Health Care Supporters To Hold "Hands Off Our Medicare!" Rally

by: New Jersey One Plan One Nation

Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:37:32 PM EDT

Contact:
Ray Stever, President
New Jersey One Plan One Nation
ray@njoneplan.org
www.njoneplan.org

Health Care Supporters To Hold "Hands Off Our Medicare!" Rally

Don't Let Congress Cut Medicare: Improve It and Expand It to All
Coalition Says Medicare Is the Solution, Not the Problem

Rep. Donald Payne (D-10th Dist.) and New Jersey Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver are expected to address healthcare advocates from a broad range of organizations and senior citizens who are coming together in Newark on Saturday, July 30th, to celebrate Medicare's 46th birthday and to tell Congress, "Hands Off Our Medicare!" The event is being organized by the New Jersey One Plan One Nation coalition, whose President Ray Stever says "Medicare didn't cause our budget problems. The financial meltdown did that. Don't let people use the deficit as an excuse for attacking the best healthcare program this country has ever had. Instead, let's see how an expansion of Medicare can help us solve our budget problems, prevent layoffs, and help families and businesses cope with the rising cost of healthcare. Medicare is the solution, not the problem."

What: Press conference to celebrate the 46th Birthday of the Medicare program
When: Saturday, July 30, at 11 a.m.
Where: New Community Manor Senior building, 545 Orange Street, Newark, New Jersey. Parking---Use the St. Rose of Lima church parking lot at corner of Orange and Gray Streets. Entrance on Gray Street.
Who:  
• Ray Stever, President, New Jersey One Plan OneNation Coalition
• Congressman Donald Payne
• New Jersey Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver
• Larry Hamm from the Peoples' Organization for Progress
• Noel Christmas from the Utility Workers Union ofAmerica
• Deborah Huber from the National Organization forWomen-NJ
• Representatives from CodePink, Healthcare-Now, GreenParty-NJ, as well as Labor.
Note:   Senior citizens and coalition members will be available for interviews.

Medicare was signed into law on July 30, 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson as part of the Great Society vision for America. Medicare is a government-run insurance program that currently provides coverage for nearly 48 million elderly Americans and people with disabilities. Not only has Medicare provided access to life-saving care, it has kept millions out of bankruptcy.

"Our retirees paid into the system all their working lives, as we are doing now. Our elderly are struggling to make ends meet under the current system. It's outrageous for Congress even to consider cutting their Social Security and Medicare just to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires," said Ray Stever, president of New Jersey One Plan, One Nation Coalition. "Our retirees didn't cause the financial crisis. Wall Street did. So why should our elderly and disabled people be the ones to pay the price? That's why we're saying, "Keep your hands off Medicare and Social Security!"

Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance. Medicare's overhead is only about 3%, as opposed to about 11% for the MedicareAdvantage programs and as much as 30% for many private insurance plans. New Jersey One Plan One Nation's affiliate Healthcare-Now! (http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/win-win) estimates that if a Medicare for All plan were established nationwide, the state government of New Jersey would save more than $2.6 billion per year because the payroll tax to fund the expanded Medicare program would be far less than what the state is currently paying for health insurance premiums. Furthermore, the state would be freed of its $60 billion unfunded obligation to provide for retirees' healthcare benefits. County and local governments would also save millions.  

The New Jersey One Plan, One Nation Coalition is a labor and grassroots coalition that advocates single-payer health care for allAmericans. It uses HR 676 - the United States National Health Care Act, also known as Expanded and ImprovedMedicare for All -- as a template. Congressman Payne is a co-sponsor of that legislation.

"Medicare is so much more efficient than private health insurance that the New Jersey state government would save about $2.6 billion per year if we bought our state workers' health insurance through Medicare instead of through private insurance," said Stever, of One Plan, One Nation Coalition. "If we had Medicare for all, we wouldn't be laying off Teachers, Police, Fire Fighters and other state workers. County and local governments and school boards would also save millions per year. So would businesses and nonprofits such as churches. So would taxpayers and the self-employed. Medicare for all would solve our budget problem and stimulate New Jersey's economy. That's why we don't want to wait for a nationwide Medicare for All system. We can establish our own statewide system in New Jersey."

