The waiting period for excluding certain benefits is reduced from 12 months to 3 months. (2010)
· No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care (2013, 2010 for Medicare)
· Requires State Medicaid programs to cover preventive services recommended to the Secretary of HHS based on evidence. (2010)
· No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation (2013)
· An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses (2013)
· Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids (2013)
Stability & Peace of Mind
· No more coverage denials for pre-existing conditions. (2013)
· Insurers cannot consider pre-existing conditions beyond 30 days. (2010)
· The waiting period for excluding certain benefits is reduced from 12 months to 3 months. (2010)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
House Democrats Unveil $894 Billion Health Care Bill
The battle over health care reform reached another milestone Thursday as top House Democrats unveiled sweeping legislation that includes a highly controversial public health insurance option. The nearly 2,000-page bill -- a combination of three versions passed by House committees -- would cost $894 billion over 10 years to extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
However, the bill's total cost, including Medicare changes, is expected to be higher and could push the price tag over $1 trillion, according to an initial CNN analysis. The bill guarantees that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, Pelosi stated. The claim is based on an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. To learn more about this article click below: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/index.html
However, the bill's total cost, including Medicare changes, is expected to be higher and could push the price tag over $1 trillion, according to an initial CNN analysis. The bill guarantees that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, Pelosi stated. The claim is based on an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. To learn more about this article click below: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/index.html
Advantages & Disadvantages of Health care Insurance
Basically there two types of catastrophic insurance plans: one is comprehensive and the other one is supplement plan. The comprehensive Catastrophic Health Insurance mostly covers the conventional health care and health care amenities in an emergency like hiring an ambulance. On the other hand, the supplement insurance cover caters to the requirements such as psychiatric treatment and nursing care. Under both these insurance covers, after paying the deductible, the total liability of the major part of the medical costs on the treatment of insured is met by the insurance provider. Read more at:
http://ehcsib.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-catastrophic-health-insurance-plans/
http://ehcsib.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-catastrophic-health-insurance-plans/
How to Afford Cheap Health care Insurance
If you need to purchase individual health insurance, it can be expensive. Unlike group plans, in which the costs and risks associated with health care are spread among many people; individual health policies are “medically underwritten” to take into account your personal health history. Any “pre-existing” condition such as heart disease, diabetes, and even pregnancy, can nix your chances of acceptance or boost your premiums.
To determine the acceptability of a particular applicant, a health insurance underwriter can require information regarding the following:
The individual’s age: Age determines rates and whether coverage will be issued at all.
The individual’s gender: at younger ages, males have a lower rate of illness and injury than females. That changes by age sixty. To read more about this article click link below: http://www.yourdailyhealthtips.com/health-insurance/cheap-health-insurance-made-easy.html
To determine the acceptability of a particular applicant, a health insurance underwriter can require information regarding the following:
The individual’s age: Age determines rates and whether coverage will be issued at all.
The individual’s gender: at younger ages, males have a lower rate of illness and injury than females. That changes by age sixty. To read more about this article click link below: http://www.yourdailyhealthtips.com/health-insurance/cheap-health-insurance-made-easy.html
How to Obtain Medical Insurance After Cancer
Cancer is a leading disease but fortunately it is becoming more treatable and numerous more people are surviving. Regretfully getting health care insurance after cancer is not easy. Group coverage is the best option for those who have cancer and are already insured. The prices will be less expensive and coverage will most likely be maintained by a large company rather than with an individual policy, but this option is not always available to everyone. Another option which is made available by numerous states are risk pools which are a good way for those with cancer to get insured. Risk pools are designed so that they provide coverage to those considered uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. Requirements must be met and premiums must be paid, but it is a good chance that health care insurance after cancer coverage will be granted with risk pools. To read this article click link below:
http://dentalinsuranceatoz.com/how-to-obtain-medical-insurance-after-cancer/
http://dentalinsuranceatoz.com/how-to-obtain-medical-insurance-after-cancer/
Crushed with Cancer & No Insurance
In West Palm Beach, Florida, Leslie Elder's eyelids fluttered open, and through the fog of pain medication, saw the emergency room doctors pull back the curtain in her room. She could tell that the news was bad. They told her she had a tumor in both her left and right kidneys.
