Seventy-Two Year Old Patty Zeitlin Raps about HEALTH CARE NOW

Patty is a senior citizen who is mad as hell and won't take it anymore. View Patty's RAP on You Tube......LEARN and Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTjoHqurBUg

Thank you Senator Harry Ried

For months, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been under intense pressure to drop the public health insurance option.

But Reid defied insurance lobbyists, political pundits, and conservatives of both parties and announced that he's including a public option in the Senate floor bill.

I just added my name to a newspaper ad thanking Senator Reid, to show that thousands of Americans have got his back and are fired up to fight alongside him. You can participate as well.

The Senate's version of the Health Reform Bill includes a public option with negotiated provider rates. The result of the passage of this bill will be a resolving of the access to health care affecting millions of Americans, and the plummeting of health care costs due to competition. The bill is not perfect, but the Senate version is the best I have reviewed so far. If you would like to lend your name in supporting Senator Reid, go to the following link and sign on.
http://pol.moveon.org/thankreid/?r_by=17734-8124316-HYvJJwx&rc=confemail

Washington Post "New Life for the Public Option"

New life for the public option

The resurrection of the public option is the latest and one of the most surprising turns in the long battle over legislation to overhaul the nation's health-care system. Under assault for months, and declared on life support repeatedly in recent weeks, the provision for a public insurance option is unexpectedly alive as House and Senate leaders prepare to send their bills to the floor.

That doesn't mean it's a done deal. Whether it survives the final battles, and in what form, are still the unanswerable questions. Multiple versions of a public option are on the table. Liberal and moderate Democrats are still at odds and are drawing lines in the sand in hopes of exercising maximum influence on the outcome.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are still scratching for the votes to pass bills with a public option included. But by next week, both hope to have bills ready either for unveiling or to send to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis and scoring.

What encourages some of those who have followed this debate closely from the inside is the degree to which Democrats are in sight of a compromise on the public option and other remaining differences -- though many may have to accept some disappointment to get a bill to President Obama's desk.

What brought the public option back to life?

Conservative opposition nearly sank the public option over the summer. Many Republicans called it a government takeover of health care. Some conservatives see it as the first step toward a single-payer system (as do some liberals). At the height of the town hall and Tea Party activity, the White House appeared to be running for cover. Officials worried that the public option had become a proxy for more pervasive concerns about the amount of government intervention Obama was calling for in his economic and domestic policies.


Administration officials sent equivocating signals. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, driven by a pragmatic desire to get a bill through Congress, appeared willing to sacrifice the public option, if necessary, to reach the larger goal. The president maintained that he still preferred to see a public option in the legislation, but he told one town hall audience that this was merely "a sliver" of the overall health-care debate. In other words, if it sank into obscurity, he wouldn't weep long over its disappearance.

The conservative opposition and the administration's apparent wobbliness prompted a counterattack by liberal advocates of the public option, who saw it as the holy grail of the debate. Few experts see it that way, and there are no doubt far more important provisions that would have a more direct effect on coverage, on how individuals are treated by their insurance companies and in controlling costs (still the weakest element of bills under consideration). But the grass-roots support had an effect.

When Congress returned to Washington in September, the debate's focus shifted to the dynamics of the Senate Finance Committee, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had labored for months to produce a bipartisan consensus. To that end, he joined several other Democrats in opposing two versions of a public option in the committee's bill, saying he saw no way to get 60 votes in the full Senate.

That seemed to spell the end for the public option. Baucus, however, managed to get one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), to join with Democrats in approving the legislation. Snowe opposes a public option, but she has advocated the use of a trigger mechanism that would allow a government insurance plan if private competition proves inadequate. Snowe's future votes remain conditioned on what is in the final bill.

With virtually unanimous Republican opposition likely, Democrats reevaluated the politics of the public option. Two recent events contributed to their renewed push to include it. One was the insurance industry's decision to attack the legislation and issue a report warning of higher premiums. The report triggered a backlash among liberal Democrats, who decided to push even harder for a public option.

Then last week, new polls, one from The Washington Post and ABC News and the other from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, found clear majority support (57 percent) for a public option. The Post-ABC News poll showed support had risen five percentage points since August. The new numbers emboldened public-option supporters to press harder, even though the same polls continued to show the public divided over the overall shape of health-care legislation.