Stever noted that the U.S. spends nearly two and a half times as much per person on healthcare as the people of any other industrialized country. Yet we rank 37th in the overall quality of the care we receive.  Plus, Americans face a real threat of being bankrupted by medical bills, even if they have insurance.  A Harvard University study published in 2009 in the American Journal of Medicine found that medical problems were a major contributing factor in nearly two thirds of all personal bankruptcy cases. Most of the medically bankrupt were solidly middle class and nearly 80% had medical insurance at the start of the bankrupting illness.

"Saving all that money on healthcare means that there will be fewer layoffs and other cutbacks," says Stever.

Healthcare providers would also benefit from a Medicare forAll system. Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) estimates that streamlining payment through a single, nonprofit payer like Medicare would save $400 billion annually, enough to provide coverage for all of the uninsured people in the United States.

Medicare is the Solution, NOT the Problem!

Sources:
Data on potential savings to New Jersey government from Medicare for All, according to Healthcare-Now!'s Win-Win Campaign: http://www.healthcare-now.org/...
Study on role of illness and medical debt on personal bankruptcy in the United States: http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankru...

13.8% of New Jerseyans had no health insurance for at least part of 2009

by: Jason Springer

Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 10:15:00 AM EDT

A recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that 13.8 percent of New Jerseyans under the age of 65 had no health insurance for at least part of 2009. Of those that were insured, 72.4 percent had private insurance, while 14.9 percent were covered by a public health plan such as Medicaid or the military.

Nationally, 17.5 percent of persons under the age of 65 lacked health insurance.

17 GOP lawmakers want state to sue over healthcare, Christie still undecided

by: Jason Springer

Thu May 13, 2010 at 04:15:00 PM EDT

Assemblyman John Amodeo (R-02)
Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini (R-11)
Senator Anthony Bucco (R-25)
Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R-25)
Assemblyman Gary Chiusano (R-24)
Assemblyman John DiMaio (R-23)
Senator Michael Doherty (R-23)
Senator Sean Kean (R-11)
Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R-24)
Senator Steve Oroho (R-24)
Senator Kevin O'Toole (R-40)
Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R-23)
Assemblyman Vincent Polistina (R-2)
Assemblyman David Rible (R-11)
Assemblyman Scott Rumana (R-40)
Assemblyman Robert Schroeder (R-39)
Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R-39)

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said the governor is still weighing whether to join the lawsuit and examining how the federal legislation will impact insured and non-insured people in New Jersey.

The Party of Hate

by: tabbycat31

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:04:27 PM EDT

While progressives like myself (and many of my friends) were partying like it was 2008 on Sunday night when healthcare reform passed the House, others were not so happy. However they went too far in venting their frustrations, resorting to vandalism and violence. This weekend, before the bill passed, the teabaggers were out in full force trying to kill the bill.  Some even used racist and homophobic slurs at elected officials. Unfortunately, this behavior did not end when the bill passed. 

Now, in an effort to relive the summer of the town hell meeting, they are again using vandalism and threatening violence at elected officials.  Vandalism has occurred in the office of Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY), as well as at the Democratic Party offices in Wichita, KS, Rochester, NY, and Cincinnati, OH.  While nothing has happened in New Jersey so far, I fear that this is just the beginning.  After all New Jersey is home to 44 hate groups according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Many members of these hate groups are probably also members of the tea party movement. 

The ugliest of such actions comes from a leader within the Republican Party.  While she is a coward who quits her job after one term in hopes of becoming a reality TV star, many take former Alaska governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin seriously.  Using a note on her Facebook page, she used a graphic of districts her ticket won in 2008 that elected Democrats to Congress as possible Republican targets.  Unfortunately she took the term target way too seriously.  

 Congress and President George W. Bush passed some unpopular legislation and rulings in his era, but I never remember the opposition using violence and vandalism to oppose him.  In fact the opposition in his era was often cornered into "free speech zones" and not allowed near an event if wearing or driving a car with a sticker that showed opposition.

Ultimately it will be up to the voters to decide in November which party they would like to see control Congress.  Many progressives have been frustrated by Congress, and even with this bill.  But if that does not motivate the progressive base to vote and work to keep Democrats in power, perhaps this violence and vandalism will.  Do we really need more people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) in power?

