Dan Maffei is the first Democrat to represent upstate New York’s 25th Congressional District in two generations.
That makes him a cautious, middle-of-the-roader from a swing district as he approaches the most contentious political decision of his young congressional career—whether or how to reform the nation’s broken health care system.
And he’s swamped. Before a vote has been cast, he has received 1,700 letters, phone calls and e-mails full of advice. Like all of his Capitol Hill colleagues, Maffei has been cajoled, lectured and feted by special interests: Drug companies, doctors, hospitals, labor unions and other stakeholders, including AARP, have already spent $126 million on lobbying this year.
Since he took office, the message from constituents has been consistent: “Costs are out of control,” Maffei said. “Patients can’t afford this. Our hospitals are just reeling. We’re having a heck of a time recruiting primary care physicians.”
His constituents’ advice, he says, emphasizes the two extremes—either implement a single-payer, government-run system or leave the best health care system in the world alone (and don’t raise taxes!). “The truth is,” Maffei said, “that it’s not the best health care system in the world. We are paying more for less care, for less healthy people, and with lower life expectancy.”
Maffei is part of a group of moderate Democrats generally sympathetic to business. But he said he is influenced more by what he knows best. His wife had to battle her insurance company over treatment for a kidney infection three years ago. The issue was not whether the treatment was covered. It was. But she had not called the company’s 800 number for preapproval. The company denied her claim, then hired a private investigator during an extended appeals process. Eventually, she won her appeal, but not before Maffei became convinced that there were layers of administrative waste in the system. “That crystallized the whole thing,” he said.
“We need a bipartisan, lasting health care reform,” Maffei said. “Otherwise, if it’s not bipartisan, it’ll just be ripped up in a few years, and we’ll have to do it again.”
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Nikki White fell through the cracks
In the debate over health care, here’s an inequity to ponder: Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber.
Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.
In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T. R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, “The Healing of America.” Some 80 percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor’s care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care.
As Mr. Reid recounts, Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition. She spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought might be able to help. She fought tenaciously for her life.
Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent six months in critical care.
“When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her,” her step-father, Tony Deal, told me. “But that’s not when she needed the care.”
By then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. “Nikki didn’t die from lupus,” her doctor, Amylyn Crawford, told Mr. Reid. “Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system.”
“She fell through the cracks,” Nikki’s mother, Gail Deal, told me grimly. “When you bury a child, it’s the worst thing in the world. You never recover.”
We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour.
That’s how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths.
Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance.
In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T. R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, “The Healing of America.” Some 80 percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor’s care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care.
As Mr. Reid recounts, Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition. She spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought might be able to help. She fought tenaciously for her life.
Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent six months in critical care.
“When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her,” her step-father, Tony Deal, told me. “But that’s not when she needed the care.”
By then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. “Nikki didn’t die from lupus,” her doctor, Amylyn Crawford, told Mr. Reid. “Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system.”
“She fell through the cracks,” Nikki’s mother, Gail Deal, told me grimly. “When you bury a child, it’s the worst thing in the world. You never recover.”
We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour.
That’s how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Pat Buchanan on Obama on healthcare
We should have "an honest debate" on health care, said Barack Obama in his Aug. 22 radio address, "not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions."
Among the "phony claims" made against the House bill, says the president, are that it provides funding for abortions, guarantees coverage for illegal aliens, contains "death panels" and represents a federal takeover of the health-care system.
Is Obama right? Are critics misleading and frightening folks with falsehoods about Obamacare?
Well, let us inspect each of those "phony claims."
Does the House bill fund abortions? No.
As for illegal aliens, Obama is right again. They are not covered in any of the five bills.
What about the "death panels." No, they are not in the bill. Nor is there any doctor's right to perform euthanasia or mercy-killing.
[OK, Buchanan obviously throws in a lot of howevers in the article, so obviously I intentionally slanted his slants.]
Among the "phony claims" made against the House bill, says the president, are that it provides funding for abortions, guarantees coverage for illegal aliens, contains "death panels" and represents a federal takeover of the health-care system.
