Today, on the House floor, my wonderful Representative and embarrassment to the state, Scott Garrett, read from a "memo" that was already discredited as fake earlier in the day. Rep. Anthony Weiner completely shredded Garrett's willingness to talk about fake memos as opposed to things like reducing the deficit or expanding health care or, as Weiner said so well - "we're here to solve the problems of the American people, not quote from fake memos".
As anyone who has not been living under a rock knows, healthcare reform has been the hot button issue during most of President Obama's time in office. It is now closer than ever.
Many of us have dealt with the misinformed and industry funded opposition to reform that has showed up in large and small numbers at events throughout the country and gaining media attention. For too long, we have stood there silent and afraid to speak our mind. Now, our turn has arrived.
Congressman Frank Pallone (D-Long Branch) has been influential in this debate as chairman of the health subcommittee and has been working on healthcare for a long time. He is very aware of how his work on this bill has made him a prime target for the teabaggers. He and most members of Congress will tell anyone that the opposition to healthcare reform is more vocal than the support.
Join Monmouth Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats of America, Organizing for America, and the Bus for Change for a rally outside of Congressman Pallone's office at 504 Broadway in Long Branch on Saturday March 20 at 2:30 P.M. If he's in New Jersey, he will address the crowd. Whether he is in Washington or New Jersey, it is very important that he knows that we support him and this bill.
Bring friends and signs to show your support for the legislation (that is not perfect, but is a good step in the right direction when it comes to controlling rising health care costs and insuring 30 million additional Americans.)
The zig-zag progress of health care legislation through Congress has caused any number of Americans no small amount of agita. While the suffering over minute details can be enlightening, I suppose, it also shows how few of us understand how Congress work. Even the false outrage over reconciliation - is it an evil, backdoor to introduce unfavorable legislation or just another legislative step? - has shown us that Americans really have no concept as to how their government works.
And it seems as if the people running the government don't even know how it works. Some of the objections from various Congressional people are just political positioning. But some seem to totally miss the reason for what they are doing.
"Since June, I have consistently expressed my serious reservations about the House and Senate proposals," Adler said in a statement. "While the final bill takes positive steps to provide insurance coverage for working Americans, I am not satisfied that the final bill will reform our health care system and prevent excessive increases in premiums for families and small businesses."
Three members of Congress have switched from their no vote last time to a Yes on this bill. The CBO estimate today said that the bill would save $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion over the second decade. It is estimated to expand health insurance coverage to 32 million more Americans. Adler even talked about the many positive things the bill does in his explanation for why he was voting against, but said it doesn't meat all his goals. Sometimes you have to get some of what you want now in order to be able to eventually get everything later.
I helped elect John Adler partly because he ran on his support for healthcare. This isn't the bill many would want, but its the chance we have to move the ball forward. And instead, he's standing in opposition. I haven't understood the political or practical calculations of that stance all along, but that's apparently above my pay grade. This vote by my Congressman is disappointing to say the least. The only thing that could make it worse is if they fall one vote short of passage. I'll put the email he sent to supporters about his decision below the fold.
Congressman Adler has been a continued focus for healthcare watchers over whether he would give his support to the legislation making its way through Congress. Meeting with the Courier Post, he said this:
"I would vote against the Senate bill," he said while meeting with the editors of the (Cherry Hill) Courier-Post. "The Senate bill has different fundamental flaws and some of the same fundamental flaws that the House bill had."
He left open the possibility of supporting the bill that would make fixes to the Senate bill if it includes more cost-containment measures.
I don't really know what cost containments they would add at this point to satisfy him and get his vote. But he may not get a chance to vote on the Senate bill depending on how things proceed:
Under the procedure, known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass," the House would adopt a rule for a vote on a package of fixes to the Senate health-care bill, with passage signifying that lawmakers "deem" the underlying bill to be passed.
Labor and progressive leaders are threatening House Democrats who oppose health care legislation with potentially destructive third party challenges in November.
