Universal Health Care for America

[Guest Common Sense]

The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

The government does not have the power to implement health care nationwide.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html

[Guest Mike]

Florida already plans fight the health care bill with HJR 37

 

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0037__.xml&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0037&Session=2010

 

HJR37 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Floridians. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

 

It states, in part:

 

(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system

 

(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

[Guest Kennedy Family]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE: A VITAL PART OF THE NEW

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

FEBRUARY 26, 2009

 

The American health care system urgently needs repair and reform.

Today as a nation, we spend 16% of our gross domestic product on

health care, more per capita than any other country in the world. Yet

health outcomes of Americans are ranked 37th in the world by the World

Health Organization. Our system is often called a “sick care” system, not

a health care system, because it is designed to treat diseases and

illnesses, instead of promoting good health and wellness over the

lifespans of our people.

 

Genuine health reform therefore requires a major transformation in

our national mindset on how we care for ourselves and others. It must

incorporate and encourage disease prevention activities and lifestyle

changes that promote long-term health and well-being. The current

incentives in our health care system that lead to over-treatment and

mistreatment must be changed to promote high-quality, appropriate, and

coordinated health care. The nation’s alarmingly high and growing rates

of obesity and chronic disease today are a clear call to action. By

preventing diseases before they start and adopting a broader approach to

medicine, we will actually reduce costs in the long run, and we will

extend and improve the quality of life as we do it.

 

To achieve this fundamental shift in our nation’s health care

mindset, it will be necessary to reform how medicine is practiced. Lowcost

or even free health screenings and vaccinations will encourage

individuals to take part in preventive medicine. Patient-centered and

coordinated care that addresses the whole person – from genetic

predispositions, to life-style choices to potentially harmful conditions –

is essential for treating acute diseases and managing chronic conditions.

We must also adopt a more integrated approach to medicine, through

health care that addresses the mental, emotional, and physical aspects of

the healing process in order to improve the depth, breadth, and patient

choice in clinical practice.

 

Further, we must incorporate prevention, wellness, and more

patient-centered approaches as fundamental components of medical

education and the training of health providers. In order to reach the

patient effectively, integrative practices must be accepted throughout our

health care system, and especially in the education of health care

providers and the consumers who will benefit.

 

Finally, we can look beyond the traditional health care system to

the community itself – to local environments, where we can build

sidewalks and bike lanes; to workplaces, where wellness programs can

help employees include healthy nutrition and exercise in their lives; and

to schools, where we can provide preventive screenings and lay a strong

foundation for students to lead healthy lifestyles from an early age.

Americans deserve a health care system that provides this kind of

high-quality, patient-centered care, and encourages individuals’ choices

and control over their health. The result, as I have said, of this new focus

on prevention and health promotion will be lower health care costs and

longer, healthier lives.

 

I commend Senators Harkin and Mikulski for their continuing

leadership on this important issue, and I look forward to working closely

with my colleagues on the HELP and Finance Committees and with

President Obama to achieve our fundamental goal of improving the

quality of health care, expanding access to such care for all our people,

and reducing the financial burden of such care.

[Guest Senator Tom Harkin]

Today my thoughts are with the Kennedy family as they mourn the loss of their father, grandfather, husband and patriarch. Their grief is shared by all of us in Congress who have lost a friend and role model. I personally was honored to serve with Ted Kennedy and call him my friend.

 

In Ted, Americans had a staunch advocate for the rights worth protecting: ensuring a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, making sure that every kid has the education and opportunity they deserve and the cause of his life, access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans. I worked side-by-side with him to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act and will never forget his compassion for individuals with disabilities and the opportunity he gave me as a young senator to spearhead that legislation.

 

As Congress continues its work on these and many other issues, we will remember Ted Kennedy every step of the way.

The liberal lion no longer roams the halls of Congress, but his legacy remains. We must now rededicate our efforts toward passing legislation to provide robust, quality health insurance coverage for all Americans.

 

[Guest Human]

I really wish the Kennedy Family well, but Ted Kennedy IS gone.

 

So lets just stay with the Living. I want a government that is RESPONSIBLE, and this current administration HAS gone Spending Happy.

 

787 billion dollar spending bill that aint doing anything for this recession "Just FULL of pork".

 

600 billion dollars being cut from Medicare, Social Security.

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure Which groups ARE going to pay for this.

[Guest Jenny Hodges]

The current usurpation of power now centralized in the federal civil government has become the most powerful empire in the world. The interests of the empire are advancing while the interests of individual life and liberty are all but dead. The individual is forced into a position of powerlessness over his personal property, wealth and freedom. Having come so far away from individual life and liberty, how do we reclaim self-government and control?

 

The only way to restrain an out of control federal government is through the interposition of state authority to stand in defense of individual life and liberty. Those sound like nice words, but what does this mean precisely in application?

 

It means stepping out on our own two feet as a state. It means telling the federal government “No!” while asserting our legal authority in the contract amongst the states to do exactly that.

[Guest Protect Americans]

Senator Kennedy would have been a great mediator with Health Care tort reform. He would have been great debating this issue. I personally believe that he would have negotiated putting a cap on non-economic damages in medical liability cases.

 

The United States is sue crazy. There should be sliding scales put on punative damages based on the current value of the dollar. Placing a percentage gap would allow more doctors to practice Preventive Health Care without the fear of losing everything in a malpractice lawsuit.