The words "You have a tumor" were not new to Elder however; her grim financial situation was.
Elder had cancer twice before in 1988, when doctors found a tumor in her right breast, and again in 2001, when doctors found one in her left breast; except back then she was insured. By the time she learned that she had kidney cancer in September 2005, she was uninsured.
Elder and her husband, Jim, say their health insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance, forced them into an impossible situation by raising the rates on their policy over several years. Eventually, they were forced to cancel. To learn more about this story click the link provided below:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/13/cancer.insurance.finances/index.html
The words "You have a tumor" were not new to Elder however; her grim financial situation was.
Elder had cancer twice before in 1988, when doctors found a tumor in her right breast, and again in 2001, when doctors found one in her left breast; except back then she was insured. By the time she learned that she had kidney cancer in September 2005, she was uninsured.
Elder and her husband, Jim, say their health insurance carrier, Nationwide Insurance, forced them into an impossible situation by raising the rates on their policy over several years. Eventually, they were forced to cancel. To learn more about this story click the link provided below:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/13/cancer.insurance.finances/index.html
Small Businesses Support Health care Reform
We’re seeing more and more of Virginia's small businesses demanding their voice be heard on health reform. A recent survey of 200 small businesses in Virginia found that most think health insurance reform is important and most support a public option. The results of the survey are listed below:
66 percent said health-care reform is important for getting the economy back on track.
46 percent said they pay for health insurance for employees. Of those, 76 percent said they struggle to do so.
79 percent support choice of a public or private plan; 13 percent want private-only options; 5 percent prefer only a public option.
39 percent identified themselves as Republican, 23 percent as Democrat and 28 percent as independent.
59 percent believe their company has a responsibility to offer health coverage to employees.
To learn more about this article click link provided below:
http://www.virginiainterfaithcenter.org/Default.aspx?tabid=485&EntryID=89
66 percent said health-care reform is important for getting the economy back on track.
46 percent said they pay for health insurance for employees. Of those, 76 percent said they struggle to do so.
79 percent support choice of a public or private plan; 13 percent want private-only options; 5 percent prefer only a public option.
39 percent identified themselves as Republican, 23 percent as Democrat and 28 percent as independent.
59 percent believe their company has a responsibility to offer health coverage to employees.
To learn more about this article click link provided below:
http://www.virginiainterfaithcenter.org/Default.aspx?tabid=485&EntryID=89
Nursing Home Industry Scares Senior Citizens
An influential Medicare advocacy group has called out a large skilled nursing home corporation for going into its facilities and scaring elderly residents into thinking their healthcare benefits will be worse if health reform provisions in H.R. 3200 are voted into law.
"The nursing home industry is scaring residents, telling them that healthcare reform will lead to poorer quality of care and the loss of the staff who provide them with essential care each day," says the Center for Medicare Advocacy's senior policy attorney Toby S. Edelman. "This outrageous misinformation campaign must stop." Click link to read article:
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/239622/page/1/topic/WS_HLM2_FIN/Nursing-Home-Industry-Frightening-Seniors-Against-Health-Reform-Says-Medicare-Group.html
"The nursing home industry is scaring residents, telling them that healthcare reform will lead to poorer quality of care and the loss of the staff who provide them with essential care each day," says the Center for Medicare Advocacy's senior policy attorney Toby S. Edelman. "This outrageous misinformation campaign must stop." Click link to read article:
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/239622/page/1/topic/WS_HLM2_FIN/Nursing-Home-Industry-Frightening-Seniors-Against-Health-Reform-Says-Medicare-Group.html
Monday, November 2, 2009
Benedict Event
one of the speakers at the benedict health care/restoration of rights event
Virginia Organizing Project
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Healthcare & America
Healthcare is such an important topic in todays society. I actually never knew that a majority of college students do not have healthcare. A lot of people have Medicaid, however Medicaid IS NOT healthcare. There are many myths and truths about healthcare that people do not know. A majority of working Americans will continue to receive their healthcare through their employer says www.aarp.org. Here are some pointers about healthcare. Healthcare reform isn’t about a government takeover. Its about guaranteeing all Americans a choice of Healthcare plans they can afford. Healthcare reform will help ensure doctors are paid fairly so that they will continue to treat Medicare patients. None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services. For more information see www.aarp.com
