/PRNewswire -- The National Commander of The American Legion called on the U.S. Senate to stop the so-called DREAM Act after the bill passed in the House of Representatives, 216-198, yesterday.
"Some people mistakenly believe that the DREAM Act would encourage military service and the pursuit of college education," National Commander Jimmie L. Foster said. "Instead, it rewards illegal behavior. It says to those who are trying to legally enter our country, disregard the law and you will ultimately be rewarded. It might be called the DREAM Act, but it's really an amnesty nightmare."
A resolution passed by The American Legion's National Executive Committee, or board of directors, states, in part, "That The American Legion opposes legislation that would result in the granting of amnesty and legal residency, in any form or by any name, to illegal immigrants currently in the United States."
The nation's largest veterans service organization also opposes granting financial aid or "in-state tuition rates," to those who are here illegally. "The United States has dwindling financial resources, as those in the veterans and military communities are frequently reminded," Foster said. "Why would we want to spend those limited resources on educating people who have no legal right to be in this country? The American Legion has a comprehensive immigration strategy that can be found on our website, www.legion.org. That strategy begins with securing our borders."
Foster encourages members of The American Legion family and other like-minded citizens to call their U.S. senators and urge them to vote "No," on the DREAM Act. The number to the Capitol Switchboard is 877-762-8762.
With a current membership of 2.4-million wartime veterans, The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and youth programs. Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senate. Show all posts
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
50 Worst Deserters of Jobless Americans
/PRNewswire-/ -- During the last two years of a virtual jobs depression, these 50 led Congress in allowing the addition of another 75,000 permanent working-age immigrants every MONTH and in allowing about 7 million illegal foreign workers to keep their jobs in construction, service, manufacturing and transportation. Recent government data show that 22 million U.S. workers who want a job can't find one. But these 50 Members of Congress deserted those Americans in favor of increasing the number of foreign workers competing with them in the hiring line.
The non-partisan NumbersUSA rates every member on every committee and floor vote and every bill co-sponsorship that would either increase or reduce the foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country. All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed on www.NumbersUSA.com. Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.
All 50 "Deserters" on this list:
-- received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to
reduce competition for jobless Americans.
-- are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
-- are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special
opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they
either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the
Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.
WORST DESERTERS IN THE SENATE
-----------------------------
Bennet, Michael (CO)
Feingold, Russell (WI)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
Inouye, Daniel (HI)
Leahy, Patrick (VT)
Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
Reid, Harry (NV)
WORST DESERTERS IN THE HOUSE
----------------------------
Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
Olver, John (MA - 01st)
Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)
NumbersUSA also announced the "50 Best Defenders of Jobless Americans."
NumbersUSA is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable members of the national community.
The non-partisan NumbersUSA rates every member on every committee and floor vote and every bill co-sponsorship that would either increase or reduce the foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country. All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed on www.NumbersUSA.com. Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.
All 50 "Deserters" on this list:
-- received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to
reduce competition for jobless Americans.
-- are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
-- are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special
opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they
either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the
Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.
WORST DESERTERS IN THE SENATE
-----------------------------
Bennet, Michael (CO)
Feingold, Russell (WI)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
Inouye, Daniel (HI)
Leahy, Patrick (VT)
Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
Reid, Harry (NV)
WORST DESERTERS IN THE HOUSE
----------------------------
Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
Olver, John (MA - 01st)
Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)
NumbersUSA also announced the "50 Best Defenders of Jobless Americans."
NumbersUSA is a non-profit and non-partisan organization with more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable members of the national community.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
FRC Action: Senate's Rejection of DISCLOSE Act is a Victory for Free Speech Rights
/PRNewswire/ -- FRC Action, the legislative advocacy arm of the Family Research Council, released the following statement after the U.S. Senate failed to reach cloture on the DISCLOSE Act, which would limit free speech for organizations during election cycles.
Among the bill's requirements is that organizations must list their top five donors on a television advertisement, regardless of whether or not those donors contributed to the particular campaign.
FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky made the following comments:
"The Senate's rejection of the DISCLOSE Act is a victory for free speech rights and for the democratic process. Liberals in Congress failed in their attempt to push through legislation which only amounts to Democrat incumbent protection legislation disguised as campaign finance reform.
"Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums. The exceptions, or 'carve-outs,' in this unconstitutional bill demonstrate the hypocrisy of its supporters. They provide special treatment for select special interest groups in a bill supposedly designed to crack down on the power of special interests.
"The leadership of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on this legislation has solidified him as the leading champion of the First Amendment in the U.S. Senate," concluded McClusky.
Among the bill's requirements is that organizations must list their top five donors on a television advertisement, regardless of whether or not those donors contributed to the particular campaign.
FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky made the following comments:
"The Senate's rejection of the DISCLOSE Act is a victory for free speech rights and for the democratic process. Liberals in Congress failed in their attempt to push through legislation which only amounts to Democrat incumbent protection legislation disguised as campaign finance reform.
"Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums. The exceptions, or 'carve-outs,' in this unconstitutional bill demonstrate the hypocrisy of its supporters. They provide special treatment for select special interest groups in a bill supposedly designed to crack down on the power of special interests.
"The leadership of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on this legislation has solidified him as the leading champion of the First Amendment in the U.S. Senate," concluded McClusky.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Senate Inaction On Medicare Hurts Seniors, Military and Boomers
/PRNewswire/ -- A Medicare meltdown now seems certain, as the U.S. Senate has left early for the weekend, abandoning seniors, military families and baby boomers. The Senate failed to repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that will cause a drastic 21 percent payment cut to physicians who care for Medicare and TRICARE patients. On Monday, the 21 percent cut goes into effect, forcing physicians to consider the difficult decision to limit the number of Medicare and TRICARE patients they see in order to keep their practice doors open.
"Our message to the U.S. Senate is stop playing games with Medicare patients and the physicians who care for them," said AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D. "It is shocking that the Senate would abandon our most vulnerable patients, making them the collateral damage of their procedural games."
Already, about one in four Medicare patients seeking a primary care physician is having trouble finding one, according to MedPAC, Congress' advisory body on Medicare. Physicians have told AMA that steep Medicare cuts will force them to limit the number of Medicare patients they treat. A new 2010 survey of neurosurgeons found that 60 percent are already reducing the number of Medicare patients in their practices, and cuts will force nearly 40 percent to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they see. More than 18 percent of neurosurgeons will no longer take new Medicare patients.