 

I am with Republicans on this issue. I also agree that our country cannot afford to pay for everyone. We need to make sure that children, young adults, expectant mothers, and those are in life-ending trauma get medicines they deserve.

 

We need to come into agreement with low cost drugs. We need to let people legally puchase drugs from Canada and Mexico. The FDA can select the companies. I am sure the awarded companies would pay a tariff fee.

 

Everyone agrees that we should not have death panels or force living wills on people.

 

No one wants to touch Medicare, but the government needs to adjust payments to seniors and the disable with the cost of living. I also like the idea of the government investing more dollars in American drug companies. We should be better prepared to fight this flu pandemic. With climate change we will see more insect life, bacteria and virus growth. We failed in New Orleans. We are currently failing with vaccines.

 

Cooperatives sound good to me.

 

What really is the problem here?

 

This is no time to venture into another great experiment in ambitious government. Sen. Enzi discusses how the Democrats are rushing a health reform bill through Congress that will ultimately "raid Medicare", raise costs and increase the deficit.

 

[Guest NAIC]

Lost in the din of this summer’s health care debates is one important fact: there is a strong consensus that reform of the health care system is absolutely necessary. Indeed, the 2008 election served as a national “town hall,” where virtually every candidate, regardless of political affiliation, argued for broad change to our health care system.

 

“There is no serious dispute that our present system fails to cover millions of Americans and costs all of us too much,” said Roger Sevigny, President of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and New Hampshire Insurance Commissioner. “These are the two core issues that we must address as we move forward on the broad common ground that exists.”

 

The legislative proposals under consideration in Washington are complex because the challenges involve intricate issues, but there is agreement on several critical issues essential to an improved health care system.

 

“In order to finance health care through insurance as efficiently and as affordably as possible, everyone – the young, the old, the healthy, and the sick – has to be in the system,” said Sandy Praeger, Kansas Insurance Commissioner and Chair of the NAIC’s Health Insurance and Managed Care Committee. “The current proposals would prohibit health insurers from denying someone insurance simply because he or she has been treated for a pre-existing condition. Similarly, the proposals would prohibit insurers from using health status, gender or occupation when setting premiums.”

 

Of course, if coverage is guaranteed for all, there will be some who will wait until they become sick to purchase that coverage. Such a voluntary system could lead to “adverse selection,” where those with higher costs and likelihood of care participate in the system, while those with lower costs and likelihood of care do not. This dynamic drives up the cost of insurance, further discouraging people from buying it and discouraging employers from providing it. This shifts the burden of health care to an inefficient, last-resort system of emergency care and high-cost state programs. The only effective answer to these concerns is to require everyone to purchase health insurance, much as states already require the purchase of auto insurance.

 

The current proposals also eliminate caps on annual or lifetime benefits under a health insurance policy. For patients with high-cost conditions like hemophilia, who can exhaust these caps very quickly, this change will make certain that their policy delivers meaningful coverage. The proposals also acknowledge that getting everyone in the system will require adequate federal subsidies so that persons below designated income levels receive assistance in purchasing health insurance. Without subsidies, the cost of coverage, even with everyone in the pool, is too great to be affordable for millions of Americans.

 

“Congressional action along the lines outlined above is necessary to address this national issue, but it should not diminish the regulatory role for the states going forward,” said Sevigny. “Our nation is too vast and too varied for one regulatory regime to fit all. Congress should allow states wide latitude to enforce their respective laws when those laws provide greater consumer protections than those afforded by federal law.”

 

Reducing costs and fixing the health care system will require collaboration and compromise among the federal government, state governments, providers and consumers alike, and it is critical to steer clear of the current, unsustainable path where health care costs devour an ever-increasing percentage of the national economy. At the very least, the U.S. economic well-being depends upon moderating this trend.

 

Constructive debate around health care reform is essential, but it should be rooted in the facts, with a clear understanding of the difficult policy decisions facing the nation. Progress in Washington is being made, and there is consensus to be attained if the reform proposals are judged on their substance. There is far too much at stake to let this opportunity to improve health care slip away.

[Guest Jacki Schechner]

More than 3,000 people gathered to rally for health care reform Saturday, August 29th in New York's Times Square at an event sponsored by Health Care for America NOW!, Organizing for America and NYC for Change and supported by 30 other participating organizations.

 

Of the speakers, most notable was television journalist Veronica De La Cruz, who shared the compelling story of her younger brother Eric, who tragically died on Independence Day because of delays in treatment caused by lack of insurance due to a pre-existing medical condition. On a day of many tributes to the late Senator Edward Kennedy, Eric De La Cruz's case dramatically highlighted the need for reform that outlaws discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions and includes an affordable public option available to all Americans.

 

Despite a massive grassroots effort that drew political and financial support from thousands of online followers as well as celebrities such as rock band Nine Inch Nails, Eric's heart condition - severe dilated cardiomyopathy - worsened while he awaited the coverage needed for doctors to save him. His story has been receiving nationwide attention because of the role social media played in getting him help - online network Twitter served as the fuse for a campaign that ultimately generated thousands of phone calls and nearly $1 million for his case - and because his inability to get adequate treatment is emblematic of the current crisis reform is attempting to end.