Monday, October 26, 2009
Healthcare Forum @ VSU
On Thursday Oct. 22 the NOW! group held a forum in the basement of Byrd Residence Hall. The purpose of the forum was to bring awareness of Healthcare Reform to students of Virginia State University. VOP representative, Cathy Woodson, and SGA President, Cassandra Campbell, spoke to interested VSU students who wanted to gain more insight about the needed attention that this Healthcare reform needs. During the course of the forum, group members from NOW! conducted surveys as well as having the students participate in the phone banking.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
VOP Racial Profiling Campaign Update
Racial profiling and other biased policing practices are issues of concern to people of color around the Commonwealth. African-American, Latino, South Asian and other groups are concerned about this issue every time they drive a car, and even more so when their children begin to drive. Racial profiling is the result of patterns, often unconscious, that are in the minds of law enforcement officers before they even begin their careers, and that current training is not enough to get rid of. To learn more about racial profiling click the link below: http://www.virginia-organizing.org/campaign/racial_profiling_update.php
Over 500 Groups Demand End To Local Immigration Checks
Since taking office, the Obama Administration has been doing a carefully choreographed dance with both sides of the immigration debate in an attempt to place itself in a "sweet spot" where it believes it will be able to appease all concerned parties when the thorny issue of immigration reform finally moves up the legislative agenda. http://migramatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/over-500-groups-demand-end-to-local.html
Rural Virginians talk health care to Congress
Rural Virginians cleared the air about their position on health-care reform at the “Rural Issues in Health Care Reform” congressional briefing hosted this week by Reps. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) also spoke at the briefing. http://augustafreepress.com/2009/10/02/rural-virginians-talk-health-care-to-congress/
Virginia Lags in Restoration of Felons' Civic Rights
Convicted felons in Virginia who want their rights back must petition the governor in what can be a lengthy process. Once they are out of prison and off probation, there's a waiting period of three years for nonviolent offenders and five years for violent offenders and drug dealers.
Although the governor has the power to restore most civil rights, felons still are prohibited from owning a gun. Once someone has his other rights restored by the governor, he can ask a circuit court judge for permission to have a gun. Restoring the rights of felons is left to the sole discretion of the governor, and the number of such actions has varied widely from administration to administration. Click link below to learn more about this story: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/218048
Although the governor has the power to restore most civil rights, felons still are prohibited from owning a gun. Once someone has his other rights restored by the governor, he can ask a circuit court judge for permission to have a gun. Restoring the rights of felons is left to the sole discretion of the governor, and the number of such actions has varied widely from administration to administration. Click link below to learn more about this story: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/218048
2009 Virginia Votes
The 2009 VirginiaVoting information gives Virginians all the needed information for
deadlines, election information,voters’ rights and responsibilities, regaining voting rights after a felony conviction and your local voter registration offices. In addition, the guide is filled with issues that affect you and fellow Virginians. We’re all in this together so check out more about Virginia Votes 2009 handbook! http://www.virginia-organizing.org/voterg.pdf
deadlines, election information,voters’ rights and responsibilities, regaining voting rights after a felony conviction and your local voter registration offices. In addition, the guide is filled with issues that affect you and fellow Virginians. We’re all in this together so check out more about Virginia Votes 2009 handbook! http://www.virginia-organizing.org/voterg.pdf
Thursday, October 15, 2009
VOP in Southwest VA
Knocking on thousands of doors in one summer can really help change some power dynamics in the state of Virginia. Southwest Virginia VOP members are already seeing this new dynamic in action as they meet, and schedule meetings with, local elected officials this fall. Legislators have been much quicker to return calls to schedule the meetings and have been very interested in what thousands of people VOP talked to in their districts are saying are the major community issues. VOP members and allies have already had meetings with Senator Phillip Puckett in Russell County and Delegate Anne Crockett-Stark in Wytheville to talk about the summer project, local issues, and our statewide campaigns on health care and car title lending. For more information about VOP’s organizing in Southwest Virginia contact Brian Johns at bjohns@virginia-organizing.org or (276) 619-1920 http://www.virginia-organizing.org/magazine/fall08_southern.php
Payday Lending Fact Sheet