"The Senate had more than a year to repeal the formula and ensure the security and stability of Medicare and TRICARE, but that opportunity has been squandered," Dr. Rohack said. "This drastic cut will hurt our senior, disabled and military patients, as well as baby boomers who start entering the Medicare program next year."
"Last November, the U.S. House passed legislation (H.R. 3961) that would repeal the broken formula and better update payments to reflect the increasing cost of care," Dr. Rohack said. "AARP and the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) have joined with the AMA in calling on the Senate to act, but the Senate has turned its back on America's seniors, military families and baby boomers."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Our message to the U.S. Senate is stop playing games with Medicare patients and the physicians who care for them," said AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D. "It is shocking that the Senate would abandon our most vulnerable patients, making them the collateral damage of their procedural games."
Already, about one in four Medicare patients seeking a primary care physician is having trouble finding one, according to MedPAC, Congress' advisory body on Medicare. Physicians have told AMA that steep Medicare cuts will force them to limit the number of Medicare patients they treat. A new 2010 survey of neurosurgeons found that 60 percent are already reducing the number of Medicare patients in their practices, and cuts will force nearly 40 percent to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they see. More than 18 percent of neurosurgeons will no longer take new Medicare patients.
"The Senate had more than a year to repeal the formula and ensure the security and stability of Medicare and TRICARE, but that opportunity has been squandered," Dr. Rohack said. "This drastic cut will hurt our senior, disabled and military patients, as well as baby boomers who start entering the Medicare program next year."
"Last November, the U.S. House passed legislation (H.R. 3961) that would repeal the broken formula and better update payments to reflect the increasing cost of care," Dr. Rohack said. "AARP and the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) have joined with the AMA in calling on the Senate to act, but the Senate has turned its back on America's seniors, military families and baby boomers."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Richard Viguerie: Massachusetts Senate Vote is a Victory for New Conservative Leaders
/PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, regarding the results of the special election for U.S. Senator in Massachusetts:
"Scott Brown's election to the Senate is another example of the energy and passion that has been brought to the Republican Party in the past year by new conservative leaders.
"Brown's victory would not have happened without the leadership of Tea Party activists, talk show hosts, bloggers, and others using the Internet. These new conservative leaders are forcing backbone and spine into the old and tired Republican Party leaders, who in early 2009 were afraid to publicly disagree with or challenge President Obama and his agenda.
"This conservative Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts would not have been possible 25 years ago before the new and alternative media--talk radio, cable TV, Internet, bloggers, etc.
"The next battleground for these new conservative leaders against the establishment big-government politicians will be in Republican and Democratic primaries. These new conservative leaders are gearing up to challenge the political establishment regardless of party."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Scott Brown's election to the Senate is another example of the energy and passion that has been brought to the Republican Party in the past year by new conservative leaders.
"Brown's victory would not have happened without the leadership of Tea Party activists, talk show hosts, bloggers, and others using the Internet. These new conservative leaders are forcing backbone and spine into the old and tired Republican Party leaders, who in early 2009 were afraid to publicly disagree with or challenge President Obama and his agenda.
"This conservative Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts would not have been possible 25 years ago before the new and alternative media--talk radio, cable TV, Internet, bloggers, etc.
"The next battleground for these new conservative leaders against the establishment big-government politicians will be in Republican and Democratic primaries. These new conservative leaders are gearing up to challenge the political establishment regardless of party."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, December 24, 2009
A Promise to Keep. Senate Vote is the First Step Toward the Promise of Quality, Affordable Health Care for All
/PRNewswire/ -- Today's passage of health care reform in the U.S. Senate is one historic step toward fulfilling what will one day be a promise we will make to every person living in this country: If you are sick, we will care for you. You will be able to afford coverage and insurance companies will not run roughshod over you.
USAction Executive Director Jeff Blum said other steps will include final passage after conference committee, effective implementation in the years to come and beginning work on new federal and state policies to make further progress toward affordable and accessible health care coverage for everyone.
"Right now we are focusing on improving the bill in conference committee by making good health care affordable and by holding insurance companies accountable," Blum said. "But make no mistake: This is, by far, the farthest we have ever come as a nation toward providing quality, affordable health care for all."
As House and Senate negotiators prepare to meet, Blum said USAction is calling on legislators to make the following improvements in the final legislation:
Make good health care more affordable:
-- Require employers to contribute to the cost of employee coverage.
-- Pay for health care reform through progressive financing - i.e., a tax
on the very wealthiest Americans and not by imposing a tax on costlier
health plans with many older and female workers, and full family
coverage.
-- Make coverage more affordable in the insurance exchange to ensure that
low- and moderate-income families can afford health insurance
coverage.
Hold insurance companies accountable:
-- Create a publicly-accountable health insurance option on day one
across the United States.
-- Establish strong insurance regulations in all markets and effective
implementation of coverage through federally operated exchanges.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
USAction Executive Director Jeff Blum said other steps will include final passage after conference committee, effective implementation in the years to come and beginning work on new federal and state policies to make further progress toward affordable and accessible health care coverage for everyone.
"Right now we are focusing on improving the bill in conference committee by making good health care affordable and by holding insurance companies accountable," Blum said. "But make no mistake: This is, by far, the farthest we have ever come as a nation toward providing quality, affordable health care for all."
As House and Senate negotiators prepare to meet, Blum said USAction is calling on legislators to make the following improvements in the final legislation:
Make good health care more affordable:
-- Require employers to contribute to the cost of employee coverage.
-- Pay for health care reform through progressive financing - i.e., a tax
on the very wealthiest Americans and not by imposing a tax on costlier
health plans with many older and female workers, and full family
coverage.
-- Make coverage more affordable in the insurance exchange to ensure that
low- and moderate-income families can afford health insurance
coverage.
Hold insurance companies accountable:
-- Create a publicly-accountable health insurance option on day one
across the United States.
-- Establish strong insurance regulations in all markets and effective
implementation of coverage through federally operated exchanges.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
FRC Statement on the Christmas Eve Passage of the Health Care 'Reform' Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- This morning the United States Senate voted 60-39 in favor of final passage of HR 3590, the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
AHIP Statement on Passage of Senate Health Care Reform Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), released the following statement today on passage of Senate health care reform legislation:
"Providing all Americans with health care coverage is crucial for the country. Health plans support legislative changes that would provide guaranteed access to all Americans, with no pre-existing condition limitations and no health-status-based premiums. These reforms are essential to giving all Americans greater peace of mind and health security.