 

"We are at a dramatic moment in history. And we have the opportunity to change things. We are on the brink of creating a system where basic health care is a right. It will no longer be a privilege reserved exclusively for the wealthy or for those who are healthy and don't even need the care," Ms. De La Cruz stated in her speech.

 

"We cannot afford to let partisan politics, private agendas or profits get in the way of the health of millions of Americans...people like me, you, your mother, your father...maybe your brother. Because in the end, help arrived for my brother Eric too late, and it may for you, too."

 

Other speakers included Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Dr. Jonathon Arend of the National Physicians' Alliance, and Dr. Nina Agrawal, founder of NYC for Change and community outreach director for the National Physicians Alliance. All echoed the desire to finish the job that Senator Kennedy started.

 

"Let us all pick up the torch that Senator Kennedy has passed to us and make this cause your own," stated Rep. Maloney.

 

But it was the emotional and personal account shared by Ms. De La Cruz which most impacted the audience of pre-reform supporters. She recounted how over the course of five years, various private insurers, and in turn hospitals, denied Eric the treatment which could have saved his life. Ms. De La Cruz suggested that many people in the crowd of protesters would face the same fate if Congress does not pass a strong health care reform package, one that includes a public option, this fall.

 

"A lot of people, including those in Congress, will not relate to the severity of the need for this reform until they see the face of someone who has suffered and died because of our current system," Ms. De La Cruz noted after the event. "The current health care system has to change. No one should ever be put through what Eric, my Mom or I have."

 

The event, which exceeded organizers' attendance expectations and overflowed across the street, ended with the call for Congress to return to Washington next week with renewed focus on getting a comprehensive reform bill passed this fall. Accepting the mission as a way to honor what Senator Kennedy called his life's work, several attendees carried signs reading "TeddyCare For All." Dozens of supporters at the rally indicated they would continue to take the same message to their leaders in the Capitol until their goal was achieved.

[Guest Roman]

The late Senator Edward Kennedy spoke passionately about trying to get health care reform passed during his career. In this video he talks about his own family's struggles in the past with sickness and injury. If government health insurance is good enough for the President, Congress, and government workers, public health insurance is good enough for everyone in the United States.

 

[Guest Concerned American]

Obama says "I am in the way" of his Health-Scare Bill because I have questions and concerns. Well Mr. Obama I have read your Health-Scare Bill and want to know why you are lying and not telling me what is in the bill. Saying one thing and writing another. Why are you scared, putting my Constitutional Right to Free Speech under attack, suppressing and censoring my concerns?

 

I AM NOT IN THE WAY!

 

Who am I? I am an American just like you. Americans in town hall meetings all across the country want to know what Obama the White House and Democrat Politicians in Washington are planning to do to their health.

 

What am I concerned about? A "government run" public insurance option that will destroy private insurance and the cost every American will pay in increased taxes.

 

What am I doing? I am on the front line to fight back against the media onslaught that calls Obama a god. We must have free and open communication of all the Health-Scare Bill information without government or government condoned private censorship.

[Guest Fiscal Conservative]

Our government has been irresponsible for too many years to have not increased the tax for Social Security and for Medicare. They could have those programs fully funded program with having a 5 percent increase 20 years ago. Now, members of Congress are panicked at the thought of an increase.

[Guest Oh Yeah]

Rewarding laziness and irresponsibility with government handouts is going to break our country.

[Guest J. Connal]

The late Senator Edward Kennedy spoke passionately about trying to get health care reform passed during his career. In this video he talks about his own family's struggles in the past with sickness and injury. If government health insurance is good enough for the President, Congress, and government workers, public health insurance is good enough for everyone in the United States.

 

 

Some Democrats have suggested renaming the health care reform bill after Kennedy

[Guest S. Smith]

Note: Cancer is a terrible thing and I would not wish this on anyone. Everyone has the right to get the best treatment possible.

 

Kennedy - he received the best and nearly instant treatment and Duke University. This treatment extended his life.

 

Obama's Mom - Without insurance (because she was living in a Socialist Country), she was treated at one of the World's best institutions, Sloan Kettering in NYC.

 

Under Socialized Medicine, the number of elite treatment centers will dwindle and they will only have the capacity to treat America's elite - this is how it works in all rationed care systems.

 

The rest of us will get the slow and inefficient treatment you can find in the UK, Canada or other socialist system - and our cancer survivor rates will reduce to their level.

 

But the Socialists don't care - it is all about control, power and getting re-elected.

[Guest Gecko]

The market for vaccines is expanding fast as scientists and drug developers move quickly to turn promise into cures. Vaccines used to be to prevent illness, but now vaccines are being developed to treat people already ill.

[Guest Mitch Stewart]

Opponents of health insurance reform have power. Some reap huge profits from the status quo. Others take large campaign contributions from those who profit.

 

So they'll do anything to keep the current system in place. When fact-based arguments don't work, they attack President Obama with outlandish lies about a government takeover and euthanizing the elderly. And once that doesn't work, they'll go even further.

 

We don't know what they'll do next. What we do know is that we'll have to be prepared for anything -- ready to set the record straight, ready to make sure the media and Congress see the overwhelming support for reform, and ready to pass real reform this year.

 

This was never going to be easy. As candidate Obama said just three days before the election: "Don't think for a moment that power will concede without a fight." Now, we're seeing how true that really is.

