The NOW! Blog

Archive for the ‘From Our Partners’ Category

Being a Woman Is Not a Pre-Existing Condition

Posted on October 20th, 2009 by Judy Waxman, Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights, National Women's Law Center in From Our Partners

I don’t deserve health care that meets my needs.
I shouldn’t demand fairness in my health care coverage.
I can’t do anything about it anyway.

That’s what the health insurance profiteers want you to think.

They aren’t thinking about the mother who is struggling to find insurance because she had a Caesarean section. Not the woman who survived domestic violence and now must face rejection by an insurance company for having a so-called “pre-existing condition.” Not the woman who pays more than a man for the same health coverage, even when maternity care isn’t covered.

Being a woman is NOT a pre-existing condition.

Read more…

The Senate can pass affordable health reform - with a strong public option. The House will make sure they do.

Posted on October 19th, 2009 by Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future in From Our Partners

This is the moment when Senators Max Baucus and Majority Leader Harry Reid (and President Obama) should make history by producing a Senate health reform bill that

  • makes health insurance truly affordable for all Americans,
  • creates a strong public option to give private insurers real competition,
  • and doesn't destroy Democratic re-election hopes by taxing hard-won middle class health benefits.

Last week the Senate Finance Committee became the last of five Congressional committees to pass a health reform bill - this one by far the weakest of all the bills.  Almost immediately a small group of Senators - Majority Leader Harry Reid, Finance Chair Max Baucus, and acting HELP Committee Chair Chris Dodd - huddled with a White House team led by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to begin the mysterious process by which the more progressive HELP committee bill will be melded with the product of Baucus's mostly fruitless negotiation with Senate Republicans, only one of whom, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, deigned to vote for the final Finance bill.

Reid and even Baucus say they personally support a public option, but they repeatedly point to the so-called "moderates" in their own party whose support is necessary to get to the 60 vote majority needed to pass a health reform bill in the Senate.  With a smart legislative strategy, the 60 Democratic votes (which, with Snowe would total 61) could be called upon just to overcome a Republic filibuster, clearing the way for a 50 vote majority to pass a strong health reform bill — while letting more conservative Democrats vote against it.  [More on this anti-filibuster unity strategy in columns to come.]

Read more…

Boehner and small business: Does the thought really count?

Posted on October 15th, 2009 by Sam Blair, Main Street Alliance in From Our Partners

At a press conference today, House Republican Leader John Boehner talked about the importance of helping small businesses create jobs to get the economy going again (see his “leader alert” here). Nice thought.

There’s just one problem: health care is one of the top issues small businesses need addressed so we can do our part for economic recovery – and Boehner is standing square in the way of real health reform. His political grandstanding against health care reform is, simply put, bad for small business.

Every day, small businesses are being forced to drop health coverage, lay off employees or shut their doors for good because of rising health care costs. Without reform, small business health care costs will more than double over the next ten years – we’ll pay close to $2.4 trillion in health care costs between now and 2018. That’s money small businesses could be using to create the jobs to jumpstart the economy.

Read more…

Asking the Big Health Insurers About their Finances Before Enacting Health Reform Seems Right to Me

Posted on August 24th, 2009 by Lisa Codispoti - National Women's Law Center in From Our Partners

Besides the US Chamber of Commerce, anyone out there feeling at all bad about the US House Energy & Commerce Committee asking large national health insurers about their finances? Certainly not I, especially after what we learned about the Wall Street bail out and big institutions that received billions in federal bailouts who in turn were handing out bonuses and continuing with other corporate spending that certainly raised the eyebrows – and ire- of the American public. Various health reform proposals will no doubt have a financial impact on the insurance industry (ie: by imposing a requirement that all people obtain health insurance and providing subsidies for those who can’t afford it). Representatives Waxman and Stupack have it right: before health reform creates a “bonanza” for the health insurers, let’s at least understand their current spending and business practices. It seems fair to me to ask the health insurers about their profits, salaries and bonuses for employees earning over $500k, how much they’re spending on retreats, etc.

Read more…

What Really Hurts Women? Our Current Health Care System

Posted on July 24th, 2009 by Lisa Codispoti and Brigette Courtot, National Women's Law Center in From Our Partners

This morning ten women members of Congress held a news conference on "how the Democrats' health care legisaltion [sic] will hurt women and affect their day-to-day lives."