"At the same time, specific provisions in this legislation will increase, rather than decrease, health care costs; reduce coverage options; and disrupt existing coverage for families, seniors and small businesses - particularly between now and when the legislation is fully implemented in 2014.
"These issues can and should be addressed if health care reform is going to fulfill the promise of providing all Americans with guaranteed access to affordable, portable health care coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Providing all Americans with health care coverage is crucial for the country. Health plans support legislative changes that would provide guaranteed access to all Americans, with no pre-existing condition limitations and no health-status-based premiums. These reforms are essential to giving all Americans greater peace of mind and health security.
"At the same time, specific provisions in this legislation will increase, rather than decrease, health care costs; reduce coverage options; and disrupt existing coverage for families, seniors and small businesses - particularly between now and when the legislation is fully implemented in 2014.
"These issues can and should be addressed if health care reform is going to fulfill the promise of providing all Americans with guaranteed access to affordable, portable health care coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
AARP Disappointed by Senate Vote Against Lower Prescription Drug Prices
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Senate today rejected an amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would help make prescription drugs more affordable by allowing for the safe and legal importation of lower priced drugs from abroad. The bipartisan amendment, endorsed by AARP and sponsored by Senators Dorgan, Snowe, McCain, Grassley and Stabenow, would have improved competition and helped to bring down the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs.
The Senate also rejected a second prescription drug importation amendment sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg, which would have created an unnecessary roadblock for prescription drug importation. In a move designed to block importation, the amendment prohibited importation of prescription drugs unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services can certify that it is safe to do so. Despite the fact that safety provisions are already built into the AARP-endorsed Dorgan-Snowe amendment, this version is designed to create administrative hurdles to effectively prevent importation.
** How a legislator votes on issues is only one factor in evaluating his or her legislative performance, which should also include such things as constituency services and committee work
"While we applaud Senator Specter's support for the Dorgan-Snowe importation amendment, we are disappointed that he also effectively voted to block this provision from ever taking effect," said Dick Chevrefils, AARP Pennsylvania State Director. "The Lautenberg amendment is an unnecessary roadblock that would prevent importation and maintain the status quo of skyrocketing drug prices."
"AARP is also deeply disappointed that Senator Casey voted today for continuing the status quo and against lower prescription drug prices for his constituents," said Chevrefils. "With brand name drug prices rising at alarming rates, we hope he will further review the negative impact on the people of Pennsylvania and reconsider his position."
Making prescription drugs more affordable has long been one of AARP's top priorities. The Dorgan-Snowe-McCain-Grassley-Stabenow importation amendment would have been a first step toward lowering the cost of medications in this country. AARP will continue to fight for this amendment and against the unnecessary roadblocks that could prevent its implementation.
AARP notified the 111th Congress that it was tracking roll call votes on key legislation important to its nearly 40 million members and reporting the outcomes of these votes back to its members and all older Americans. "When Americans understand the issues and where their lawmakers stand, they can make smart decisions," said Chevrefils. "AARP will be there to give our members, as well as all Americans, the most accurate information we can."
AARP members and all older Americans can see how their representatives voted on health care reform by going to www.aarp.org/governmentwatch. AARP's Government Watch is a one-stop online portal that will be tracking and publicizing every designated key vote on issues facing Americans age 50-plus. A "Key Vote Summary" highlighting votes on these issues will be published at the end of each congressional session.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Senate also rejected a second prescription drug importation amendment sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg, which would have created an unnecessary roadblock for prescription drug importation. In a move designed to block importation, the amendment prohibited importation of prescription drugs unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services can certify that it is safe to do so. Despite the fact that safety provisions are already built into the AARP-endorsed Dorgan-Snowe amendment, this version is designed to create administrative hurdles to effectively prevent importation.
** How a legislator votes on issues is only one factor in evaluating his or her legislative performance, which should also include such things as constituency services and committee work
"While we applaud Senator Specter's support for the Dorgan-Snowe importation amendment, we are disappointed that he also effectively voted to block this provision from ever taking effect," said Dick Chevrefils, AARP Pennsylvania State Director. "The Lautenberg amendment is an unnecessary roadblock that would prevent importation and maintain the status quo of skyrocketing drug prices."
"AARP is also deeply disappointed that Senator Casey voted today for continuing the status quo and against lower prescription drug prices for his constituents," said Chevrefils. "With brand name drug prices rising at alarming rates, we hope he will further review the negative impact on the people of Pennsylvania and reconsider his position."
Making prescription drugs more affordable has long been one of AARP's top priorities. The Dorgan-Snowe-McCain-Grassley-Stabenow importation amendment would have been a first step toward lowering the cost of medications in this country. AARP will continue to fight for this amendment and against the unnecessary roadblocks that could prevent its implementation.
AARP notified the 111th Congress that it was tracking roll call votes on key legislation important to its nearly 40 million members and reporting the outcomes of these votes back to its members and all older Americans. "When Americans understand the issues and where their lawmakers stand, they can make smart decisions," said Chevrefils. "AARP will be there to give our members, as well as all Americans, the most accurate information we can."
AARP members and all older Americans can see how their representatives voted on health care reform by going to www.aarp.org/governmentwatch. AARP's Government Watch is a one-stop online portal that will be tracking and publicizing every designated key vote on issues facing Americans age 50-plus. A "Key Vote Summary" highlighting votes on these issues will be published at the end of each congressional session.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Sunday, December 13, 2009
NADA Commends the U.S. Senate for Passing Dealers Rights Amendment in Spending Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) issued the following statement today after the U.S. Senate voted to pass the spending bill, which includes the NADA-backed dealer rights provision:
"NADA commends the Senate and House leaders who fought to keep the dealer rights amendment in the spending bill. We look forward to the President signing this into law soon.
"The dealer rights provision will provide affected General Motors and Chrysler dealers and their respective automakers with a fair arbitration process to resolve ongoing concerns about recent dealership closures. As with any compromise, this is not a perfect solution. However, this is far better than any of the other previous proposals. It's appropriate that Congress addressed the legislation this week that focuses on small business, Main Street and jobs.
"Congressional passage of the dealer rights amendment is the culmination of months of work by NADA and other dealer groups to obtain a fair and meaningful arbitration process for affected dealerships.
"Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the lead sponsor of the legislation in the Senate; Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.V., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee; and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, deserve a lot of credit for their efforts to gain a fair resolution for dealers.
"Numerous meetings were also held with the House Democratic leadership and amendment sponsors Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.; and Frank Kratovil, D-Md, as well as House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and other committee members who strongly backed the proposal of Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. Rep. LaTourette and the House Democratic leadership deserve tremendous credit for their persistent efforts to find a fair resolution for affected dealers.