Is Obama right? Are critics misleading and frightening folks with falsehoods about Obamacare?
Well, let us inspect each of those "phony claims."
Does the House bill fund abortions? No.
As for illegal aliens, Obama is right again. They are not covered in any of the five bills.
What about the "death panels." No, they are not in the bill. Nor is there any doctor's right to perform euthanasia or mercy-killing.
[OK, Buchanan obviously throws in a lot of howevers in the article, so obviously I intentionally slanted his slants.]
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Obamas speech inspires some, unheard by others
On the very first day of the school year, 12-year-old Mileena Rodriguez was reminded by President Barack Obama himself that hard work can take you places.Mileena listened to Obama's plea to study hard and stay in school Tuesday, watching along with several of her classmates at Thurgood Marshall Elementary School and students across the country. For all the hubbub among adults over the back-to-school speech, many youngsters took the president's message to heart.
"He said that we're the future, and he's right," said Mileena, who wants to be a forensic scientist. "That's a president telling you, `I care about you getting your education.' Just imagine what kids like us can do if we actually listen."
Schoolchildren from coast to coast watched on classroom TVs and computer screens. Others did not hear the message at all, either because their parents pulled from them from class or their schools refused to carry the speech over complaints from conservative groups and others that it smacked of political indoctrination.
In his speech, which aired on C-SPAN and the White House Web site, Obama used examples from his own life to urge students to study hard. He told them to stop chasing dreams of being athletes or reality TV stars.
"The truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try," Obama said.
Other presidents, including Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, delivered similar speeches to students, but some conservatives accused Obama of trying to promote his policies, and they urged schools and parents to boycott the address. Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer initially called the speech an attempt to "spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
The Department of Education was also criticized for proposed lesson plans distributed to accompany the speech, including a section — later changed — that asked students to write about how they could help the president.
Schools were not required to show the speech, and the White House posted an advance transcript on its Web site on Monday. After they got a look at the text, many critics, including Greer, backed off, and some schools agreed to show the speech after all.
Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, a Republican, had originally criticized the speech and its suggested lesson plans as "steps never before seen by any presidency in the realm of government intervention." But he said his concerns eased after some of the lesson plans were changed.
"It was perfectly innocuous and a praiseworthy message," he said Tuesday.
"He said that we're the future, and he's right," said Mileena, who wants to be a forensic scientist. "That's a president telling you, `I care about you getting your education.' Just imagine what kids like us can do if we actually listen."
Schoolchildren from coast to coast watched on classroom TVs and computer screens. Others did not hear the message at all, either because their parents pulled from them from class or their schools refused to carry the speech over complaints from conservative groups and others that it smacked of political indoctrination.
In his speech, which aired on C-SPAN and the White House Web site, Obama used examples from his own life to urge students to study hard. He told them to stop chasing dreams of being athletes or reality TV stars.
"The truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try," Obama said.
Other presidents, including Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, delivered similar speeches to students, but some conservatives accused Obama of trying to promote his policies, and they urged schools and parents to boycott the address. Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer initially called the speech an attempt to "spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
The Department of Education was also criticized for proposed lesson plans distributed to accompany the speech, including a section — later changed — that asked students to write about how they could help the president.
Schools were not required to show the speech, and the White House posted an advance transcript on its Web site on Monday. After they got a look at the text, many critics, including Greer, backed off, and some schools agreed to show the speech after all.
Missouri Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, a Republican, had originally criticized the speech and its suggested lesson plans as "steps never before seen by any presidency in the realm of government intervention." But he said his concerns eased after some of the lesson plans were changed.
"It was perfectly innocuous and a praiseworthy message," he said Tuesday.
Monday, September 21, 2009
David Brooks on health care reform
If I were magically given an hour to help Barack Obama prepare for his health care speech next week, the first thing I’d do is ask him to read David Goldhill’s essay, “How American Health Care Killed My Father,” in the current issue of The Atlantic. That essay would lift Obama out of the distracting sideshows about this public plan or that cooperative option. It would remind him why he got into this issue in the first place.