 

These same well-financed forces have killed reform in the past, and they're aiming to do it again.

 

But here's why this time can be different: There are folks like you, all around the country, who are ready to go toe-to-toe with the special interests, even when they're not fighting fair.

 

And we'll keep at it, because we know that the work we're doing together right now can make the lives of hundreds of millions better for decades to come.

[Guest Wendell Potter]

I would like to begin by apologizing to all of you for the role I played 15 years ago in cheating you out of a reformed health care system. Had it not been for greedy insurance companies and other special interests, and their army of lobbyists and spin-doctors like I used to be, we wouldn’t be here today.

 

I’m ashamed that I let myself get caught up in deceitful and dishonest PR campaigns that worked so well, hundreds of thousands of our citizens have died, and millions of others have lost their homes and been forced into bankruptcy, so that a very few corporate executives and their Wall Street masters could become obscenely rich.

 

But It was only during the last few years of my career that I came to realize the full scope of the harm my colleagues and I had caused, and the lengths that insurance companies will go to increase their profits at the expense of working families.

 

As I told the Senate Commerce Committee two months ago, the higher up the corporate ladder I climbed, the more I could see how insurance companies confuse their customers and dump the sick – all so they can satisfy those Wall Street masters.

 

I described for the senators how insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they make it nearly impossible to understand -- or even to obtain -- information consumers need.

 

I also told the Committee how the industry has conducted duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns every time Congress has tried to reform our health care system -- and how its current behind-scenes-efforts may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans.

 

I noted that, just as the industry did 15 years ago when it led the effort to kill the Clinton reform plan, it is using shills and front groups to spread lies and disinformation to scare Americans away from the very reform that would benefit them most.

 

Make no mistake, the industry, despite its public assurances to be good-faith partners with the President and Congress, has been at work for years laying the groundwork for devious and often sinister campaigns to manipulate public opinion.

 

The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. But I know from having served on many trade group committees that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with their ability to increase their companies’ profits.

 

My involvement in those activities goes back to the early ‘90s when insurers joined with other special interests to finance the activities of an organization called the Healthcare Leadership Council, which led a coordinated effort to scare Americans and members of Congress away from the Clinton plan.

 

A few years after that victory, the insurers formed a front group called the Health Benefits Coalition to kill efforts to pass a Patients Bill of Rights. While it was touted as a broad-based business group, the Health Benefits Coalition in reality got the lion’s share of its funding from Big Insurance.

 

Like most front groups, the Health Benefits Coalition was set up and run out of a big and well-connected PR firm. One of the key strategies developed by the PR firm as the coalition was gearing up for battle in late 1998 was to stir up support among conservative talk radio hosts and other media.

 

The PR firm formed alliances with groups like the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council and persuaded them to send letters to Congress and to appear at press conferences. The firm also launched an advertising campaign in conservative media outlets. The message was that President Clinton owed a debt to the liberal base of the Democratic Party and would try to pay back that debt by advancing the type of big government agenda on health care that he failed to get in 1993. Those tactics worked. Industry allies in Congress made sure the Patients’ Bill of Rights would not become law.

 

The insurance industry has funded several other front groups since then whenever the industry has been under attack. It formed the Coalition for Affordable Quality Healthcare to try to improve the image of managed care in response to a constant stream of negative stories that appeared in the media in the late ‘90s and the first years of this decade.

 

It funded another front group when lawyers began filing class action lawsuits on behalf of doctors and patients.

 

The PR firm the industry hired to create that front group, by the way, had planned and conducted a similar campaign for the tobacco industry a few years earlier.

 

The insurance industry hired that same PR firm again in 2007 to help blunt the impact of Michael Moore’s movie, “Sicko.” It created and staffed a front group called “Health Care America” specifically to discredit Moore and to demonize the health care systems featured in the movie.

 

Among the tactics the PR firm used once again was to enlist the support of conservative talk show hosts, writers and editorial page editors to warn against a “government-takeover” of the U.S. health care system. The term “government-takeover” is one the industry has used many times over the years to scare people away from reform.

 

Health Care America also placed ads in newspapers. One of those ads carried this message, “In America, you wait in line to see a movie. In government-run health care systems, you wait to see a doctor.”

 

With this history, you can rest assured that the insurance industry is up to the same dirty tricks, using the same devious PR practices it has used for many years, to kill reform this year, or even better, to shape reform so that it benefits insurance companies and their Wall Street investors far more than average Americans.

 

Americans need to be alert to how the industry and its allies are working to influence their opinions and lawmakers’ votes. I know from years as an industry PR executive how effective insurers have been in using scare tactics to turn public opinion against any reform efforts that would threaten their profitability.

 

I warned earlier this year that Americans and the media should pay close attention to the efforts insurers and their ideological buddies would undertake to demonize health care systems around the world that don’t allow for-profit insurance companies to have the free reign they have here.

 

Americans must realize that the when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by government bureaucrats, the insurance industry has written the script.

 

And Americans must realize that every time they hear we will be heading down the “slippery slope toward socialism” if Congress creates a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, some insurance flack like I used to be wrote that, too.

 

Every time you hear about the shortcomings of what they call “government-run” health care, remember this: what we have now in this country, and what the insurers are determined to keep in place, is Wall Street-run health care.