Reverse Town Hall?

by: Rosi Efthim

Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 03:15:11 PM EST

Several dozen constituents rose to address the congressman yesterday, and nearly all were unhappy with his vote.

Burlington County Times:

"You were one of the first to support Barack Obama, and we looked at you as our Democratic congressman who would vote to make a change," said Rev. Charles Levi Martin of Willingboro. "I love you, but I don't like your vote. You gotta change your vote."

Adler's position, which he telegraphed well in advance confounds and troubles some of the people who labored to get him in office, in NJ's only congressional challenger victory last year. We have certainly been critical here of his position.

Adler's reasons for balking at the public option plan passed just days ago - largely about cost-containment and well outlined in this balanced review by Tom Moran - seem cheesy in light of the need for reform and the connection to personal bankruptcy and a cratering economy that uncovered and rapidly rising health care costs are. Adler seems dedicated only to the idea of a perfect bill, one that goes lighter on the landscape than he feels this one does. The strongest health care advocates started out on day one with their legislators already having compromised a single payer plan right out of the equation. Given that, it's hard not to see Adler's vote in the more conservative waters of South Jersey as political calculation, and a weak attempt to insulate himself from the inevitable GOP mission to snatch his District back when Adler stands for his first re-election in 2010.

Still, an overhaul of our health care system has a few steps to go before it gels, and there is at least the suggestion that Adler, his issue of cost-containment now on the record, may yet come to support a public option plan.

Adler still says he has "expressed support" for a public option, and notes that he has supported other Obama initiatives, including the federal stimulus package, stricter govenment oversight of banks and lending institutions and a new energy bill. But it isn't clear whether that was enough for his audience Saturday. Evelyn Liebman, of NJ Citizen Action, urging Adler to correct his course:

I urge you to reconsider your vote so you will be on the right side of history.

Yeah. Like the lady said.

Which is the right way to go on healthcare?

by: NJCentrist

Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 07:20:38 PM EDT

I want to make something clear right off the bat:  I'm not here to try and argue against universal healthcare or a public option.  I am not opposed to that on principle.  I had the good fortune of listening to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) speak on this subject recently.  She said, "We are the only industrialized Western nation that regards healthcare as a privilege and not a right." That really struck me.  It's obvious to anyone that the current healthcare system is majorly screwed up, and damn the insurance companies, we need to make some major changes.  

We can all agree on that much, but we can't agree on how to go about it.  The easiest part, it seems to me, is to expand the options that people have when it comes to picking a health insurance company.  People should absolutely be able to buy health insurance across state lines, rather than being forced to pick one of two preposterously overpriced options in the state.  Any bill that is passed must include such a provision.  For that matter, why, in this day and age, are health insurance companies still exempt from anti-trust laws?  That needs to be changed.  

So that's the easy part.  The harder parts to pass are (a) the health insurance mandate, (b) the creation of a government-run health insurance option, and, hardest of all, (c) paying for it.  

Those are the parts I have a harder time supporting.  First of all, the mandate.  This whole idea really bothers me.  It's not a uniquely Democratic idea; Mitt Romney's plan also includes a national mandate.  But I feel very uneasy about it, to be honest.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that one of the differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary season a year-and-a-half ago?  Unless I'm mistaken, he was against the mandate then and she was for it.  I guess he changed his mind.  I still haven't.  This isn't like driving a car, where the government can force you to get insurance to use their roads.  This is the government trying to force you to get insurance so long as you're alive.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing to have health insurance -- that'd be stupid.  But I really don't like the mandate idea.  

Then there's the public option.  Again, I'm not against the idea in theory.  As a matter of fact, I really do like the idea of having a public option compete with the private insurance companies to drive insurance prices down.  But the reality is less pretty than the theory, I fear.  Make no mistake, I loathe the health insurance companies.  But if and when private insurers decrease their prices to compete with a public plan, they most likely will hike premiums, hurting still more people -- just because they are that terrible.  