"During a year with so many other pressing national issues, these House and Senate leaders devoted a significant amount of their time to address the dealer closure issue. And we very much appreciate their efforts."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"NADA commends the Senate and House leaders who fought to keep the dealer rights amendment in the spending bill. We look forward to the President signing this into law soon.
"The dealer rights provision will provide affected General Motors and Chrysler dealers and their respective automakers with a fair arbitration process to resolve ongoing concerns about recent dealership closures. As with any compromise, this is not a perfect solution. However, this is far better than any of the other previous proposals. It's appropriate that Congress addressed the legislation this week that focuses on small business, Main Street and jobs.
"Congressional passage of the dealer rights amendment is the culmination of months of work by NADA and other dealer groups to obtain a fair and meaningful arbitration process for affected dealerships.
"Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the lead sponsor of the legislation in the Senate; Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.V., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee; and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, deserve a lot of credit for their efforts to gain a fair resolution for dealers.
"Numerous meetings were also held with the House Democratic leadership and amendment sponsors Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.; and Frank Kratovil, D-Md, as well as House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and other committee members who strongly backed the proposal of Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. Rep. LaTourette and the House Democratic leadership deserve tremendous credit for their persistent efforts to find a fair resolution for affected dealers.
"During a year with so many other pressing national issues, these House and Senate leaders devoted a significant amount of their time to address the dealer closure issue. And we very much appreciate their efforts."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
AUL Action: Senate Health Bill Now Leads to Unprecedented Federal Abortion Funding
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment, which would have maintained existing law by prohibiting both federal funding of abortion and government-mandated abortion coverage. Without the explicit ban on abortion funding, Americans United for Life Action will now oppose the final health care bill.
Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, "A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby's goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care."
The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
Dr. Yoest continued, "The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House's lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions. Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:
1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.
3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions. The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions.
4) Abortion as "preventive care": The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care. For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, "A vote to table the amendment is a vote against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment. A majority of Senators effectively endorsed the abortion lobby's goal of mainstreaming abortion as health care."
The Senate health care reform bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill also requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
Dr. Yoest continued, "The Senate had the opportunity to follow the House's lead in ensuring that federal dollars are not used to pay for abortions. Instead, the Senate chose to reject the Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment and continue down the road towards unprecedented federal funding of abortion."
Four major anti-life concerns in this health care bill:
1) Unprecedented abortion funding: The Senate bill explicitly allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the "community health insurance option," and allows federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. In addition, the bill requires that at least one private plan in each exchange provide coverage for all abortions.
2) Rationing of care: The Senate health care reform bill contains provisions that could be used to deny or ration health care.
3) Lacks conscience protection: The Senate bill fails to prohibit government entities from discriminating against health care providers on the basis that they do not participate in abortions. The bill also explicitly provides that insurance plans in the exchange cannot refuse to contract with abortion providers on the basis that they provide abortions.
4) Abortion as "preventive care": The Milkulski amendment added on the Senate floor could mandate abortion coverage under the guise of preventive care. For the first time in history, the federal government could require private insurance companies to cover abortion.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, November 30, 2009
CBO Confirms That Premiums Will Increase Under the Senate Healthcare Reform Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) issued the following statement regarding the estimate released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):
The CBO today confirmed what many economists, actuaries, and health policy experts have said for weeks: the Senate healthcare reform bill would make coverage more expensive for millions of people buying individual insurance policies.
While CBO recognizes the significant impact of the proposal, it understates the effect in three areas:
-- Several provisions in the Senate bill will cause many people to wait
until they are sick to purchase coverage, significantly driving up
premiums for everyone. These include severely restricting discounts
for young people, very low financial penalties for not purchasing
coverage, while still requiring insurers to guarantee coverage
regardless of preexisting conditions. Many young people, in
particular, are likely to pay the nominal fine, rather than purchase
coverage that costs far more than the penalty.
-- Adding the previously uninsured will significantly increase premiums
in the individual market. Contrary to CBO, Oliver Wyman, Inc.'s
analysis of actual claims' costs in the individual market predicts
that the uninsured will actually be 20 percent more expensive to
insure than those in the individual market today. Had CBO adopted a
similar assumption, their premium impact would have been approximately
30 percent higher.
-- The impact will vary significantly by state because of regional
differences in rating laws today. Oliver Wyman, Inc. found that
two-thirds of Americans live in states where the average premium
impact will be much higher than a national average.
Caution should be used in describing CBO's results on how many people will see lower premiums because of the federal subsidies. It should be noted that many of these people were previously uninsured and therefore did not pay any premiums. While we strongly support extending coverage to everyone and providing needed subsidies, we should be careful not to misconstrue these as savings.
We are pleased that the debate is now focusing on how the bills will make coverage less affordable to the American people. We encourage the Senate to use the CBO findings, as well as the analyses of Oliver Wyman, to make much needed improvements to the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that it will be affordable and sustainable for everyone.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The CBO today confirmed what many economists, actuaries, and health policy experts have said for weeks: the Senate healthcare reform bill would make coverage more expensive for millions of people buying individual insurance policies.
While CBO recognizes the significant impact of the proposal, it understates the effect in three areas:
-- Several provisions in the Senate bill will cause many people to wait
until they are sick to purchase coverage, significantly driving up
premiums for everyone. These include severely restricting discounts
for young people, very low financial penalties for not purchasing
coverage, while still requiring insurers to guarantee coverage
regardless of preexisting conditions. Many young people, in
particular, are likely to pay the nominal fine, rather than purchase
coverage that costs far more than the penalty.
-- Adding the previously uninsured will significantly increase premiums
in the individual market. Contrary to CBO, Oliver Wyman, Inc.'s
analysis of actual claims' costs in the individual market predicts
that the uninsured will actually be 20 percent more expensive to
insure than those in the individual market today. Had CBO adopted a
similar assumption, their premium impact would have been approximately
30 percent higher.
-- The impact will vary significantly by state because of regional
differences in rating laws today. Oliver Wyman, Inc. found that
two-thirds of Americans live in states where the average premium
impact will be much higher than a national average.
Caution should be used in describing CBO's results on how many people will see lower premiums because of the federal subsidies. It should be noted that many of these people were previously uninsured and therefore did not pay any premiums. While we strongly support extending coverage to everyone and providing needed subsidies, we should be careful not to misconstrue these as savings.