 

And know that we already have one of the most insidious means of rationing care in the world -- not by people we can hold accountable on election day but by insurance company executives who answer only to a few wealthy investors and hedge fund managers who care far more about earnings per share than your health and well-being.

 

If Congress goes along with the “solutions” the insurance industry says it is bringing to the table and fails to create a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, the bill it sends to President Obama might as well be called the Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.

 

Some in the media believe the health insurers have already won. That’s not only because the debate over reform seems to have been hijacked recently by insurance company shills and people who believe the lies they have been spewing, but because of the billions of dollars the insurers have been spending to influence votes on Capitol Hill.

 

Folks, it is not too late to keep the insurers from winning, but time is running short. We need to think of the coming weeks as some of the most important weeks in the history of this country. We need to think that way because they will be, and we must redouble our efforts to make sure members of Congress put our interests above those of private health insurers and others who view reform as a way to make more money.

 

If we want to take back control or our health care system from the big for-profit companies that have wrecked it, we must take back control of this debate. We must begin to talk in ways that reach our friends and neighbors who have been influenced by the lies.

 

We need to tell them that we can continue to have a system that allows 20,000 Americans to die every year because they don’t have insurance, or we can have a system that will make sure their sons and daughters are not one of them.

 

We should ask the skeptics of a public option, who are afraid that giving people a choice of a government-run plan will lead to socialism, if they would want to go back to the day when Americans had to buy private fire insurance.

 

Tell them if they lived in Ben Franklin’s day and they didn’t have a shield on the outside of their house indicating they were insured, their town’s private fire insurance companies would let their house burn down. The private insurance companies would keep your fire from spreading to your insured next-door neighbor’s house, but your house would soon be nothing more than a pile of ashes.

 

We must remind our family members and our friends and neighbors why we are having this debate in the first place. If they tell you they don’t think their tax dollars should be used to pay for someone else’s coverage, point out to them that they already are paying for the care uninsured people receive when they go to the emergency room and can’t afford to pay the exorbitant bills they get from the hospital. Those of us who are insured pay an extra thousand dollars in premiums every year just to cover that uncompensated care.

 

If they say they don’t want to saddle their children and grandchildren with additional taxes, ask them if they have thought what might happen to their children and grandchildren if they found themselves among the millions of people without health insurance or, maybe more likely, among the underinsured.

 

Ask them how they would feel if their daughter came down with breast cancer soon after she and your son-in-law moved into their dream house and just as your grandchildren were beginning to think about college.

 

Ask them how they would feel if their daughter and son-in-law learned that the insurance they thought would be there when they needed it required them to pay so much out of their own pockets that they couldn’t afford to pay for their daughter’s cancer treatments and also make the house payments.

 

Ask them how they would feel if their children and grandchildren were forced out of their dream home and into bankruptcy, and ask them how they would feel if their grandchildren had to give up their dreams of going to college.

 

Ask them how they would feel if their granddaughter fell into the wrong crowd and died of a drug overdose just as her high school friends were graduating from the college she herself had once dreamed of graduating from. Ask them how they would feel when they found out that this all happened because their daughter’s private insurance company forced her to pay more for her care than her family could afford just so it could continue to pay its CEO $30 million a year and meet Wall Street’s profit expectations.

 

Folks, I believe we Americans by and large are a compassionate people. Yes, we believe in individual responsibility, but we also believe in the Golden Rule.

 

I don’t know a single American -- or at least I hope I don’t -- who would knowingly wish the future I just described on anyone’s family. But the sad reality is that many of the people who have become unwitting spokespeople for the insurance industry -- the people who are objecting to a public insurance option because they have bought into the lies the insurance industry’s shills are telling them -- will ensure that that horrific future is a reality for millions of Americans, including their loved ones, if the insurance industry wins this debate again.

 

So over the coming weeks, we must tell our conservative friends who are worried needlessly about a government-takeover of our health care system that what we all should really be concerned about is the Wall-Street takeover that has occurred while we were not paying attention.

 

It is that takeover that has led to more and more working Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. It is that takeover that has forced millions more of us into the ranks of the underinsured because insurers are making us pay thousands of dollars out of our own pockets before they’ll pay a dime.

 

It is that takeover that has forced many of our neighbors out of their homes and into bankruptcy. And it is that takeover that is causing more and more small businesses to stop offering coverage to their employees because of the exorbitant premiums that greedy, Wall-Street-driven insurers are charging them.

 

I want to close by thanking you for being here today and for the hard work you’ve already been doing to try to persuade members of Congress to do the right thing. But as I pointed out earlier, the coming weeks will be some of the most important weeks of our lives.

 

Let’s pledge to each other that we will work even harder to ensure that America joins the rest of the developed world in making sure that ALL of its citizens -- our brothers and sisters, our sons and our daughters, our neighbors and our co-workers -- have good coverage we can all have the peace of mind knowing will be there when and if we need it. Thank you.

[Guest Gov. Schwarzenegger]

I think we can all agree that the current system is not working as it should, and I have long supported a significant overhaul. Costs continue to explode, while tens of millions remain uninsured or underinsured. Many families are one illness away from financial ruin - even if they do have insurance. We have the greatest medical technology in the world at our fingertips, yet Americans’ health status lags behind many countries that spend less than half what we do per capita. Any successful health care reform proposal must be comprehensive and built around the core principles of cost containment and affordability; prevention, wellness and health quality; and coverage for all.