Goldhill’s main message is that the American health care system is dysfunctional at the core. He vividly describes how the system hides information, muddies choices, encourages more treatment instead of better care, neglects cheap innovation, inflates costs and unintentionally increases suffering.
The essay is about the real problem: the insane incentives.
Goldhill’s main message is that the American health care system is dysfunctional at the core. He vividly describes how the system hides information, muddies choices, encourages more treatment instead of better care, neglects cheap innovation, inflates costs and unintentionally increases suffering.
The essay is about the real problem: the insane incentives.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
B.O. bill raises stink
A proposal that raised a stink nationwide over an apparent attempt to criminalize body odor on public buses has been shelved by the City Council.
Bill 59 was deferred by the Council's Transportation Committee yesterday.
Honolulu gained nationwide attention, criticism and ridicule over Bill 59, which proposed a new code of conduct for users of the city's planned rail mass transit system. The code also would have applied to existing transit systems, including TheBus.
Civil rights groups and others criticized a provision that would have made it a crime -- punishable by a fine up to $500, six months in jail or both -- to have offensive body odor.
***
For a radio talk show host and newspaper columnist like me, Honolulu City Councilman Rod Tam is the gift that keeps on giving. His latest legislative faux pas, that harebrained idea that we should outlaw smelly people from TheBus and any other public transit systems will provide fodder for conversation and chuckles for ages.
If you were too busy working for a living and raising your children, you may have missed that Tam, along with colleague Nestor Garcia, announced their facilitation of legislation that would make it illegal to “bring onto transit property odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system, whether such odors arise from one’s person, clothes, articles, accompanying animal or any other source.” In other words, no stink for you!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen of Oahu, you have duly elected leaders who are dedicating their time, resources and your dollars to the identification, extrication and prosecution of people who smell bad.
Thank goodness. For a while there, I thought they would be concerned about the looming city budget deficit, the deterioration of our roadways, the potential of a billion-dollar judgment on secondary wastewater treatment and the management of a multibillion-dollar transportation project. Naturally, these areas of concern are mere distractions when we have the scourge of B.O.-emanating, toe jamcrusted and halitosis-disseminating citizens riding TheBus. Somebody, please, elevate the Homeland Security threat level to “Skanky.”
But who is truly surprised this idea has Tam’s fingerprints all over it? While in the state Legislature,Tam cooked up the “Naps and Snacks” proposal. Tam also championed that great idea that Koko Head Crater would make a wonderful alternative to the Waimanalo Gulch landfill.
Councilman Nestor Garcia, co-author of the bill with colleague Rod Tam, said he would work on a new proposal to address constitutional issues raised by the language of the bill. The provision on odor is unlikely to be included.
"One person's smell is another person's perfume, I guess," Garcia said. "We need to try to figure out exactly how we go about that if we are to continue that kind of procedure."
Tam defended the bill, saying it arose out of constituents' concerns.
"It's our job to do it, whether we like it or not, and whether people want to criticize," said Tam, who previously faced ridicule as a state senator for introducing a bill authorizing naps and snack breaks for public workers.
***
Councilman Rod Tam has a long-standing record of listening to his constituents and supporting their legitimate concerns. Tam is a man ahead of his time. For example, he once supported a "naps" bill that would allow workers to take a short nap on their lunch hour or during a coffee break. Research, including a Harvard University study, shows that a power nap boosted performance back to morning levels.
I applaud Councilman Tam for his courage in representing his constituents' wishes as far as protecting the right to breathe Hawaii's pure, fresh and clean air while riding buses.
Bill 59 was deferred by the Council's Transportation Committee yesterday.
Honolulu gained nationwide attention, criticism and ridicule over Bill 59, which proposed a new code of conduct for users of the city's planned rail mass transit system. The code also would have applied to existing transit systems, including TheBus.
Civil rights groups and others criticized a provision that would have made it a crime -- punishable by a fine up to $500, six months in jail or both -- to have offensive body odor.