We are pleased that the debate is now focusing on how the bills will make coverage less affordable to the American people. We encourage the Senate to use the CBO findings, as well as the analyses of Oliver Wyman, to make much needed improvements to the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that it will be affordable and sustainable for everyone.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Statement: KSBH President Andrew Langer on Senate Health Care Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Keeping Small Business Healthy President Andrew Langer issued the following statement today on the new Senate health care reform bill:
"This bill does NOT satisfactorily address the key needs of small business owners, and will still lead to the LOSS of jobs by small businesses because of the costs and red tape.
"Only the government could get away with the accounting gimmicks in this bill. If a small business owner attempted this type of accounting, they'd be arrested and put in jail for fraud."
Keeping Small Business Healthy is an initiative of the Institute for Liberty and to learn more about the project visit www.healthysmallbusiness.org.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"This bill does NOT satisfactorily address the key needs of small business owners, and will still lead to the LOSS of jobs by small businesses because of the costs and red tape.
"Only the government could get away with the accounting gimmicks in this bill. If a small business owner attempted this type of accounting, they'd be arrested and put in jail for fraud."
Keeping Small Business Healthy is an initiative of the Institute for Liberty and to learn more about the project visit www.healthysmallbusiness.org.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
AHIP Statement on the Release of Proposed Senate Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), released the following statement today on the release of proposed Senate legislation:
"The promise of health care reform is that it will provide all Americans coverage, allow them to keep their coverage if they like it, and bends the cost curve to put the system on a sustainable path. These are the standards by which any reform bill should be judged, and the Senate bill falls short of meeting them. We believe that these issues can be addressed and improved to achieve these goals, and we will continue to work with policymakers toward that end.
"We believe that all Americans, regardless of health status or medical history, should have guaranteed access to affordable coverage. We have proposed guarantee issue coverage with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions in conjunction with a coverage requirement and adequate subsidies for working families. We also have made a commitment to do our part by proposing far-reaching administrative simplification reforms that improve efficiency, reduce costs, and free up time for physicians to focus on patient care. We stand by these commitments, but agree with a wide range of health policy experts that market reforms will not work if there is not an effective coverage requirement.
"This proposal encourages people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage, which will significantly drive up costs for those who are currently insured. The legislation also imposes rating rules that will raise the cost of coverage for millions of young families in more than 40 states.
"The new health care taxes and fees will raise the cost of coverage for individuals, families, and employers. Health plans will be required to pay a $6.7 billion tax beginning next year for the next 10 years, in addition to 'stabilization' fees of $25 billion in 2014, 2015, and 2016. According to Fortune magazine's analysis of the companies listed under 'Insurance and Managed Care,' earnings in 2008 totaled $8.61 billion with a profit margin of 2.2% -- ranking the industry 35th on the Fortune list.
"This bill will also exacerbate the health care cost shift as health care providers offset reductions in public program reimbursements by charging more to families and employers who have private coverage. The new government plan will cause even more cost-shifting and threaten the employer-based coverage with which Americans are overwhelmingly satisfied.
"The $117 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage will threaten the choices that seniors have across the country and significantly reduce seniors' benefits in many major metropolitan areas.
"Congress is being forced to turn to these financing mechanisms because it has been unwilling to make a commitment to specific strategies and enforceable objectives that will bend the health care cost curve downward."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The promise of health care reform is that it will provide all Americans coverage, allow them to keep their coverage if they like it, and bends the cost curve to put the system on a sustainable path. These are the standards by which any reform bill should be judged, and the Senate bill falls short of meeting them. We believe that these issues can be addressed and improved to achieve these goals, and we will continue to work with policymakers toward that end.
"We believe that all Americans, regardless of health status or medical history, should have guaranteed access to affordable coverage. We have proposed guarantee issue coverage with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions in conjunction with a coverage requirement and adequate subsidies for working families. We also have made a commitment to do our part by proposing far-reaching administrative simplification reforms that improve efficiency, reduce costs, and free up time for physicians to focus on patient care. We stand by these commitments, but agree with a wide range of health policy experts that market reforms will not work if there is not an effective coverage requirement.
"This proposal encourages people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage, which will significantly drive up costs for those who are currently insured. The legislation also imposes rating rules that will raise the cost of coverage for millions of young families in more than 40 states.
"The new health care taxes and fees will raise the cost of coverage for individuals, families, and employers. Health plans will be required to pay a $6.7 billion tax beginning next year for the next 10 years, in addition to 'stabilization' fees of $25 billion in 2014, 2015, and 2016. According to Fortune magazine's analysis of the companies listed under 'Insurance and Managed Care,' earnings in 2008 totaled $8.61 billion with a profit margin of 2.2% -- ranking the industry 35th on the Fortune list.
"This bill will also exacerbate the health care cost shift as health care providers offset reductions in public program reimbursements by charging more to families and employers who have private coverage. The new government plan will cause even more cost-shifting and threaten the employer-based coverage with which Americans are overwhelmingly satisfied.
"The $117 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage will threaten the choices that seniors have across the country and significantly reduce seniors' benefits in many major metropolitan areas.
"Congress is being forced to turn to these financing mechanisms because it has been unwilling to make a commitment to specific strategies and enforceable objectives that will bend the health care cost curve downward."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, October 19, 2009
Consumer Watchdog Names 'Top 5 Time Bombs' in Senate Health Plan
/PRNewswire/ -- The leading health reform proposal in the Senate contains numerous industry-demanded "time bombs" that will harm consumers in years to come, Consumer Watchdog said today. The measure, from the Senate Finance Committee, was heavily lobbied by insurance and pharmaceutical companies and large employers.
Consumer Watchdog said the proposal's top 5 health time bombs are:
-- Elimination of a public health insurance option;
-- Evasion of state patient-rights laws;
-- Weak "employer mandate;"
-- Omission of price regulation of insurance;
-- Lack of recourse to hold insurers accountable.
"If this bill becomes law, consumers will find themselves still at the absolute mercy of private insurance companies," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Premiums and co-pays will be uncontrolled, even as patient rights are eliminated. Congress must stand up to the corporate lobbies and add better consumer protections, or pay the price in voter anger at being stuck with a bait-and-switch reform."
Here are details on the Top 5 "Health Reform Time Bombs" in the Senate Finance Committee bill:
1. No public option. Stopping a public option is the No. 1 demand of the insurance lobby. So despite public support at 65 percent for a public option, and even higher support among doctors, there is no effective competitor to private insurance companies in the bill. The bill's alternative --voluntary purchasing cooperatives formed by consumers -- was dismissed as ineffective even by the Congressional Budget office.