 

Cost Containment and Affordability

 

Cost containment and affordability are essential not only for families, individuals and businesses, but also for state governments. Congress is proposing significant expansions of Medicaid to help reduce the number of uninsured and to increase provider reimbursement. Today, California administers one of the most efficient Medicaid programs in the country, and still the state cannot afford its Medicaid program as currently structured and governed by federal rules and regulations. The House originally proposed fully funding the expansion with federal dollars, but due to cost concerns, members decided to shift a portion of these expansion costs to states. I will be clear on this particular proposal: if Congress thinks the Medicaid expansion is too expensive for the federal government, it is absolutely unaffordable for states. Proposals in the Senate envision passing on more than $8 billion in new costs to California annually - crowding out other priority or constitutionally required state spending and presenting a false choice for all of us. I cannot and will not support federal health care reform proposals that impose billions of dollars in new costs on California each year.

 

The inclusion of maintenance of effort restrictions on existing state Medicaid programs only compounds any cost shift to states. We simply cannot be locked into a cost structure that is unsustainable. Governors have three primary ways to control Medicaid costs: they can adjust eligibility, benefits and/or reimbursement rates. Maintenance of effort requirements linked to existing Medicaid eligibility standards and procedures will effectively force state legislatures into autopilot spending and lead to chronic budget shortfalls.

 

The federal government must help states reduce their Medicaid financing burden, not increase it. A major factor contributing to Medicaid’s fiscal instability, before any proposed expansion, is that the program effectively remains the sole source of financing for long-term care services. Therefore, I am encouraged by congressional proposals that create new financing models for long-term care services. Proposals that expand the availability and affordability of long-term care insurance are steps in the right direction, but they must be implemented in a fiscally sustainable way. More fundamentally, however, the federal government must take full responsibility for financing and coordinating the care of the dually eligible in order to appreciably reduce the cost trend for this group. This realignment of responsibilities is absolutely essential to controlling costs for this population, while ensuring that state governments will be better positioned to fill in any gaps that will undoubtedly arise from federal health care reform efforts.

 

I also encourage Congress to incorporate other strategies to help stabilize Medicaid costs for states. Delaying the scheduled phase-out of Medicaid managed care provider taxes pending enactment of new Medicaid rates, reimbursement for Medicaid claims owed to states associated with the federal government’s improper classification of certain permanent disability cases, and federal support for legal immigrant Medicaid costs are examples of federal efforts that could provide more stability to state Medicaid programs. Moreover, given the fiscal crisis that many states, including California, are experiencing, I strongly urge Congress to extend the temporary increase in the federal matching ratio to preserve the ability of state Medicaid programs to continue to provide essential services to low-income residents pending full implementation of national health reform.

 

Prevention, Wellness and Health Quality

 

Prevention, wellness and health promotion, along with chronic disease management, can help to lower the cost curve over the long run and improve health outcomes in the near term. This was one of the cornerstone pieces of my health care reform proposal in California, and I continue to believe it should be a key piece of the federal efforts. Prevention, wellness and chronic disease management programs should include both the individual and wider population levels.

 

At the individual level, proposals to provide refunds or other incentives to Medicare, Medicaid and private plan enrollees who successfully complete behavior modification programs, such as smoking cessation or weight loss, are critical reforms. To ensure they are widely used, individual prevention and wellness benefits should not be subject to beneficiary cost sharing. Because individuals’ behaviors are influenced by their environments, health reform must place a high priority on promoting healthy communities that make it easier for people to make healthy choices. California has demonstrated through its nationally recognized tobacco control efforts that population-based strategies can be effective and dramatically change the way the people think and act about unhealthy behaviors, such as tobacco use. A similar model, community transformation grants, has been advanced in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension legislation, and it should be included to support policy, environmental, programmatic and infrastructure changes that address chronic disease risk factors, promote healthy living and decrease health disparities.

 

Quality improvement measures are also critical to health reform. The House proposal for a Center for Quality Improvement to improve patient safety, reduce healthcare-associated infections and improve patient outcomes and satisfaction is a positive step. Coordinated chronic disease management is necessary to improve outcomes for chronically ill people. Systematic use of health information technology and health information exchange, including access for public health agencies, is vital to providing the necessary tools to measure the success of quality improvement efforts. Finally, investments in core public health infrastructure can be facilitated through the creation of the proposed Prevention and Wellness Trust.

 

Coverage for All

 

Coverage for all is also an essential element of health care reform and I believe an enforceable and effective individual mandate, combined with guaranteed issuance of insurance, is the best way to accomplish this goal. The individual mandate must provide effective incentives to help prevent adverse selection that could occur if the mandate is too weak. Creating transparent and user-friendly health insurance exchanges to help consumers compare insurance options will also help facilitate participation. States should maintain a strong role in regulating the insurance market and have the ability to maintain and operate their own exchanges, with the understanding that some national standards will need to be established. California has a long history of protecting consumers through our two separate insurance regulators, one covering health maintenance organizations and the other monitoring all other insurance products. Maintaining a strong regulatory role at the state level is in the best interest of consumers, and I urge Congress to maintain this longstanding and effective relationship as you design these new market structures.