The participants were Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN); Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL); Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK); Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC); Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX); Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS); Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY); Rep. Candice Miller, (R-MI); Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH).

While NWLC wasn’t invited to attend the press conference, I was interested to get my hands on some of their press statements – after all, NWLC is all about women getting the health care they need. From our perspective, the status quo is untenable: overall, 18 percent of women are uninsured. As we’ve pointed out on this blog many times before, even women who are lucky enough to have health insurance are still more likely than men to have health coverage that has too many gaps, from large deductibles and co-pays to life-time limits, and the exclusion of needed services (like maternity, for example) altogether. Women are also more likely than men to face challenges paying for their medical bills – making them more likely to skip necessary medical care. And then there’s gender rating – the insurance industry practice of charging women more than men for the exact same coverage.

Read more…

Failure to Protect? Yep, That's the Individual Market We Know

Posted on July 24th, 2009 by Brigette Courtot, National Women's Law Center in From Our Partners

If you’re looking for more evidence that the individual health insurance market (that unwelcoming place where people buy coverage directly from insurance companies) is failing us in pretty much every way possible, add this new brief from the Commonwealth Fund to the pile. Aptly titled “Failure to Protect,” it uses findings from a 2007 survey to illustrate why the individual insurance market is anything but a reliable source for comprehensive and affordable health coverage. Consider these findings:

  • Most adults who shopped for coverage in the individual market found it very difficult or impossible to find a plan that fit their needs—they were either denied due to a preexisting health condition or were offered a plan that was too expensive or that didn’t cover the care they needed.  The majority (73%) never ended up buying a plan.
  • Adults who do purchase individual market plans spend considerably more on health care than those with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI); 51% of people with individual market coverage spent 10% of their income or more on out-of-pocket costs (all medical expenses, premiums, and prescription drugs), compared to 29% of those with ESI. Median spending for those with individual market coverage was more than twice that for people with ESI ($6,750 vs. $2,250).
  • Those with individual market plans also report higher rates of problems with their coverage (e.g. dollar or visit limits on covered services, or expensive medical bills that aren’t covered by their plan) and are more likely to avoid or delay needed care because of cost.

Read more…

Memo to Members of Congress: Don't Be on the Wrong Side of History

Posted on July 20th, 2009 by Levana Layendecker in From Our Partners

(Cross posted from the Huffington Post)

By Robert Creamer

Today it would be hard to find one member of Congress who openly advocates the abolition of Medicare or Social Security. It's true that during the Bush Presidency, right-wing Republicans tried to weaken, dilute and privatize both. But their proposals were always passed off as attempts to "strengthen" these programs that have become two of the most popular and widely respected institutions of government.

Of course it wasn't always so. Both Social Security and Medicare were incredibly controversial when they were passed - the first in 1937 and the second in 1964. In fact, their opponents sounded very much like today's Republicans as they denounced them for being "big government takeovers" - or, in the case of Medicare, "socialized medicine."

But it wasn't long after they were enacted that Social Security and Medicare became "third rails" in American politics. Former Senator Bob Dole once made a speech where he said: "I was there, fighting against Medicare." The TV spot reprising that speech during his 1996 campaign against Bill Clinton helped seal Dole's defeat.

The view shared by most Americans - and all senior citizens - was summed up in the slogan for the 2005 campaign to defeat Bush's privatization program: "Hands off my Social Security."

No one brags that their father or grandfather lead the fight to oppose Social Security or Medicare - any more than they brag that their forbearer lead the fight against civil rights. But of course in the 1960's, civil rights did not have the universal acclaim it has today.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had many detractors who thought his agitation for justice was downright subversive. Others thought that he wanted to move too fast. That extended to the Pastors - many men of good will - who asked him to call off his protests in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. It was to those Pastors that he wrote his famous letter from the Birmingham jail: "Why We Can't Wait."

In 1963 most people would not have dreamed that just a few decades hence, a national holiday would be named after the young organizer and agitator, Martin Luther King.

Every major social advance is surrounded by controversy and conflict. That's because every time there is change in the status quo there are winners and losers. The controversy over President Obama's health care reform does not center mainly on "differences in approach" or academic disagreements over the way that health care systems should be designed in some ideal world. They center instead on battles over wealth and power - just as they did when the Congress created Social Security or Medicare, or passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That's why the 19th Century abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass was right: "You can't have the rain without the thunder and lightning," he said. Of course Douglass was referring to the granddaddy of all major social change in our history - the end of slavery . That required a horrific civil war.