The payday lender must give you at least two pay periods to repay your loan.If you are paid weekly or more often, the payday lender must give you at least 14 days to repay your loan. If you are paid every two weeks, your minimum loan term is 28 days. If you are paid twice a month, your minimum loan term is 31 days. If you are paid monthly or use your monthly benefit payments to get your loan, your minimum loan term is 62 days.A payday lender cannot make a loan to you if you already have an unpaid loan from any payday lender. For more information on your rights when borrowing money visithttp://www.virginia-organizing.org/magazine/fall08_what.php
Lobbying and Politics
The lobbyist enters the dark, smoke-filled room with pockets full of cash. The fat politician waits with a greedy grin, ready to vote for a sweet deal for the power behind the lobbyist. We’ve all seen this in the cartoons in the newspaper. Sometimes that picture is not so far from the truth. But lobbying is not quite that simple. We all know our political system directly affects our economic system. But how does lobbying fit in? The answer depends on your understanding of economics. There are many functions of lobbying such as free market and conflict theory. For more information on lobbying and our poliitical system click link below:http://www.virginia-organizing.org/articles/lobbying.php
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Health Care Reform Awareness at VSU
The Virginia Organizing Project along with Virginia State University Mass Communication students will host a health care reform awareness campaign on the VSU campus during the month of October. The health care reform campaign will begin with a health care forum on October 22, 2009 in the basement of Byrd Hall at eight p.m.
The purpose of this health care reform campaign is to create awareness among Virginia State University students, faculty and staff about health care reform. The week will conclude with a health care reform walk, phone banking and conducting surveys around the VSU campus testing students’ knowledge on health care.
The purpose of this health care reform campaign is to create awareness among Virginia State University students, faculty and staff about health care reform. The week will conclude with a health care reform walk, phone banking and conducting surveys around the VSU campus testing students’ knowledge on health care.
Just The Facts!!!
The Virginia Organizing Project, VOP, is a statewide multi-issue citizens' organization committed to challenging injustice by empowering people in local communities to address issues that affect the quality of their lives.
What type of issues does the Virginia Organizing Project campaign for?
The Virginia Organizing Project campaigns on issues of child care, economic security, education, environment, health care, immigrants and worker rights, leadership development, youth, racism, sexual orientation discrimination and voter registration and mobilization.
How long has the Virginia Organizing Project been an existence?
Since 1995, VOP has intentionally involved people who have never participated in working for change alongside those with many years of experience. VOP is intentionally diverse in its leadership development, and attempts to cultivate democratic skills amongst people who, regardless of differences in race, gender, class, sexual orientation, age, occupation, religion, geographic location or ability, believe in the importance of working through local, grassroots communities to ensure a better quality of life for all Virginia's residents.
What is the Virginia Organizing Projects’ motto?
“Real People, Dealing with Real Problems, Working for Real Solutions”
What other type of projects does the Virginia Organizing Project conduct?
The Virginia Organizing Project has entered into a Joint Plan of Work with a wide variety of organizations in the following areas: Environment, Human Rights, Transportation and Community Support.
How does one learn more about the Virginia Organizing Project?
The Virginia Organizing Project website is www.virginia-organizing.org. The Virginia Organizing Project also has a blog site at www.virginiaorganizing.blogspot.com.
What type of issues does the Virginia Organizing Project campaign for?
The Virginia Organizing Project campaigns on issues of child care, economic security, education, environment, health care, immigrants and worker rights, leadership development, youth, racism, sexual orientation discrimination and voter registration and mobilization.
How long has the Virginia Organizing Project been an existence?
Since 1995, VOP has intentionally involved people who have never participated in working for change alongside those with many years of experience. VOP is intentionally diverse in its leadership development, and attempts to cultivate democratic skills amongst people who, regardless of differences in race, gender, class, sexual orientation, age, occupation, religion, geographic location or ability, believe in the importance of working through local, grassroots communities to ensure a better quality of life for all Virginia's residents.
What is the Virginia Organizing Projects’ motto?
“Real People, Dealing with Real Problems, Working for Real Solutions”
What other type of projects does the Virginia Organizing Project conduct?
The Virginia Organizing Project has entered into a Joint Plan of Work with a wide variety of organizations in the following areas: Environment, Human Rights, Transportation and Community Support.