***
For a radio talk show host and newspaper columnist like me, Honolulu City Councilman Rod Tam is the gift that keeps on giving. His latest legislative faux pas, that harebrained idea that we should outlaw smelly people from TheBus and any other public transit systems will provide fodder for conversation and chuckles for ages.
If you were too busy working for a living and raising your children, you may have missed that Tam, along with colleague Nestor Garcia, announced their facilitation of legislation that would make it illegal to “bring onto transit property odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system, whether such odors arise from one’s person, clothes, articles, accompanying animal or any other source.” In other words, no stink for you!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen of Oahu, you have duly elected leaders who are dedicating their time, resources and your dollars to the identification, extrication and prosecution of people who smell bad.
Thank goodness. For a while there, I thought they would be concerned about the looming city budget deficit, the deterioration of our roadways, the potential of a billion-dollar judgment on secondary wastewater treatment and the management of a multibillion-dollar transportation project. Naturally, these areas of concern are mere distractions when we have the scourge of B.O.-emanating, toe jamcrusted and halitosis-disseminating citizens riding TheBus. Somebody, please, elevate the Homeland Security threat level to “Skanky.”
But who is truly surprised this idea has Tam’s fingerprints all over it? While in the state Legislature,Tam cooked up the “Naps and Snacks” proposal. Tam also championed that great idea that Koko Head Crater would make a wonderful alternative to the Waimanalo Gulch landfill.
Councilman Nestor Garcia, co-author of the bill with colleague Rod Tam, said he would work on a new proposal to address constitutional issues raised by the language of the bill. The provision on odor is unlikely to be included.
"One person's smell is another person's perfume, I guess," Garcia said. "We need to try to figure out exactly how we go about that if we are to continue that kind of procedure."
Tam defended the bill, saying it arose out of constituents' concerns.
"It's our job to do it, whether we like it or not, and whether people want to criticize," said Tam, who previously faced ridicule as a state senator for introducing a bill authorizing naps and snack breaks for public workers.
***
Councilman Rod Tam has a long-standing record of listening to his constituents and supporting their legitimate concerns. Tam is a man ahead of his time. For example, he once supported a "naps" bill that would allow workers to take a short nap on their lunch hour or during a coffee break. Research, including a Harvard University study, shows that a power nap boosted performance back to morning levels.
I applaud Councilman Tam for his courage in representing his constituents' wishes as far as protecting the right to breathe Hawaii's pure, fresh and clean air while riding buses.
'bipartisan' healthcare plan attacked by both sides
Centrist Democratic senators introduced their long-awaited “bipartisan” healthcare plan on Wednesday without the public option favoured by President Barack Obama or the support of a single Republican.
The $856bn 10-year bill, which was unveiled by Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate finance committee, went a long way towards meeting Republican objections after a summer of increasingly emotional conservative allegations against healthcare reform.
But Mr Baucus, who had spent months with three leading Republicans trying to hammer out a compromise, was greeted with a unanimous thumbs down. Even Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine who seemed most likely to come out in favour, declined to show her support.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, said: “This partisan proposal cuts Medicare [the programme for seniors] by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government programme.”
Mr Baucus, whose bill is considered the most likely among the five circulating on Capitol Hill to resemble whatever might finally be enacted, was also attacked by liberal Democrats on Wednesday for diluting key elements of the bill, both by lowering the cost of the reform from the initial plan of more than $1,000bn and by junking the controversial “public option”.
Mr Baucus’s plan would extend health coverage to 30m Americans. He said: “This is a unique moment in history. Now we can finally pass legislation that will rein in healthcare costs and deliver quality, affordable care to the American people.”
The White House emphasised that the Baucus bill was not a final draft, but a “building block” that would change.
The polarised response to Wednesday’s announcement suggests that Mr Obama’s hopes of getting a bipartisan healthcare reform bill passed are almost certainly dead. Any further concessions to Republican critics would alienate already-disenchanted liberal supporters. The main question now is whether the White House pushes for the bill to be enacted under the budget reconciliation rule, which would enable its sponsors to pass the reforms with a simple majority of 51 – against the 60 needed to shut off an opposition filibuster.