The budget office's financial report on the bill said of such co-ops:
"[A]s they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country...." Yet the CBO report says the attempt to establish such destined-to-fail cooperatives would cost taxpayers $3 billion.
However, the bill does include a framework for states to do better, offering to waive certain rules to allow stronger experimentation, even single payer health care systems, by vote of a state's citizens. States, under such a waiver plan, should be able to combine existing federal funding into a single pot to fund the larger-scale reforms. This state option must be strengthened in the final bill, with or without a national public option, said Consumer Watchdog. The Senate Finance bill should also be clarified to grant states automatic Medicare, Medicaid and ERISA waivers that are necessary to implement state single payer and state public option programs.
2. State regulations preempted. Currently, many states including New York, California and Massachusetts have robust requirements for what insurance must cover, including decent maternity care, hospital care for surgical patients, cancer treatment and chronic disease care. The Senate bill circumvents these patient rights by:
a. Allowing insurers to forming "interstate compacts" to sell across state lines, while being subject only to the laws of the state in which the insurance policy is "written or issued." Insurers would certainly choose to be regulated by the weakest state.
b. Allowing insurers to sell so-called national plans in every state unless a state's legislature opts out. The bill says explicitly that such plans would "preempt state benefit mandates" and be governed only by new and undefined federal guidelines that are certain to be weaker than many states'.
The national policies would also degrade many employer-offered health plans. Patients would likely be unaware that their insurance was riddled with holes until they needed to use it, and would have no local enforcer to turn to. The cheaper premiums offered by such plans would be achieved by degrading coverage, raising patient costs and depriving consumers of state enforcement.
Both concepts are similar to a failed 2006 bill by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), who was a key figure in writing the new Senate bill. The unregulated policies are now being championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, a critical swing Senate vote.
See a news analysis of Enzi's previous measure at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=17325
3. No employer mandate. Employers, even large employers, would not be required to offer any health insurance. The only penalty would be a small fee to cover any government subsidies provided to lower-wage workers. The fee is capped at a maximum of $400 a year per employee, and only for companies with more than 50 employees. The amount is a fraction of employers' share of actual insurance coverage.
This would encourage companies to drop employee coverage and pay the fee instead -- saving the employers millions, because the low cap would cost taxpayers billions, even if employers slightly raise salaries to compensate for the lack of insurance.
Other bills, particularly the House version of health reform, have more realistic employer penalties for failing to cover employees based on a percentage of payroll. But business groups will demand the ineffectively small penalty in the final bill, unless the president and Congressional leaders stand firm.
4. Health premiums unregulated. With no public option to provide competition and no direct regulation of private insurance rates in the Senate bill, insurers will be free to charge what they choose. Health insurance premiums have risen 131 percent over the last decade, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation -- far above general inflation, wages and even overall medical inflation. The premium increases do not include rising deductibles and co-pays. See more on the Kaiser survey at http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091509nr.cfm
The only effective curb on this price spiral is direct regulation of premiums and rates, which would be most effective if carried out by the states.
California's 20-year-old law governing property and casualty insurance, including mandatory auto insurance, provides the best model. Insurers have to seek permission through an elected insurance commissioner prior to raising premiums. Members of the public can challenge unnecessary premium hikes, similar to systems in place in many public utility commissions, providing an effective check against any government collusion with insurance companies.
The Consumer Federation of America reported in 2008 that the regulation had saved Californians $61.8 billion on their auto insurance alone. That doesn't mean auto insurers aren't prospering. California is America's fourth most competitive insurance market, while completely unregulated Illinois, home of Allstate, ranks 44th. Fewer California drivers are thrown into the high-risk pool and insurers' average profit of 13.9 percent in the state from 1989 to 2005 is double the national level of 6.5 percent. The law regulated all major lines of insurance, except for health and workers compensation, which are the only two consistently dysfunctional insurance markets in California.
See the Consumer Federation study at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=19888
Congress and the president must not just encourage state regulation of health insurance rates, but set a floor for such regulation. Otherwise, government is no more than a customer delivery system for private insurance companies.
5. No insurer accountability. A recently dismissed California case involving the death of a teenager after her insurers' denial of liver transplant has highlighted the need for greater legal protections for consumers.
Seventeen-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan died in 2007 after Cigna's denial of the transplant, but the law prevents her family from taking the insurer to court because of a legal loophole banning lawsuits if insurance is provided by a private employer. Thus 132 million Americans have no remedy if an insurer's denial kills their loved one. This is due to an errant Supreme Court ruling on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. The lack of accountability allows HMOs and insurance companies to deny access to care without fear of reprisal.
Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive-turned whistleblower, has stated that insurers pay closer attention to grievances by people whose health insurance policies do allow patients to hold the insurer accountable in court -- for instance government employees and people buying individual policies.
The Sarkisyan family was allowed to continue a lawsuit for emotional distress -- but only because an insurance executive made an obscene gesture to the family at a rally outside of CIGNA's headquarters. So currently a family can sue an insurance executive if he flips you the bird, but not if the insurer kills a loved one. Perhaps Cigna would prevail over doctors' recommendations in the Sarkisyan case in a court of law, but without the ability to even go to court, the limits of insurers' control over our health care goes untested.
In a system where Americans have no alternative to private insurers, the president and Congress should call explicitly for this change rather than trying to further limit patients' access to the courts.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Consumer Watchdog said the proposal's top 5 health time bombs are:
-- Elimination of a public health insurance option;
-- Evasion of state patient-rights laws;
-- Weak "employer mandate;"
-- Omission of price regulation of insurance;
-- Lack of recourse to hold insurers accountable.
"If this bill becomes law, consumers will find themselves still at the absolute mercy of private insurance companies," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Premiums and co-pays will be uncontrolled, even as patient rights are eliminated. Congress must stand up to the corporate lobbies and add better consumer protections, or pay the price in voter anger at being stuck with a bait-and-switch reform."
Here are details on the Top 5 "Health Reform Time Bombs" in the Senate Finance Committee bill:
1. No public option. Stopping a public option is the No. 1 demand of the insurance lobby. So despite public support at 65 percent for a public option, and even higher support among doctors, there is no effective competitor to private insurance companies in the bill. The bill's alternative --voluntary purchasing cooperatives formed by consumers -- was dismissed as ineffective even by the Congressional Budget office.
The budget office's financial report on the bill said of such co-ops:
"[A]s they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country...." Yet the CBO report says the attempt to establish such destined-to-fail cooperatives would cost taxpayers $3 billion.