How does one learn more about the Virginia Organizing Project?
The Virginia Organizing Project website is www.virginia-organizing.org. The Virginia Organizing Project also has a blog site at www.virginiaorganizing.blogspot.com.
Monday, September 28, 2009
VOP Upcoming Events
The Virginia Organizing Project has many events scheduled during the months of October and November. On October 1st in Washington, D.C. there will be a Rural Health Reform dialogue with 5th District Congressman Tom Perriello. The Urban Rural Learning Linkage Living Institute International will provide help with transportation for volenteers interested in attending. On November 6th at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Charlottesville there will be a Social Justice Bowl VI. This is a community-building soup and bread supper and those who attend receive handcrafted bowls made by local potters. This is a fun event which honors people who have done excellent social justice work in our community. For more information on VOP upcoming events, click link here: http://www.virginia-organizing.org/calendar.php
Virginia Organizing Project Motto
“Real People, Dealing with Real Problems, Working for Real Solutions” is the motto of the VOP. We believe that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of life, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, ability or country of origin.We believe that every person in the Commonwealth is entitled to a living wage and benefit package that is sufficient to provide the basic necessities of life, including adequate housing, a nutritious diet, proper child care, sound mental and physical health care, and a secure retirement. We believe that every person is entitled to an equal educational opportunity. Click the link below to learn more about VOP statements of beliefs:http://www.virginia-organizing.org/principles.php
Sunday, September 20, 2009
What We Do
The Virginia Organizing Project deal with many public policy campaigns. Racial profiling, health care reform, predatory lending and tax reform are just a few of the many campaigns. For more information on the VOP and the VOP public policies campaigns click link provided below: http://www.virginia-organizing.org/what_we_do.php
VOP memebers speaks out about Organizing
Members of the Virginia Organizing Project Jay Johnson, Denise Smith and Jason Guard speaks out about organizing and the responsibilities that come with the job. Click link to view video footage of members speaking out about organizing http://www.virginia-organizing.org/organizers_speak.php
Intern Program for the VOP
VOP is a statewide grassroots social justice organization that works on multiple issues with a diverse group of people. VOP is seeking applicants willing to work as interns across the state of Virginia. Interns will assist VOP with a variety of tasks related to VOP's public policy reform priorities and local campaigns. To learn more on how to become an intern for VOP and to download an application click the link provided here: http://www.virginia-organizing.org/internship.php
Saturday, September 19, 2009
VOP ON FACEBOOK
The Virginia Organizing Project - VOP - is a statewide grassroots organization decicated to challenging injustice by empowering people in local communities. Join VOP on facebook for updates on policy awareness. http://www.facebook.com/group/php?gid=23840147519
Status of VOP
The Virginia Organizing Project is a grassroots organization on the move. In 2009 VOP interns, volunteers and staff went door-to-door across Virginia, talking to people about health care reform and leaving door hangers asking people to call their representatives to take action this year.VOP organized health care forums, rallies and press conferences across the state, including in Wise, Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, Roanoke, Harrisonburg, and Williamsburg in which people told their health care stories to legislators and demanded quality, accessible health care for everyone. VOP has been able to organize and produce poductivity to the fight of giving everyday citizens a voice. For more VOP status from 2008-2009 click link: http://www.virginia-organizing.org/what_we_do.php#12
Obama's Healthcare Insurance Reform Plan
Some Americans are confused as to what exactly is President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan. The President's plan clearly outlines his policy if you have healthcare insurance, if you do not have healthcare insurance and his plan for all Americans. click link to learn more about Pres. Obama's healthcare insurance reform plan. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hcsignon/?source=OM_LB_google_HC-search_hreform_tc&gclid=CPXBivPt_pwCFVRM5QodAUFhbg
I Support The Employee Free Choice Act
Taimer Singleton, Virginia State University student, supports the Employee Free Choice Act. Singleton recently wrote a letter to our VOP editor Julie Blust.