"So what?" some say. "Switch to the public option then."
There's where the biggest problem lies:  Paying for it.  The CBO's report from earlier this month said that if only 3 million people switch to the public plan over the course of a decade, it will enlarge the national debt by $1.042 trillion from 2010 to 2019, with the effect on the deficit increasing every year.  That's an incredible amount of money, and we're already facing record deficits.  I supported the stimulus package because of the unusual economic situation, but generally I am more conservative on fiscal issues. In particular I am a deficit hawk.  I strongly oppose spending on things we can't afford, except in certain circumstances, and this is not one of those circumstances.  Healthcare is a big problem, but it is not a national emergency or a war or economic crisis.  I'm all for reform, and I genuinely want major changes to our deeply flawed healthcare system.  But when it comes to unsustainable levels of spending that will eventually result in America failing to pay off the interest on the national debt...well, that's something I just can't get behind.  

I do want as many people as possible to afford health insurance, but the more people who sign on to the public plan, the closer we go towards fiscal ruin.  CBO's estimate of 3 million is almost certainly too small.  Small businesses with less than 10 employees employ 12.3 million Americans.  For these small businesses, together with numerous other slightly larger small businesses with payrolls of less than $250,000 ($500,000 under the Blue Dogs' compromise plan), the tax exemption will make it advantageous to switch to the public plan.  So right off the bat, that's way more than 3 million people switching, and that's not even counting people who simply want to switch their plan because it's cheaper. It will not make financial sense for any of these businesses to continue providing private health insurance to their employees under the mandate, so more and more businesses and people switch and more and more debt piles up on the backs of the taxpayers.  
And tax revenue still won't be able to keep up with the costs, again leading us to financial ruin.  

I don't want to look like I'm just taking this position to be obstinate; I'm not trolling here.  There are a lot of genuine problems with this healthcare reform proposal -- problems that the Blue Dogs' compromise does not alleviate.  And I'm just looking for someone to give me an honest explanation of how this is going to work.  

A couple of weeks ago, Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Leonard Lance (R-NJ) wrote dueling editorials in The Star-Ledger on this very subject.  

Rep. Holt wrote in favor of the liberal proposal, and while his editorial was certainly engaging, I felt that it glossed over the problems of the proposal (as might be expected in an op-ed).  Ultimately, I thought Rep. Holt made the case for major reforms to the healthcare system, but he did not really make the case for these changes specifically.  And that's not really an effective editorial, in my opinion...most everyone agrees that the current system is broken.  
You can see Rep. Holt's editorial here:  http://holt.house.gov/list/spe...

Rep. Lance, on the other hand, advocated the "Medical Rights and Reform Act," a centrist alternative to the Democratic proposal.  (An aside, if I may:  How refreshing to see an actual alternative being provided by the Party of No.)  Lance writes that this plan would not raise taxes, add to the federal debt, or jeopardize employer-provided insurance.  He describes the provisions of the bill as well.  
You can see Rep. Lance's editorial here:
http://lance.house.gov/index.c...

So here's what I want to see in the comments:
1.  Am I right or wrong to be worried about this proposal?  Won't it be unsustainably expensive for our federal government?  
2.  What do you think about the centrist alternative Rep. Lance was advocating in The Star-Ledger?
Talk to me.  

TONIGHT 8pm: Rep. Frank Pallone on Blue Jersey Radio

by: Jason Springer

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:00:00 PM EDT

UPDATE: The Congressman's a great "get," and a lively guest. Health care debate's in full boil, and he's right in the middle of it. And in less than 48 hours, Chris Christie's finally - finally - testifying before Congress, and Pallone and Rep. Pascrell will be there. Got questions? Call in tonight 646-652-2773, or drop your questions in Comments. Show starts 8pm - -  Rosi

Congressman Pallone shared the news with our readers himself the other day that he would be joining us for Blue Jersey Radio this week.

Among the topics of discussion on the agenda are the health care plan released the other day and healthcare reform in general. We will also talk about the questions he would like answers to from Chris Christie, who will testify about deferred prosecution agreements on Thursday. If you can't call in, let us know in the thread what questions you would like answers to and we'll try to work them in.

As always, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! - from 8:00p-8:30p tonight, Tuesday, and you can too. Just call: 646-652-2773

Talk to you then!

Did you know NJ is on the verge of Healthcare Reform

by: jerseygirl

Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 07:57:37 PM EST

There I learned from Senator Vitale that there has been a taskforce meeting to develope legislation for "Universal Access" to healthcare in NJ and legislation could be as soon as January.

You will be really glad to know that his taskforce has one consumer on it but he failed to provide the name of that person or any organization they are affiliated with.