However, the bill does include a framework for states to do better, offering to waive certain rules to allow stronger experimentation, even single payer health care systems, by vote of a state's citizens. States, under such a waiver plan, should be able to combine existing federal funding into a single pot to fund the larger-scale reforms. This state option must be strengthened in the final bill, with or without a national public option, said Consumer Watchdog. The Senate Finance bill should also be clarified to grant states automatic Medicare, Medicaid and ERISA waivers that are necessary to implement state single payer and state public option programs.
2. State regulations preempted. Currently, many states including New York, California and Massachusetts have robust requirements for what insurance must cover, including decent maternity care, hospital care for surgical patients, cancer treatment and chronic disease care. The Senate bill circumvents these patient rights by:
a. Allowing insurers to forming "interstate compacts" to sell across state lines, while being subject only to the laws of the state in which the insurance policy is "written or issued." Insurers would certainly choose to be regulated by the weakest state.
b. Allowing insurers to sell so-called national plans in every state unless a state's legislature opts out. The bill says explicitly that such plans would "preempt state benefit mandates" and be governed only by new and undefined federal guidelines that are certain to be weaker than many states'.
The national policies would also degrade many employer-offered health plans. Patients would likely be unaware that their insurance was riddled with holes until they needed to use it, and would have no local enforcer to turn to. The cheaper premiums offered by such plans would be achieved by degrading coverage, raising patient costs and depriving consumers of state enforcement.
Both concepts are similar to a failed 2006 bill by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), who was a key figure in writing the new Senate bill. The unregulated policies are now being championed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, a critical swing Senate vote.
See a news analysis of Enzi's previous measure at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=17325
3. No employer mandate. Employers, even large employers, would not be required to offer any health insurance. The only penalty would be a small fee to cover any government subsidies provided to lower-wage workers. The fee is capped at a maximum of $400 a year per employee, and only for companies with more than 50 employees. The amount is a fraction of employers' share of actual insurance coverage.
This would encourage companies to drop employee coverage and pay the fee instead -- saving the employers millions, because the low cap would cost taxpayers billions, even if employers slightly raise salaries to compensate for the lack of insurance.
Other bills, particularly the House version of health reform, have more realistic employer penalties for failing to cover employees based on a percentage of payroll. But business groups will demand the ineffectively small penalty in the final bill, unless the president and Congressional leaders stand firm.
4. Health premiums unregulated. With no public option to provide competition and no direct regulation of private insurance rates in the Senate bill, insurers will be free to charge what they choose. Health insurance premiums have risen 131 percent over the last decade, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation -- far above general inflation, wages and even overall medical inflation. The premium increases do not include rising deductibles and co-pays. See more on the Kaiser survey at http://www.kff.org/insurance/ehbs091509nr.cfm
The only effective curb on this price spiral is direct regulation of premiums and rates, which would be most effective if carried out by the states.
California's 20-year-old law governing property and casualty insurance, including mandatory auto insurance, provides the best model. Insurers have to seek permission through an elected insurance commissioner prior to raising premiums. Members of the public can challenge unnecessary premium hikes, similar to systems in place in many public utility commissions, providing an effective check against any government collusion with insurance companies.
The Consumer Federation of America reported in 2008 that the regulation had saved Californians $61.8 billion on their auto insurance alone. That doesn't mean auto insurers aren't prospering. California is America's fourth most competitive insurance market, while completely unregulated Illinois, home of Allstate, ranks 44th. Fewer California drivers are thrown into the high-risk pool and insurers' average profit of 13.9 percent in the state from 1989 to 2005 is double the national level of 6.5 percent. The law regulated all major lines of insurance, except for health and workers compensation, which are the only two consistently dysfunctional insurance markets in California.
See the Consumer Federation study at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=19888
Congress and the president must not just encourage state regulation of health insurance rates, but set a floor for such regulation. Otherwise, government is no more than a customer delivery system for private insurance companies.
5. No insurer accountability. A recently dismissed California case involving the death of a teenager after her insurers' denial of liver transplant has highlighted the need for greater legal protections for consumers.
Seventeen-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan died in 2007 after Cigna's denial of the transplant, but the law prevents her family from taking the insurer to court because of a legal loophole banning lawsuits if insurance is provided by a private employer. Thus 132 million Americans have no remedy if an insurer's denial kills their loved one. This is due to an errant Supreme Court ruling on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. The lack of accountability allows HMOs and insurance companies to deny access to care without fear of reprisal.
Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive-turned whistleblower, has stated that insurers pay closer attention to grievances by people whose health insurance policies do allow patients to hold the insurer accountable in court -- for instance government employees and people buying individual policies.
The Sarkisyan family was allowed to continue a lawsuit for emotional distress -- but only because an insurance executive made an obscene gesture to the family at a rally outside of CIGNA's headquarters. So currently a family can sue an insurance executive if he flips you the bird, but not if the insurer kills a loved one. Perhaps Cigna would prevail over doctors' recommendations in the Sarkisyan case in a court of law, but without the ability to even go to court, the limits of insurers' control over our health care goes untested.
In a system where Americans have no alternative to private insurers, the president and Congress should call explicitly for this change rather than trying to further limit patients' access to the courts.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Opinion: AFSCME President McEntee: "Finance Committee Health Care Bill is Deeply Flawed"
/PRNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees:
"The Senate Finance Committee health care bill is deeply flawed. It does not come close to meeting the needs of America's working families. Nor does it meet the standards President Obama laid out in his address last week to Congress. There is no employer mandate, no public option, no help for retirees. The bill weakens state insurance regulations and taxes health plans that provide benefits for many middle class families. This bill fails to provide good, affordable coverage and does not protect families from medical bankruptcy. It is unacceptable. We call upon members of the Finance Committee to fix this bill."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The Senate Finance Committee health care bill is deeply flawed. It does not come close to meeting the needs of America's working families. Nor does it meet the standards President Obama laid out in his address last week to Congress. There is no employer mandate, no public option, no help for retirees. The bill weakens state insurance regulations and taxes health plans that provide benefits for many middle class families. This bill fails to provide good, affordable coverage and does not protect families from medical bankruptcy. It is unacceptable. We call upon members of the Finance Committee to fix this bill."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Machinists Vow to Continue Fight for F-22 Funding
/PRNewswire/ -- The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today pledged to continue fighting for additional funding for F-22 Raptor aircraft, despite a vote in the U.S. Senate to end production at the 187 jets currently on order.