National polls are one thing. But getting the votes in the House and Senate is quite another. For red-state senators or House Democrats from marginal districts, perceptions of public opinion at home are another, which is why rounding up the votes for a bill with a public option remains a challenge.

Pelosi has long been a determined advocate for the public option. The most robust version, which would pay on the basis of Medicare rates, appears not to have enough votes to get through the House. As of this weekend, Pelosi's fallback appears to be a provision that pays on the basis of negotiated rates, still a relatively robust approach.

Reid is trying to attract 60 votes for a bill with a more qualified public option, one that would let states opt out of the system. Even if he is a few votes short, Reid is inclined to include the option in the bill that goes to the floor. Snowe's trigger mechanism may be the fallback position in the Senate if there aren't 60 votes for an opt-out plan.

On Friday, Pelosi signaled her receptivity to the opt-out approach as a possible compromise between the House and Senate, a sign that despite her advocacy for a robust public option she doesn't want to jeopardize reelection prospects for the moderate-conservative members of her caucus.

Much negotiating and posturing lie ahead. Obama told Senate leaders late last week he still sees value in trying to keep Snowe in the coalition. But liberal Democrats will be unhappy if the Senate bill includes her trigger mechanism rather than something stronger.

That will then test Democrats' cohesiveness, and Obama's leadership and persuasiveness. That battle could be weeks away. The fact that the House and Senate now appear likely to receive health-care bills with a public-option provision is surprise enough.

Final Senate Bill to Have PUBLIC OPTION

Reid says health care bill to have public option By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER, AP
posted: 18 MINUTES AGOcomments: 459PRINT|E-MAILMOREText SizeAAAWASHINGTON -


Majority Leader Harry Reid says health care legislation headed to the Senate floor will include an option for government-run insurance. Reid says states will have the prerogative of opting out of the program if they choose.

Reid noted that polls show widespread public support for giving the government a role in the overhauled health care system envisioned by President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
2009-10-26 16:08:11

REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM NOT DEAD YET

Contact your Senators and Congressperson immediately. Let them know that the ONLY real health care reform MUST include a public option. Get involved, we can impact Health Care NOW. A Public Option will ensure access to health care and reduce costs through competition.


A Second Wind for the 'Public Option'
Posted: 10/24/09Filed Under:Nancy Pelosi, Health Care, Harry Reid 25 Comments + Join the discussion »TEXT SIZE:AAAPRINT SHARE To the surprise of many, the so-called "public option" - creating a gvoernment-backed insurance plan to compete with prviate insurers - is squarely back on the table after being considered dead by some, according to the Washington Post.

The Post says that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are trying to round up votes to pass the public option in some form. One of the reasons for its revival may have been a series of recent public opinion polls that showed a rise in support for the proposal.

THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO YOU

October 23, 2009

Last Friday we were notified that a patient of ours receiving a MRI had her insurance canceled by Blue Cross of California. Turns out that the MRI revealed cancer. The scan was performed in mid September, and the patient was notified of the cancellation last week retroactive to July 2009. This is NOT the first time Blue Cross has done this. You could be next!

This afternoon, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders are making a decision on whether to include a public option in the House health care bill. Pelosi is leading the charge to put the public option in the bill, but she needs to be sure she has the votes to pass it on the House floor.

According to news reports last night, she's still 2 votes shy, so our participation is REQUIRED now.

Representative Henry Waxman is a key member of House leadership. Please call and urge him to stand with Speaker Pelosi and support the public health insurance option. A public option is the ONLY way to ensure Blue Cross and other companies won't treat you like they did our patient.

Here's where to call:


Representative Henry Waxman
Phone: 202-225-3976


Here are some points you might want to make when you call:


A public option is good fiscal policy. It will create competition and reduce health care costs. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office shows legislation with a public option is not just deficit neutral—it will help reduce the deficit.

Legislation with the public option will expand health coverage to 96% of Americans. The USA is the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care for their people.

The public option is widely popular—poll after poll shows strong support, including the latest poll released just this week by The Washington Post.