 

I hope our experience in California working toward comprehensive health care reform has informed the debate in Washington. There will be many short-term triumphs and seemingly insurmountable roadblocks for Congress and the nation on the road to comprehensive health care reform. We must all remain focused on the goal of fixing our health care system and remember that we all have something to gain from the reforms, and we all have a shared responsibility to achieve them. I look forward to working with you as you move forward on this desperately needed legislation.

 

Sincerely,

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger

[Guest LAW]

It looks like Democratic party is deciding on whether to push this health care bill through on their own.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/02/health_overhaul_may_ride_on_tactic?mode=PF

 

Key GOP negotiators in the Senate are rapidly distancing themselves from Democratic proposals, and the GOP this week renewed its push to convince Americans that sweeping change is not needed.

 

That means Democrats may decide to go it alone, employing a somewhat rare parliamentary tactic called “reconciliation.’’

 

Typically, the majority party in the Senate needs 60 votes to end debate and block a minority filibuster. But in the current debate, Democrats have only 59 members because of the death last week of Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy; moreover, a handful of moderate Democrats might not support health care legislation without at least some Republicans on board.

 

So Democratic leaders are discussing the possibility of passing a Senate bill with a simple majority, or 51 votes, under the reconciliation rule.

[Guest Gecko]

This is right to the point. We need regulation now.

 

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing

 

WASHINGTON—American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

 

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

 

In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs—Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug—and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.

 

As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.

 

Whistleblower lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act that are pending in the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Kentucky triggered this investigation. As a part of today’s resolution, six whistleblowers will receive payments totaling more than $102 million from the federal share of the civil recovery.

 

The U.S. Attorney’s offices for the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice handled these cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts led the criminal investigation of Bextra. The investigation was conducted by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FBI, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Office of Criminal Investigations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Veterans’ Administration’s (VA) Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of the Inspector General for the United States Postal Service (USPS), the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units and the offices of various state Attorneys General.

 

“Today’s landmark settlement is an example of the Department of Justice’s ongoing and intensive efforts to protect the American public and recover funds for the federal treasury and the public from those who seek to earn a profit through fraud. It shows one of the many ways in which federal government, in partnership with its state and local allies, can help the American people at a time when budgets are tight and health care costs are increasing,” said Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli. “This settlement is a testament to the type of broad, coordinated effort among federal agencies and with our state and local partners that is at the core of the Department of Justice’s approach to law enforcement.”

 

“This historic settlement will return nearly $1 billion to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programs, securing their future for the Americans who depend on these programs,” said Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services. “The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to seek opportunities to work with its government partners to prosecute fraud wherever we can find it. But we will also look for new ways to prevent fraud before it happens. Health care is too important to let a single dollar go to waste.”

 

“Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by health care providers, and costs the government billions of dollars,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. “This civil settlement and plea agreement by Pfizer represent yet another example of what penalties will be faced when a pharmaceutical company puts profits ahead of patient welfare.”

 

“The size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine of $1.3 billion, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer’s crimes,” said Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. “Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws. Today’s enormous fine demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated.”

 

“Although these types of investigations are often long and complicated and require many resources to achieve positive results, the FBI will not be deterred from continuing to ensure that pharmaceutical companies conduct business in a lawful manner,” said Kevin Perkins, FBI Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division.

 

“This resolution protects the FDA in its vital mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective. When manufacturers undermine the FDA’s rules, they interfere with a doctor’s judgment and can put patient health at risk,” commented Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. “The public trusts companies to market their drugs for uses that FDA has approved, and trusts that doctors are using independent judgment. Federal health dollars should only be spent on treatment decisions untainted by misinformation from manufacturers concerned with the bottom line.”

 

“This settlement demonstrates the ongoing efforts to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars for the Medicare and Medicaid programs,” noted Jim Zerhusen, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

 

“This historic settlement emphasizes the government’s commitment to corporate and individual accountability and to transparency throughout the pharmaceutical industry,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. “The corporate integrity agreement requires senior Pfizer executives and board members to complete annual compliance certifications and opens Pfizer to more public scrutiny by requiring it to make detailed disclosures on its Web site. We expect this agreement to increase integrity in the marketing of pharmaceuticals.”

 

“The off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs by Pfizer significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s healthcare system,” said Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. “This illegal activity increases patients’ costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system. Today’s charges and settlement demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those that abuse the government’s healthcare programs at the expense of the taxpayers and patients.”

 

“Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behavior,” said Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. “Today’s settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk.”

 

“Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service. This case alone impacted more than 10,000 postal employees on workers’ compensation who were treated with these drugs,” said Joseph Finn, Special Agent in Charge for the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General. “Last year the Postal Service paid more than $1 billion in workers’ compensation benefits to postal employees injured on the job.”

[Guest LAW]

Here is the health care portion of the August 31, 2009 White House press briefing by Robert Gibbs.

 

Q It would seem to belie any indication that Senator Grassley is actually a partner with the administration or with Senator Baucus in creating the plan that you guys would support. Are you still firmly committed to working with the three Republicans who are still in the negotiating phase?