"This is a critical economic security issue as well as a national security issue," declared IAM President Tom Buffenbarger. "More than 95,000 jobs in 44 states are at risk from the shortsighted decision to terminate this program. Entire communities will suffer grievous economic harm and a critical skill base could be lost forever if this decision is not reversed."
IAM members build, assemble and maintain F-22 components in dozens of states, including Connecticut, Georgia, California and Texas.
"Ending the F-22 will result in immediate layoffs in the supplier base and begin the costly dismantling of a vital part of our defense industrial base -- at a time when our nation is facing the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression and unemployment continues to rise month after month," said Buffenbarger.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"This is a critical economic security issue as well as a national security issue," declared IAM President Tom Buffenbarger. "More than 95,000 jobs in 44 states are at risk from the shortsighted decision to terminate this program. Entire communities will suffer grievous economic harm and a critical skill base could be lost forever if this decision is not reversed."
IAM members build, assemble and maintain F-22 components in dozens of states, including Connecticut, Georgia, California and Texas.
"Ending the F-22 will result in immediate layoffs in the supplier base and begin the costly dismantling of a vital part of our defense industrial base -- at a time when our nation is facing the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression and unemployment continues to rise month after month," said Buffenbarger.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Hillary Clinton 2006 FEC Immunity Deal May Be Voided, According to D. Colette Wilson, Attorney
/PRNewswire/ -- Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Hillary Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc. have become the subjects of a new Federal Election Commission Complaint filed today.
An original FEC complaint filed against Senator Clinton and her agents, President Clinton, Finance Director David Rosen and Treasurer Andrew Grossman, in July 2001 exposed the false reporting of more than $1.2 million expended by Hollywood dot-com millionaire Peter Paul at the request of Senator Clinton and her agents. Clinton Finance Director David Rosen was indicted and tried for FEC fraud in 2005 as a result, and a Conciliation Agreement with Andrew Grossman Treasurer of NY Senate included a fine of the Clinton campaign and an immunity agreement protecting Senator Clinton from further investigation of illegal acts.
The January 2006 "confidential" FEC immunization of Hillary Clinton as in the Senate campaign, was subject to the filing of a fourth corrected FEC Report on January 30, 2006, to legally report the $1.2 million plus expenditure contributed by Peter Paul to underwrite Event 39, and hidden in previous reports.
The new FEC complaint presents new evidence that the latest FEC Report by Hillary Clinton and her campaign violates the Conciliation agreement compelling the FEC to void its grant of immunity. It states:
"The false reporting of [Paul's 1.2 million] expenditures as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 was and is a violation of the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. Section 434(b). The activities of [Hillary Clinton and the other Respondents] in making false statements which resulted in such contributions' being improperly reported as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (false statements) and/or 18 U.S.C. Section 2 (aiding and abetting)."
When the FEC decided to close its file as to Hillary Clinton in 2006, it stated that, "Any potential liability of Senator Clinton would be based on whether she knowingly accepted prohibited or excessive in-kind corporate contributions." Such evidence was lacking then, but not now, according to D. Colette Wilson, attorney. Ironically, in defending against Peter Paul's fraud complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hillary Clinton and her agents David Rosen and James Levin filed sworn declarations that prove Mrs. Clinton knowingly accepted prohibited, excessive contributions in underwriting Event 39, by soliciting, directing and coordinating Mr. Paul's in-kind contribution.
Attorney D. Colette Wilson, on behalf of Clinton 's "unreported" donor, Peter Paul stated:
"The filing presents new evidence -- out of the mouths of Hillary herself and her agents -- proving that Hillary lied when she said her largest campaign fundraising event -- Event 39 -- wasn't a Hillary Clinton for Senate event. That's ALL it was. This new evidence proves it was a sham to claim that it was a Democratic party event, in order to get away with claiming that Peter Paul's expenditures were soft money donated to her Joint Fundraising Committee, New York Senate 2000, rather than federally proscribed, hard money to Hillary Clinton for Senate, the intended beneficiary."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
An original FEC complaint filed against Senator Clinton and her agents, President Clinton, Finance Director David Rosen and Treasurer Andrew Grossman, in July 2001 exposed the false reporting of more than $1.2 million expended by Hollywood dot-com millionaire Peter Paul at the request of Senator Clinton and her agents. Clinton Finance Director David Rosen was indicted and tried for FEC fraud in 2005 as a result, and a Conciliation Agreement with Andrew Grossman Treasurer of NY Senate included a fine of the Clinton campaign and an immunity agreement protecting Senator Clinton from further investigation of illegal acts.
The January 2006 "confidential" FEC immunization of Hillary Clinton as in the Senate campaign, was subject to the filing of a fourth corrected FEC Report on January 30, 2006, to legally report the $1.2 million plus expenditure contributed by Peter Paul to underwrite Event 39, and hidden in previous reports.
The new FEC complaint presents new evidence that the latest FEC Report by Hillary Clinton and her campaign violates the Conciliation agreement compelling the FEC to void its grant of immunity. It states:
"The false reporting of [Paul's 1.2 million] expenditures as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 was and is a violation of the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. Section 434(b). The activities of [Hillary Clinton and the other Respondents] in making false statements which resulted in such contributions' being improperly reported as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (false statements) and/or 18 U.S.C. Section 2 (aiding and abetting)."
When the FEC decided to close its file as to Hillary Clinton in 2006, it stated that, "Any potential liability of Senator Clinton would be based on whether she knowingly accepted prohibited or excessive in-kind corporate contributions." Such evidence was lacking then, but not now, according to D. Colette Wilson, attorney. Ironically, in defending against Peter Paul's fraud complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hillary Clinton and her agents David Rosen and James Levin filed sworn declarations that prove Mrs. Clinton knowingly accepted prohibited, excessive contributions in underwriting Event 39, by soliciting, directing and coordinating Mr. Paul's in-kind contribution.
Attorney D. Colette Wilson, on behalf of Clinton 's "unreported" donor, Peter Paul stated:
"The filing presents new evidence -- out of the mouths of Hillary herself and her agents -- proving that Hillary lied when she said her largest campaign fundraising event -- Event 39 -- wasn't a Hillary Clinton for Senate event. That's ALL it was. This new evidence proves it was a sham to claim that it was a Democratic party event, in order to get away with claiming that Peter Paul's expenditures were soft money donated to her Joint Fundraising Committee, New York Senate 2000, rather than federally proscribed, hard money to Hillary Clinton for Senate, the intended beneficiary."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)