Health care legislation with the a public option would express the concern of all Americans for their fellow citizens. We do not live in an isolated environment. We need each other to promote our health and the health of our children. No United States Citizen should have to go bankrupt because they can't pay inflated medical bills. A public OPTION in the House of Representatives bill could be decided today.

Please call Rep. Waxman right away

The Time to act is NOW.......MAKE THE CALL

People from across the country are coming together to send a strong message to Congress: It’s time to deliver on health reform.

Join me in participating in a national call-in day to flood the capitol switchboard with calls in support of meaningful health reform.

Copy and Paste the link below to be connected automatically, or call 1-800-828-0498:

http://www.standupforhealthcare.org/timetodeliver

The facts are clear. The status quo is unsustainable. American families can no longer stand to shoulder the burden of rising health care costs.

It's time to put an end to insurance company abuses – it’s time to put people before profits. No American should suffer or go broke because they lack health insurance.

Please join us in sending a strong message to Congress that the time for health reform is now. We cannot afford to wait.

MORE ADVERTISING BS: MEDICARE TO GO BK IN 2017

Going Out OF Business?
A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.
October 7, 2009

Summary
A new health care ad from a conservative group claims that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years." That gives a false impression. The program does have huge financial problems, but there’s no reason to think it’s going out of business as the word "bankrupt" implies. And the issue isn’t new:

A government report the ad refers to says the trust fund for one part of Medicare – hospital insurance – won’t have enough money to pay all benefits in 2017. Medicare’s physician and drug benefits will "remain adequately financed," says the report.
Government projections have found that the hospital insurance trust fund would face a shortfall "almost from its inception," according to the Congressional Research Service. But in many cases politicians have found ways to extend it. In 1970, for instance, the trust fund was expected to be insolvent in 1972.
The ad also claims that "some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion dollars in Medicare spending cuts." Actually, the House health care bill, to which this refers, proposes a net cut in spending of $219 billion over 10 years.

Analysis
The conservative group Americans for Prosperity has released a new 60-second ad through its Patients First project. The ad, which features a family doctor, Dr. Amy Siems, talking to viewers, recycles a few misleading talking points against health care legislation in Congress, but includes a new claim that is quite startling. Dr. Siems says that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years."

Bankrupt? Within a Decade?


Yikes. Quite a scary claim to make about a program that encompasses 16 percent of the federal budget and benefits 45 million Americans. But the word "bankrupt" is far too strong to accurately describe Medicare’s problems.

The AFP/Patients First ad points to a government report as the source of its claim, and that report does say Medicare’s "[p]rojected long run program costs are not sustainable," and that its problems are even more severe than those of Social Security. The report says further that the trust fund for one part of Medicare – hospital insurance – is projected to be insolvent in 2017, and calls that "an urgent concern." But that’s not the same thing as being "bankrupt," and it only applies to one of four distinct parts of the overall Medicare program. As the Social Security Administration explains:

Hospital insurance (Part A) pays for inpatient hospital services, skilled nursing facility care and hospice care.
Medical insurance (Part B) covers physician services and medical supplies not paid for by Part A.

Medicare Advantage (Part C) is an option to receive benefits through a private insurance company.

Part D is Medicare’s prescription drug coverage.

The ad refers to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees 2009 Annual Report, which indeed makes some dire predictions for Medicare Part A, the segment that’s in danger of running out of money. Part A relies primarily on payroll taxes and its trust fund, or reserves, to pay for benefits. Parts B and D, meanwhile, funded by general revenues and monthly premiums, "are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future," according to the report. (The trust fund for those segments, though, "will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.")

Funds for Part A will only be able to pay 81 percent of the projected spending in 2017, and less each year after that, according to the trustees’ estimates:

Trustees Report: The projected date of HI [Hospital Insurance]Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two years earlier than in last year’s report, when dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing margins in all future years.

The report goes on to say that the HI trust fund "could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years" by either significantly increasing the payroll tax which funds it, cutting spending by half, or a combination of those measures. "Larger changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year horizon," the report says.