Health care reform involves one out of every six dollars spent in America today. It involves the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people and the fortunes of huge corporations. Of course change in the health care system is going to be controversial. Luckily it is not controversial with average Americans. On the health care issue, Democrats - and the President - have the political high ground. But that doesn't mean it isn't controversial with the insurance companies or with wealthy Americans who may be asked to pay a small increase in taxes (bringing their rates to the level they were in the Reagan Administration) in order to pay for needed reform.

Members of Congress can't avoid the controversy. If they want to, they should look for another line of work. All they can do is hope to be on the right side of history - to take positions that their grandchildren will brag about after they are long gone.

All that they can hope - or any of us can hope - is that the things we do will stand up to the test of history - that they will make future generations proud.

Forty years ago today, for the first time in history, human beings first set foot on another celestial object when Neil Armstrong planted his boot print on the moon. I was one of the millions of Americans who got up in the early morning hours to witness first-hand the historic event live on television. It was extraordinary - a phenomenal evolutionary advance for our species - brought to us live from outer space.

Less than a decade before, another young President challenged American to put that man on the moon. John Kennedy's vision put America in the forefront of the technological revolution that created the jobs of the future — for a generation of Americans.

This year, President Obama challenged us again - to create the jobs of the future for our generation: millions of clean energy jobs.

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to meet that challenge - passing an energy bill that will finally begin to break our dependence on foreign oil and make America a world leader in clean energy technologies of the future. Now, members of the Senate will have to decide which side of history they will be on when it comes to creating a clean energy economy.

In the next two weeks, Members of both the House and Senate will be called upon to decide which side of history they will be on when it comes to ending our status as the only nation in the industrial world that does not guarantee health care as a human right.

The Obama health care bill is controversial because it will control the growth of health care premiums for American families. That, in turn, will take money from the pockets of some of the most powerful special interests in the country - most notably the insurance industry.

But it is safe to say that one day, future generations will look back on this battle and wonder way it wasn't obvious to everyone that every person has a right to health care - they same way we look back today and wonder how anyone could have supported slavery. Remember we still had slavery in America just 150 years ago.

Our grandkids will wonder why anyone would balk at beginning to rationalize the bloated, inefficient American health care system that leaves us 37th in the world in health care outcomes and costs us 50% more per person than any other country on the planet.

They will look back on those who tried to stand in the way of serious health care reform, the way we look back on those who tried to block the creation of Social Security or Medicare or the Civil Rights Act.

Often, when political leaders are faced with historic choices, they are forced to choose between the next election - and the next generation. This time, with the political wind at our back, they don't have to make that choice. But they do have to choose to stand up against special interest pressure and act decisively to take the actions that are necessary to build a foundation for the long-term economic success of future generations of Americans.

So in the next few weeks, talk to your Members of Congress. Ask them each what kind of legacy they want to leave after their political career is done. Tell them to stop worrying so much what the lobbyists and big contributors think about their decisions and ask themselves how those decisions will be viewed by history.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.

Al Franken and health care - which 312?

Posted on July 6th, 2009 by Chris Conry - Take Action Minnesota in From Our Partners

It’s become something of a running joke in political circles in Minnesota: people wonder which 312 voters get to take credit for providing Senator-Elect Al Franken with his margin of victory. This, of course, is not an academic question. With your 312 votes should come the right to demand that your issue, constituency, members, aunts, uncles, and cousins get a seat at the table, right? The people who can and should take credit for Senator-Elect Franken’s victory are many:

Was it progressive Democrats?

Was it union members?

Was it base activists in the Twin Cities?

Obama voters in swing suburbs?

The environmental movement?

Choice voters?

The Tribes?

Rural Somali voters?

St. Paul’s Hmong voters?

College students?

Seniors?

The residents of any given block in south Minneapolis?

Senator-Elect Franken has been very gracious in acknowledging the breadth of support that got him 42% of the vote. (Remember, this was a three-way race.) However, the case for Senator-Elect Franken offering strong support for health care reform runs a lot deeper than election politics. It is a part of solid strategy to build his leadership by using his Senate seat to actually and demonstratively improve the lives of Minnesotans.