Republicans say such a move would kill hopes of cross-party co-operation on other issues. Many Democrats worry it would force the bill’s sponsors to strip out non-budget related items, including the proposal to set up a healthcare insurance exchange and regulations that would prevent insurers from denying coverage on the basis of health, race, age and geography.
The $856bn 10-year bill, which was unveiled by Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate finance committee, went a long way towards meeting Republican objections after a summer of increasingly emotional conservative allegations against healthcare reform.
But Mr Baucus, who had spent months with three leading Republicans trying to hammer out a compromise, was greeted with a unanimous thumbs down. Even Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine who seemed most likely to come out in favour, declined to show her support.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, said: “This partisan proposal cuts Medicare [the programme for seniors] by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government programme.”
Mr Baucus, whose bill is considered the most likely among the five circulating on Capitol Hill to resemble whatever might finally be enacted, was also attacked by liberal Democrats on Wednesday for diluting key elements of the bill, both by lowering the cost of the reform from the initial plan of more than $1,000bn and by junking the controversial “public option”.
Mr Baucus’s plan would extend health coverage to 30m Americans. He said: “This is a unique moment in history. Now we can finally pass legislation that will rein in healthcare costs and deliver quality, affordable care to the American people.”
The White House emphasised that the Baucus bill was not a final draft, but a “building block” that would change.
The polarised response to Wednesday’s announcement suggests that Mr Obama’s hopes of getting a bipartisan healthcare reform bill passed are almost certainly dead. Any further concessions to Republican critics would alienate already-disenchanted liberal supporters. The main question now is whether the White House pushes for the bill to be enacted under the budget reconciliation rule, which would enable its sponsors to pass the reforms with a simple majority of 51 – against the 60 needed to shut off an opposition filibuster.
Republicans say such a move would kill hopes of cross-party co-operation on other issues. Many Democrats worry it would force the bill’s sponsors to strip out non-budget related items, including the proposal to set up a healthcare insurance exchange and regulations that would prevent insurers from denying coverage on the basis of health, race, age and geography.
Monday, September 14, 2009
MidWeek slanted
Slanting right
Although I enjoy reading most of your news and articles, I get extremely tired of the mostly drivel from such right-wingers as Jerry Coffee, Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchanan. I would have thought the MidWeek would have dropped Malkin years ago! She is more on par with the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I am for balanced news, but your slant is too obvious.
Paul Mizue
Aiea
* * *
Slanting left
MidWeek has become so liberal - between Dan Boylan, Bob Jones, Arianna Huffington and even in the letters to the editor section, I am on the verge of canceling my subscription. Lose the slant or lose me as a reader.
Art Miller
Honolulu
* * *
I had to chuckle when I read the two letters this week (9/2) from Paul Mizue, “Slanting right,” and Art Miller, “Slanting left.” To have an intelligent discussion on any issue, both sides must be willing to listen to the other’s opinions and ideas with an open mind. Today, unfortunately, too many on either side of the political debate are unwilling to come to the table with an open mind. Instead, like Paul and Art, they are quick to demonize and seek to silence the opposition.
That MidWeek has the courage to publish the thoughts and opinions from both sides of the aisle, week in and week out, make it the jewel that it is. Please do not change a thing.
John Baughman
Kailua
Although I enjoy reading most of your news and articles, I get extremely tired of the mostly drivel from such right-wingers as Jerry Coffee, Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchanan. I would have thought the MidWeek would have dropped Malkin years ago! She is more on par with the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I am for balanced news, but your slant is too obvious.
Paul Mizue
Aiea
* * *
Slanting left
MidWeek has become so liberal - between Dan Boylan, Bob Jones, Arianna Huffington and even in the letters to the editor section, I am on the verge of canceling my subscription. Lose the slant or lose me as a reader.
Art Miller
Honolulu
* * *
I had to chuckle when I read the two letters this week (9/2) from Paul Mizue, “Slanting right,” and Art Miller, “Slanting left.” To have an intelligent discussion on any issue, both sides must be willing to listen to the other’s opinions and ideas with an open mind. Today, unfortunately, too many on either side of the political debate are unwilling to come to the table with an open mind. Instead, like Paul and Art, they are quick to demonize and seek to silence the opposition.