But warnings of depleting the HI trust fund aren’t new. In a 2008 report, the Congressional Research Service wrote that "almost from its inception, the HI trust fund has faced a projected shortfall. The insolvency date has been postponed a number of times, primarily due to legislative changes which had the effect of restraining growth in program spending." Indeed, a 1983 report from the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging forecasted that:

Senate Special Committee on Aging, 1983 report: Balances in the HI trust fund are projected to be exhausted during 1987. Though the HI balance was a substantial $18.7 billion at the end of 1981, borrowing by the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund (OASI) reduced the HI balance to $8.3 billion at the end of 1982. … This already low balance is projected to decline slowly through 1986 and rapidly in ensuing years, as outlays exceed income by a widening margin.

And that is hardly the only year in which a government report projected shortfalls just around the corner, as this table, re-created from a CRS report, makes clear:

We don’t mean to say that the projections about the future of the HI trust fund shouldn’t be taken seriously, or that Medicare in general isn’t facing long-term funding issues. But it’s not going to be “bankrupt in eight years.”

The Obama administration has commented on the trustees report several times. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called it “a wake up call for everyone who is concerned about Medicare and the health of our economy,” adding that “it’s yet another sign that we can’t wait for real, comprehensive health reform.” And the administration has put forth proposals that it says will extend the life of the trust fund by several years.

We can’t predict whether the Obama administration and Congress will find a way to save the HI trust fund yet again, but judging from the political past, it seems likely.

At the point where the hospital insurance trust fund is expected to run dry in 2017, the current payroll tax is estimated to cover only 81 percent of the projected outlays (compared to 88 percent this year), and less each year after that. In the past, scheduled depletions have been offset by a combination of increased taxes and other funding, as well as decreased payouts. The original HI tax rate was 0.35 percent in 1966 and increased steadily over the next three decades. It is now 1.45 percent on all covered earnings, and both the employee and the employer pay it. Hospitals, meanwhile, accept Medicare payments that are about 68 percent of what private insurance pays, according to the Lewin Group, and in July, hospitals agreed to cutting $155 billion in Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years, primarily through adjusting annual payment increases.

Other Claims

We’ve examined ads from Patients First and its parent group, Americans for Prosperity, before, and they’ve put forth the same straw man argument: that Congress wants a Canadian- or British-style health care system. As we’ve pointed out in several articles, that’s not what the legislation in Congress would set up. As evidence, the back-up for this ad includes a column in the Tucson Citizen that repeats falsehoods we’ve already debunked about the stimulus bill, which was passed in February.

The group’s support also includes several articles about patients in Canada waiting for specialist appointments, MRIs and even surgeries. It’s Dr. Siems’ opinion that this amounts to a “system that has already failed.” Others would disagree, such as a Canadian scientist quoted in a 2007 article that’s among the group’s back-up: " ‘Canada is not a medical utopia, as some would have you believe, or a disaster, as others claim,’ said Jack Tu, a senior scientist at the Toronto-based Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and co-author of a recent study on waiting times. ‘Most people get care in a reasonable amount of time. What you hear about are the horror stories.’ "

But a debate on whether or not the system has “failed” north of our border is irrelevant. The health care legislation in Congress doesn’t amount to “forcing Americans” into such a system, anyway.

The doctor in the ad also says that "some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion in Medicare spending cuts.” But that’s more than double the net amount the House legislation proposes to save from Medicare. It’s true that the House health care bill calls for getting $500 billion in savings out of Medicare, but its substantial increases in Medicare spending reduce the net amount cut from the program to $219 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

– by Justin Bank and Lori Robertson

Sources
“Financing Medicare: An Issue Brief.” The Kaiser Family Foundation. Jan 2008.

Medicare, SSA Publication No. 05-10043. Social Security Administration. Sep 2009.

Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs. A Summary of the 2009 Annual Reports. Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees. 2009.

“Prospects for Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.” Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate. Mar 1983.

O’Sullivan, Jennifer. “Medicare: History of Part A Trust Fund Insolvency Projections.” Congressional Research Service. 28 Mar 2008.

Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius Statement on New Medicare Trustees’ Report, news release. 12 May 2009.

WhiteHouse.gov. Paying for Health Care Reform, Medicare fact sheet. Accessed 7 Oct 2008.

Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Rep. Charles B. Rangel. 17 Jul 2009.

Davis, Henry L. “Is universal health care worth waiting for?” Buffalo News. 29 Jul 2007.
Posted by Justin Bank and Lori Robertson on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Filed under Articles · Tagged with Americans for Prosperity, medicare