 

MR. GIBBS: I'll say this, Jake. The President is firmly committed to working with Democrats, Republicans, independents, anybody that wants to see progress on health care reform. I will say this. I haven't seen the contents of that letter. Certainly, I think the radio address over the weekend by Senator Enzi repeating many of the generic Republican talking points that Republicans are using that have bragged about being opposed to health care are tremendously unfortunate but in some ways illuminating. It appears that at least in Senator Enzi's case, he doesn't believe there's a pathway to get bipartisan support, and the President thinks that's wrong. I think that Senator Enzi has clearly turned over his cards on bipartisanship, and decided that it's time to walk away from the table.

 

I think what somebody has to ask Senator Enzi and ask others, every member of Congress, is, are you satisfied with the way the system is working right now? Are you satisfied that premiums are doubling every nine years? Are you satisfied that out-of-pocket expenses are skyrocketing? Are you satisfied that small businesses are dropping their coverage? Are you satisfied that every day 14,000 Americans wake up and find themselves without health insurance coverage? I think many may believe that we can't afford to do anything. I think this President believes we can't afford not to.

 

Q Well, let me ask you, are you satisfied with the ability that the White House has shown in getting that message out, as opposed to what the opponents of health care reform are saying? Have you guys been doing --

 

MR. GIBBS: Notwithstanding Ed's question about what the President is doing right now.

 

Q Do you think -- I mean, we've all now -- the congressional recess has been going on and some of us have left Washington, D.C. Do you think you're doing a good job in getting the message out as to what health care reform should be?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think we looked at and we discussed when we last met in here -- I think the President has made progress on turning around some of the very specific yet untrue allegations about this bill. It doesn’t help -- I'll give you, Jake, it doesn’t help to have Republicans who say they're for bipartisanship and say they're at the table to try to find a solution repeating Republican Party talking points about what they know is not true in the bill. I don't think that's helpful and I think that it's unfortunate -- again, it's tremendously unfortunate that it looks like Republicans are stepping away from seeking a bipartisan solution. I think that's -- it's bad for this town, but it's much worse for this country.

[Guest Daniel J. Loepp]

This summer, Congress heard from the American People about health care. Years from now, if members of Congress recall one thing about these past few months, it probably will be the uneasy feeling of walking the yellow line that divides a road, as traffic rushes past from opposite directions.

 

It isn't easy to reform health care, because the American People come to the discussion from opposing views. Finding middle-of-the-road solutions should be the goal — because the common interests of America are represented there.

 

In crafting a better health care system, Congress should look to Michigan for success stories to copy, and failures to avoid.

 

Nonprofit Health Care

 

Michigan's health care system is predominantly nonprofit, and this is a very good thing. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, as well as the leading HMOs and all 144 Michigan hospitals, are nonprofit organizations. "Nonprofit" doesn't mean that these companies should be managed to lose money, not pay their employees well, or not compete for business.

 

Nonprofit means that earnings are directed back into health care for people — not to pay investors. Nonprofit implies a healthy balance between regulatory oversight and private sector ownership. This protects the interests of people through regulation, while ensuring quality coverage and care — all while keeping the government out of the "business" of health care.

 

A Fair and Balanced System

 

Earlier this year, America's health insurance companies offered to give up the practice of rejecting people due to pre-existing medical conditions if federal health care reform created a system where all Americans would be required to have private health insurance.

 

They would, in essence, become more like Michigan's Blue Cross plan, which does not reject applicants for health reasons.

 

The insurers' offer recognizes that in a fair and balanced system, where the cost of covering the sick is borne by all insurers, there is no need to reject the sick. It opens the door to competitive pricing and broad access to coverage — and takes the need for a government-run health insurance plan off the table.

 

Michigan lacks a fair and balanced system today. The recent premium increases approved for Blue Cross's individual insurance plans are the result of Michigan's unbalanced system, where all insurers — except for Blue Cross — reject the sick. The cost of providing health care to Blue Cross's predominantly unhealthy insurance pool has escalated far beyond the premiums collected. This results in rate hikes and premiums that are increasingly unaffordable. America can and should learn from Michigan and construct a balanced system that expands access to affordable coverage.

Collaboration and Innovation

 

When payers, providers and government work together, people get better health care and lower costs.

 

In Michigan, Blue Cross partners with the state of Michigan to subsidize MIChild. This program covers about 30,000 children who otherwise would be uninsured.

 

Blue Cross is an investor in the Michigan Hospital Association's Keystone Center, which the Obama Administration recently labeled a "national success story" for saving 1,800 lives and more than $240 million by improving the quality of care in Michigan's hospital intensive care units.

 

Blue Cross financially supports nonprofit free clinics that enable primary care access to more than 90,000 uninsured people a year.

 

Collaboration among competing insurance companies and thousands of doctors has Michigan third among the states for electronic prescribing.

 

We have an epic debate underway in Washington. Health care reform will impact every American for generations to come. It will affect one-sixth of our nation's economic output. In Michigan, a half-million jobs are tied to health care.

 

Health care reform needs to be done right the first time. And Congress needs to find common ground so all of America is truly represented in the solution.

[Guest Antonio G.]

If any of our representatives and senators want to vote against a federally funded public option, how about they give up their federal health care? Otherwise, they are just a hypocrite.

[Guest John Hancock]

If any of our representatives and senators want to vote against a federally funded public option, how about they give up their federal health care? Otherwise, they are just a hypocrite.

 

Right. That is the second page they sign right after they swear their oath to serve the people of our country. I hereby waive my right to speak or vote against the wishes of my insurer.