That MidWeek has the courage to publish the thoughts and opinions from both sides of the aisle, week in and week out, make it the jewel that it is. Please do not change a thing.
John Baughman
Kailua
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama on health care reform
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama on Wednesday made a passionate call for Congress to fix the nation's ailing health care system in the same spirit that created Social Security and Medicare in difficult times.
In a joint speech to Congress heralded as vital to his push for a health care overhaul, Obama offered his most detailed outline for legislation while challenging Republican opponents to build on issues of agreement rather than play politics to exploit differences.
He called for serious proposals from Democrats and Republicans to address chronic health care problems and rising costs, but warned he would not "waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."
"I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are," Obama said to growing applause from Democrats. "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now."
Obama, offering his first real blueprint for a bill, touched on issues that have dominated the health-care debate at town hall meetings across the country during the congressional recess in August.
All Americans would be required by law to have health insurance under his proposal, Obama said. He noted the requirement would be similar to mandatory auto insurance in most states and also would mandate businesses to either offer health care coverage to workers or contribute to covering their costs of obtaining coverage.
"There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements," Obama said. "But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.
"Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part."
Obama also defended his proposal for government-run public health insurance as an option for consumers, saying it would force private insurers to lower costs. However, he called the provision one alternative for increasing competition for health insurance and signaled his openness to alternatives.
But he added, "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."
"And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."
Republicans are unanimous in opposing a public option, calling it an unfair competitor that would drive private insurers from the market and lead to a government takeover of health insurance. Obama rejected that claim as a false allegation intended to scare people. iReport.com: Did Obama's speech hit the mark with you?
"Let me be clear -- it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance," he said. "No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up."
Obama called for a reasonable approach from both liberal Democrats who demand a public option and Republicans and some moderate Democrats who oppose the provision.
"To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it," he said. "The public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
"And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have."
Obama also confronted another concern expressed by opponents of Democratic proposals, pledging that any health care bill approved by Congress won't increase the federal deficit. He repeated past statements that savings in the existing health care system would cover most of the cost of an overhaul bill.
The president also sought to assure the elderly that cutting costs and finding savings in the Medicare program for senior citizens won't diminish the level of service currently provided. In particular, he said "not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund" would pay for the bill.
However, Obama provided few details of how that would happen, saying the plan would eliminate "unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies" and create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify further waste.
"These steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised," Obama said. "They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations."
He urged the elderly to ignore what he called "scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past."
In a gesture intended to display his commitment to a bipartisan approach, Obama directed his administration to set up demonstration projects in several states to move toward medical malpractice reform -- an issue pushed by Republicans as way to bring down health care costs.
His mere mention of the topic prompted lengthy applause from the Republican side of the chamber.
"I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," Obama said.
He proposed demonstration projects -- considered by the Bush administration -- "on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine."
In an emotional conclusion, Obama invoked the late Sen. Edward Kennedy -- a leading advocate of health care reform until his death last month -- by citing a letter in which the senator called providing health care to all Americans "above all a moral issue."
" 'At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country,' " the president said, quoting the letter that Kennedy wrote in May and asked to be delivered after his death.
"I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country," Obama said to the hushed chamber. "One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government."
Kennedy recognized, however, that with all of the drive of Americans to stand strong, there comes a time when government must step in to help, Obama said.
"When fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand," the president said, citing "a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise."
Initial public response among those who watched the speech was positive, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Two out of three Americans who watched the speech said they favor Obama's health care plans -- a 14-point gain from before the speech -- while 29 percent oppose the president's proposals, according to the pollsters.
However, the audience for the speech appeared to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole, causing the poll organizers to warn the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in.
In addition, the pollsters noted, the results don't reflect the the views of all Americans, only those who watched the speech.
In a joint speech to Congress heralded as vital to his push for a health care overhaul, Obama offered his most detailed outline for legislation while challenging Republican opponents to build on issues of agreement rather than play politics to exploit differences.