I am writing to voice my support for the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 560, H.R. 1409) which has recently been reintroduced in Congress. We need the Employee Free Choice Act to offset rising health care costs, home foreclosures, stagnant wages, and shrinking retirement plans. To revive the economy and rebuild the middle class in the long term, we need to empower workers to bargain for better wages and benefits. The Employee Free Choice Act will strengthen penalties against employers who break the law. The act strengthens workers’ ability to achieve a first contract within a reasonable period of time. The act gives workers a free choice and a fair path to choose to form a union.The Employee Free Choice Act is a critical piece of our economic recovery. I'm confident you'll continue to represent the best interests of workers in your district by supporting it. Scroll down to Employee Free Choice Day of Action. click link here:http://www.virginia-organizing.org/media_releases.php#68
I am writing to voice my support for the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 560, H.R. 1409) which has recently been reintroduced in Congress. We need the Employee Free Choice Act to offset rising health care costs, home foreclosures, stagnant wages, and shrinking retirement plans. To revive the economy and rebuild the middle class in the long term, we need to empower workers to bargain for better wages and benefits. The Employee Free Choice Act will strengthen penalties against employers who break the law. The act strengthens workers’ ability to achieve a first contract within a reasonable period of time. The act gives workers a free choice and a fair path to choose to form a union.The Employee Free Choice Act is a critical piece of our economic recovery. I'm confident you'll continue to represent the best interests of workers in your district by supporting it. Scroll down to Employee Free Choice Day of Action. click link here:http://www.virginia-organizing.org/media_releases.php#68
Letter to the Editor
Virginia Organzing Project member Tammi Nichols writes a letter to the editor voicing her support for the Employee Free Choice Act.I am writing to voice my support for the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 560, H.R. 1409) which has recently been reintroduced in Congress. The economic tailspin has put the middle class, our country's backbone, in peril. Rising health care costs, home foreclosures, stagnant wages, and shrinking retirement plans are all taking a huge toll. To revive the economy and rebuild the middle class in the long term, we need to empower workers to bargain for better wages and benefits. The Employee Free Choice Act will do just that - allowing workers to form a union when a majority of them want one. It will also stiffen penalties on employers who harass, intimidate, and fire workers for their support of a union.The Employee Free Choice Act is a critical piece of our economic recovery. I'm confident you'll continue to represent the best interests of workers in your district by supporting it. Scroll down to Employee Free Choice Day of Action. click link: http://sumofchange.com/index.html
Voter Education - Voter Registration - Restoration of Rights
The Virginia Organizing Project is pushing for reform. The Civic Engagement and Education event VOTER EDUCATION ~ VOTER REGISTRATION~ RESTORATION OF RIGHTS
Petersburg Chapter is SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 11:00 am - 2:00 pm. Everyone is welcome to come to 500 FLEET STREET, BENEDICT CLUB, PETERSBURG VA SPONSORS INCLUDE VIRGINIA ORGANIZING PROJECT, DELTA SIGMA THETA PETERSBURG ALUMNI CHAPTER, STREET CERTIFIED, PRINCE GEORGE-HOPEWELL VOLUNTEERS FOR CHANGE AND JIM WILLIAMS.
Petersburg Chapter is SEPTEMBER 26, 2009 11:00 am - 2:00 pm. Everyone is welcome to come to 500 FLEET STREET, BENEDICT CLUB, PETERSBURG VA SPONSORS INCLUDE VIRGINIA ORGANIZING PROJECT, DELTA SIGMA THETA PETERSBURG ALUMNI CHAPTER, STREET CERTIFIED, PRINCE GEORGE-HOPEWELL VOLUNTEERS FOR CHANGE AND JIM WILLIAMS.
ARRESTED for asking about HIGH INSURANCE RATES
Joe Szakos leads the Virginia Organizing Project, an almost fifteen year-old community organization that Health Care for America Now works with in Virginia to organize for health care reform. Szakos's organization employs dozens of people, and they get their health care through Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
This year, Szakos was informed that Anthem was going to increase the premiums on Virginia Organizing Project's health plan by 14.1%. Szakos immediately had questions. His first question was why Anthem using its resources to lobby against health care reform with a public health insurance option while at the same time increasing rates by 14.1%? When Szakos went to speak with Anthem about the matter he was arrested. Shocking but true, to view video footage click here: http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/09/17/for-asking-why-your-insurance-rates-increase-you-can-be-arrested/
This year, Szakos was informed that Anthem was going to increase the premiums on Virginia Organizing Project's health plan by 14.1%. Szakos immediately had questions. His first question was why Anthem using its resources to lobby against health care reform with a public health insurance option while at the same time increasing rates by 14.1%? When Szakos went to speak with Anthem about the matter he was arrested. Shocking but true, to view video footage click here: http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/09/17/for-asking-why-your-insurance-rates-increase-you-can-be-arrested/
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
VOP Supporting Health Care Reform in VA
VOP Members Supporting Health Care Reform around Virginia
Report: Warren County’s Health Insurance Crisis: Why You and Your Neighbors Need Health Care Reform.Prepared by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Chapter, Virginia Organizing Project. August 2009. (pdf file)
We’re closer than we’ve been to meaningful health care reform in 60 years. This reform will provide accessible, affordable, quality health care for ALL Virginians. Legislation has been passed by three House Committees and one Senate Committee that meets these goals.