1) Minnesotans in every part of the state need health care reform. I’ve sat in rooms from Preston, MN (near the Iowa border) to Red Lake, MN (near the Canadian border) from St. Paul, MN (urban) to Willmar, MN (rural) and heard health care stories that range from frustrating to outrageous. There can be no doubt Senator-Elect Franken has heard similar stories during his 2+ years of crisscrossing the state.

2) Minnesotans strongly support a public health insurance option. The recent NYT/CBS and NBC/WSJ polls outlining broad support for the public health insurance option represent the baseline of such support in Minnesota. If 72-76% of Americans are supportive, Minnesotans are at least this supportive. After all, Mr. Franken will take over the Senate’s desk #94, the seat that, literally, held the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

3) Senator-Elect Franken is perfectly positioned to lead for Minnesota. With his impending assignment to the Senate’s HELP Committee Senator-Elect Franken will, from day one, be immersed in marking up Senator Kennedy’s Affordable Health Choices Act. There are 306 million American citizens. Only 23 of them sit on the HELP Committee. There are 312 voters and another 5.1 million Minnesotans that need Mr. Franken to bring us to that table.

Chris Conry is the Health Care Field Coordinator at TakeAction Minnesota.

Health Care Affordability Problems Persist for Women

Posted on June 5th, 2009 by Brigette Courtot, National Women's Law Center in From Our Partners

A recent analysis by the Commonwealth Fund shows that women experience cost-related health access barriers at higher rates than their male counterparts. These new findings echo those of a similar study conducted by the National Women’s Law Center and the Commonwealth Fund two years ago. Though women are no more likely to be uninsured than men, they are more likely to skip or delay necessary health care because of cost, and they report more problems paying medical bills and with accrued medical debt. These inequities are a result of women’s lower incomes (in 2007, women earned 0.78 cents for every dollar men earned) and the fact that they need and use more health care than men. Women’s responsibility for their children’s health care is an additional factor, as women with medical debt or bill problems are more likely than their male counterparts to be single with children.

Read more…

Reform Time is Regulation Time

Posted on May 12th, 2009 by Nick Unger, AFL-CIO in From Our Partners

America is more open to a public conversation about government regulation of companies than at any time in many, many years. (Yesterday in a discussion with union leaders in a highly regulated industry they could not agree on the starting date for this wave of deregulation. Was it 1965 or 1971?)

Congress is talking about regulating credit cards. Remember, they used to be regulated, state-by-state. Then they all moved to South Dakota or some other lawless place. Now, America wants Congress to start minding the store again. There is strong popular sentiment to outlaw sub-prime mortgage scams and predatory lending practices. The word “predatory” is used openly to describe giant financial companies. Again, Americans want Congress to mind the store.

Yesterday’s “let us do it” letter from big health care industry stakeholders can be seen in this context. They see the regulatory wave growing, and want to be out ahead of it. The only proper response is to step up the call for regulation with teeth. If the industry mends its ways, regulations won’t bother them. If they don’t, the machinery will be in place to act quickly.

We can help people see the need by shining a light on “predatory” practices by insurers. After all, they are financial institutions like banks and credit card companies. Denial of payment should be treated the same as a bank refusing to give you your money. It’s not the insurance company’s money. They are just holding it to pay for my health care.

“Sub-prime” insurance should be outlawed. A policy that does not cover the purchaser is a scam. High-deductible policies are sub-prime. Bare-bones policies are sub-prime. If we don’t demonize them, the other side will describe them as bargains and run a “one size does not fit all” media blitz. If ever there was a time to set a reasonable floor on health coverage, it is right now.

We have to wage this regulatory fight to make the “level playing field” attack less damaging. A public health insurance plan should not have to compete with a high-deductible, low coverage, low premium rip-off plan. The power of the public option is magnified when combined with a strong regulatory wall keeping insurance companies from a big part of their plundering and pillaging business model.

We should join the industry in the call for a “specific focus on obesity prevention commensurate with the scale of the problem.” A good place to start is corporate fat cats and bloated bureaucracies. The recent Georgetown/RWJ study [pdf] shows people can’t figure out their policies, can’t figure out what is covered and what isn’t, and can’t estimate what the real costs will be. They call for truth in packaging. We should add strong content standards.

The public hates insurance companies for a reason. Even Luntz sees it. Turn up the heat on insurance company predatory practices. It’s regulation time for American health care.