He called for serious proposals from Democrats and Republicans to address chronic health care problems and rising costs, but warned he would not "waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."
"I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are," Obama said to growing applause from Democrats. "If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now."
Obama, offering his first real blueprint for a bill, touched on issues that have dominated the health-care debate at town hall meetings across the country during the congressional recess in August.
All Americans would be required by law to have health insurance under his proposal, Obama said. He noted the requirement would be similar to mandatory auto insurance in most states and also would mandate businesses to either offer health care coverage to workers or contribute to covering their costs of obtaining coverage.
"There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements," Obama said. "But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.
"Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part."
Obama also defended his proposal for government-run public health insurance as an option for consumers, saying it would force private insurers to lower costs. However, he called the provision one alternative for increasing competition for health insurance and signaled his openness to alternatives.
But he added, "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."
"And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."
Republicans are unanimous in opposing a public option, calling it an unfair competitor that would drive private insurers from the market and lead to a government takeover of health insurance. Obama rejected that claim as a false allegation intended to scare people. iReport.com: Did Obama's speech hit the mark with you?
"Let me be clear -- it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance," he said. "No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up."
Obama called for a reasonable approach from both liberal Democrats who demand a public option and Republicans and some moderate Democrats who oppose the provision.
"To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it," he said. "The public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
"And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have."
Obama also confronted another concern expressed by opponents of Democratic proposals, pledging that any health care bill approved by Congress won't increase the federal deficit. He repeated past statements that savings in the existing health care system would cover most of the cost of an overhaul bill.
The president also sought to assure the elderly that cutting costs and finding savings in the Medicare program for senior citizens won't diminish the level of service currently provided. In particular, he said "not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund" would pay for the bill.
However, Obama provided few details of how that would happen, saying the plan would eliminate "unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies" and create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify further waste.
"These steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised," Obama said. "They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations."
He urged the elderly to ignore what he called "scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past."
In a gesture intended to display his commitment to a bipartisan approach, Obama directed his administration to set up demonstration projects in several states to move toward medical malpractice reform -- an issue pushed by Republicans as way to bring down health care costs.
His mere mention of the topic prompted lengthy applause from the Republican side of the chamber.
"I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," Obama said.
He proposed demonstration projects -- considered by the Bush administration -- "on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine."
In an emotional conclusion, Obama invoked the late Sen. Edward Kennedy -- a leading advocate of health care reform until his death last month -- by citing a letter in which the senator called providing health care to all Americans "above all a moral issue."
" 'At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country,' " the president said, quoting the letter that Kennedy wrote in May and asked to be delivered after his death.
"I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country," Obama said to the hushed chamber. "One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government."
Kennedy recognized, however, that with all of the drive of Americans to stand strong, there comes a time when government must step in to help, Obama said.
"When fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand," the president said, citing "a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise."
Initial public response among those who watched the speech was positive, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Two out of three Americans who watched the speech said they favor Obama's health care plans -- a 14-point gain from before the speech -- while 29 percent oppose the president's proposals, according to the pollsters.
However, the audience for the speech appeared to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole, causing the poll organizers to warn the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in.
In addition, the pollsters noted, the results don't reflect the the views of all Americans, only those who watched the speech.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Sarah Palin on health care reform
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Liberal Democratic Party out in Japan
Japan’s voters cast out the Liberal Democratic Party for only the second time in postwar history on Sunday, handing a landslide victory to a party that campaigned on a promise to reverse a generation-long economic decline and to redefine Tokyo’s relationship with Washington.
Many Japanese saw the vote as the final blow to the island nation’s postwar order, which has been slowly unraveling since the economy collapsed in the early 1990s.
In the powerful lower house, the opposition Democrats virtually swapped places with the governing Liberal Democratic Party, winning 308 of the 480 seats, a 175 percent increase that gives them control of the chamber, according to the national broadcaster NHK. The incumbents took just 119 seats, about a third of their previous total. The remaining seats were won by smaller parties.