The Virginia Organizing Project and Health Care for America Now members across the state have attended Town Hall meetings, written letters to the editor, canvassed with their neighbors, and made phone calls to urge our Members of Congress to support this legislation. We MUST keep this up!
Please call 1-877-264-4226 and ask Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb and all of our 11 U.S. Representatives to support this health care legislation.
Also, please contact us if you want to do any of the actions listed above and check our calendar for events near you. http://www.virginia-organizing.org/healthcare.php
Report: Warren County’s Health Insurance Crisis: Why You and Your Neighbors Need Health Care Reform.Prepared by the Northern Shenandoah Valley Chapter, Virginia Organizing Project. August 2009. (pdf file)
We’re closer than we’ve been to meaningful health care reform in 60 years. This reform will provide accessible, affordable, quality health care for ALL Virginians. Legislation has been passed by three House Committees and one Senate Committee that meets these goals.
The Virginia Organizing Project and Health Care for America Now members across the state have attended Town Hall meetings, written letters to the editor, canvassed with their neighbors, and made phone calls to urge our Members of Congress to support this legislation. We MUST keep this up!
Please call 1-877-264-4226 and ask Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb and all of our 11 U.S. Representatives to support this health care legislation.
Also, please contact us if you want to do any of the actions listed above and check our calendar for events near you. http://www.virginia-organizing.org/healthcare.php
Defend Against Trespassing Charges By Anthem
Anthem Sends A Message To All Their Customers With Trial:
“If you Question Our Business Practices, There Will Be Consequences.”
Enclosed: Video Footage of the Arrest, also available online at www.youtube.com/vopvideo
Richmond, VA – At a time when health insurance industry malfeasance is a daily focus of the evening news, Anthem, a WellPoint subsidiary, has boldly decided to put their own customer on trial for asking to speak to a representative about their rates. On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, Joe Szakos, executive director of the Virginia Organizing Project, will stand trial to defend against trespassing charges brought on by Anthem after visiting their headquarters in July to question his organization’s health insurance premium increases.
Szakos was charged with trespassing on Anthem’s property in Richmond on July 24, 2009 when he and three Virginia Organizing Project board members attempted to meet with Anthem officials to discuss their concerns about a 14.1 percent insurance premium increase. Anthem officials locked the front door to their corporate headquarters when the group approached the building, and called police to have Szakos arrested.
The Virginia Organizing Project was also questioning Anthem for using their premiums for lobbying against reform instead of paying health care claims. Anthem and its parent company WellPoint have spent millions lobbying against a public health insurance option, including soliciting their own costumers to speak out against reform.
Szakos’s legal defense team has subpoenaed Anthem’s CEO, C. Burke King, and director of public relations, Scott Golden, to appear in court on Tuesday.
The Virginia Organizing Project will be holding a press conference prior to the trial where community members will share their own Anthem horror stories and call for their members of Congress to take action on health care reform.
WHO: The Virginia Organizing Project
WHAT: “Big Insurance: Sick Of It” Press Conference and Trial of Joe Szakos (trespassing charge)
WHEN: September 22, 2009
10 a.m. Press Conference
11 a.m. Trial
WHERE: Henrico General District Court, 4301 East Parham Road, Henrico, VA 23273-0775
The Virginia Organizing Project is a statewide, multi-issue grassroots organization committed to challenging injustice by empowering people in local communities to address issues that affect the quality of their lives.
www.virginia-organizing.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)