“This has been a revolutionary election,” Yukio Hatoyama, the party leader and presumptive new prime minister, told reporters. “The people have shown the courage to take politics into their own hands.”
Mr. Hatoyama, who is expected to assemble a government in two to three weeks, has spoken of the end of American-dominated globalization and of the need to reorient Japan toward Asia. His party’s campaign manifesto calls for an “equal partnership” with the United States and a “reconsidering” of the 50,000-strong American military presence here.
Many Japanese saw the vote as the final blow to the island nation’s postwar order, which has been slowly unraveling since the economy collapsed in the early 1990s.
In the powerful lower house, the opposition Democrats virtually swapped places with the governing Liberal Democratic Party, winning 308 of the 480 seats, a 175 percent increase that gives them control of the chamber, according to the national broadcaster NHK. The incumbents took just 119 seats, about a third of their previous total. The remaining seats were won by smaller parties.
“This has been a revolutionary election,” Yukio Hatoyama, the party leader and presumptive new prime minister, told reporters. “The people have shown the courage to take politics into their own hands.”
Mr. Hatoyama, who is expected to assemble a government in two to three weeks, has spoken of the end of American-dominated globalization and of the need to reorient Japan toward Asia. His party’s campaign manifesto calls for an “equal partnership” with the United States and a “reconsidering” of the 50,000-strong American military presence here.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Jesus on health care reform
Jesus would be in favor of Medicare for all.
The easy solution to end the health care debate is to allow people the option to buy into Medicare or keep their current insurance. In America 46,000 people are uninsured and 18,000 people a year die from not having any health care coverage; 50 million people a year file bankruptcy because they get sick. Illness is the No. 1 reason people face foreclosure.
Paraphrasing Matthew 25:31, the disciples asked, "Who goes to heaven?" Jesus replied, "The ones who looked after me when I was sick." The disciples said, "We never saw you sick." Jesus said, "No, you were to do unto others as you do unto me."
A little common sense accompanied with facts shows that we need a single-payer health care option and we need it now.
Justin Hughey
Lahaina
***
I just had to laugh. The opening sentence in "Everyone deserves Medicare" (Star-Bulletin, Letters, Aug. 25) is "Jesus would be in favor of Medicare for all." This is a weird example of the way we twist a Bible passage to fit our purposes. I, too, am familiar with the whole passage (Matt 25:31-46). Jesus never said that the Sanhedrin, or even the Roman government, should supply care for the people. The writer should have added that, if Jesus would want us to have Medicare, he would also be in favor of government-supplied food, water, clothes, housing and better-run prisons. The letter writer should read that passage again; Jesus puts the onus directly where it belongs — on us. And Jesus also tells us the personal consequences of ignoring these problems.
Arg Bacon
The easy solution to end the health care debate is to allow people the option to buy into Medicare or keep their current insurance. In America 46,000 people are uninsured and 18,000 people a year die from not having any health care coverage; 50 million people a year file bankruptcy because they get sick. Illness is the No. 1 reason people face foreclosure.
Paraphrasing Matthew 25:31, the disciples asked, "Who goes to heaven?" Jesus replied, "The ones who looked after me when I was sick." The disciples said, "We never saw you sick." Jesus said, "No, you were to do unto others as you do unto me."
A little common sense accompanied with facts shows that we need a single-payer health care option and we need it now.
Justin Hughey
Lahaina
***
I just had to laugh. The opening sentence in "Everyone deserves Medicare" (Star-Bulletin, Letters, Aug. 25) is "Jesus would be in favor of Medicare for all." This is a weird example of the way we twist a Bible passage to fit our purposes. I, too, am familiar with the whole passage (Matt 25:31-46). Jesus never said that the Sanhedrin, or even the Roman government, should supply care for the people. The writer should have added that, if Jesus would want us to have Medicare, he would also be in favor of government-supplied food, water, clothes, housing and better-run prisons. The letter writer should read that passage again; Jesus puts the onus directly where it belongs — on us. And Jesus also tells us the personal consequences of ignoring these problems.
Arg Bacon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)