The Republicans are going to attack him no matter what he does or how he votes. They'll attack him because he's a Democrat and tie him to what the leadership did to get the bill passed that he may ultimately vote against. While some reports have him as a solid no, he's still leaving the door open to something according to his comments, so you should call and let him know what you think. Yesterday Adler could look out his window and see those opposing the bill while today he can see the Citizen Action rally in favor of it. If you want to call and let him know your opinion, numbers are:
Poor Scott Garrett. He was complaining the other day on the Dylan Ratigan show with Ed Shultz show that the President isn't reaching out to him and that Republicans have ideas that are being ignored. I guess he's not paying attention to the ideas that have been incorporated into the Presidents proposal. The White House even put out a list of the ideas they have included. That didn't matter for Garrett as he said Obama hasn't been genuine and has just talked down their ideas. Then they moved onto talking about abortion, because what else will we talk about when it comes to healthcare. Garrett pointed to Conservative Democrats and Congressman Stupak as stumbling blocks for Speaker Pelosi:
Senator Bob Menendez appeared on MSNBC the other day with Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd for the Morning Rundown show. When asked about what his members will say to the argument that using reconciliation for healthcare is an end run, which it's not but the media continues to perpetuate, he said:
Look, no matter how hard we tried, no matter how hard the President tried, the Republicans just weren't serious about solving the problems of millions of Americans that get denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition, of tens of millions of Americans that have no insurance whatsoever, and all the rest of us who have insurance and the price keeps going up, even though we get denied more and more when we make a claim with insurance companies.
You can see the segment here:On the campaign side, Menendez talked about how the DSCC will be supporting Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas in the primary, who now has a challenge from a Progressive candidate. He said they always support incumbents, but don't broadcast their strategy of what they will do to help out. Lincoln turned around and started attacking the public option, voiced her opposition to cap and trade and painted Washington as children in her latest ad. While Washington may be acting like Children, Lincoln is one of the people throwing dirt in the sandbox.
I really wish the Democrats would have pushed the frame of healthcare as a cut to the tax everyone pays with coverage for those that get treatment without. People who have healthcare don't necessarily care about people who don't as we've seen throughout this debate. But they definitely care about paying less for the healthcare they have and cutting the uninsured tax which is built into everyone's premiums would be a great start. Rob Andrews alludes to the issue at the end of a recent interview with Salon:
The political issue is not simply the uninsured. It's how the cost of the uninsured affects those with insurance. The 95 percent of voters or whatever it is who have health insurance are paying much higher premiums because they are already paying for the uninsured in their premiums, their taxes. So this is really all about how to reduce the premiums of insured people.
CUTTING THE UNINSURED TAX. I don't understand why we always cede the tax cut frame. The question is what taxes do you cut and for whom. Whether they know or not, those Americans with insurance are already paying for those without it in a hidden tax. The cold hearted are short-sighted.
Following the Presidents Healthcare Summit on Thursday, Congressman Frank Pallone appeared on Countdown last night speaking with Lawrence O'Donnell about the current fate of healthcare. O'Donnell began the segment with a recap and then brought the Congressman on and started with what Pallone expects the way forward to be. He said they haven't been told what the President will do specifically and doesn't think a decision has been made on whether to move forward with reconciliation in both houses. They talked about the specifics in the bills and what the ramifications would be back at home in district for voting on some of the more unpopular provisions. Pallone said the bottom line is what is going to the President because your opponent will make things up anyway. You can see the full segment here:
As Jason notes just below, Congressman Scott Garrett is quick to use fear and hyperbole when talking about his views of healthcare reform. And the interesting thing with all of his fearmongering is the complete absence of some of the most basic underlying concerns on why health insurance providers are able to collude, deny coverage and hike rates by however much they feel like.
Congressman Pallone recently posted about repealing the antitrust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy (linked above). And while this may not be the only reason why rates have been hiked and competition is all but eliminated, the simple fact remains is that there are industry wide price and competition abuses that are fostered by the exemption.
So, back to Garrett - he is always in favor of more competition and more "market forces". Even his own website section on healthcare talks about competition across state lines. But without a removal of the antitrust exemption, this is close to a nonstarter. And because of the lack of oversight on the hundreds of mergers that occurred, the competition that he talks about was bound to disappear rapidly. It is clear that when it comes to standing up for the very principles he purports to have, Garrett is nothing more than a walking hypocrite and contradiction.
In a call-in "town hall" Tuesday, Rep. Scott Garrett bathed listeners in tea party rhetoric:
Healthcare is such a personal decision. "You don't want the government to be getting between you and your doctor. Do everything humanly possible to protect your rights and your liberties.
Sure. I know the last time my doctor prescribed a test he wanted me to have, my insurance company balked, and the whole thing wasn't resolved until after a tense discussion that involved my doc, me, and a rep from my insurer. By all means, lets preserve that system.
Furthering the misguided right-wing talking points, Garrett also reflexively attacked the President's health care plan, which he apparently doesn't quite understand. Garrett complained Obama was "bent on going forward with the public option" when in fact Obama's plan drops mention of the public option, a huge disappointment to reform advocates. In fact, right now, its some Senators, pushed by party activists, that are committing to working the public option into the reconciliation process. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs even said yesterday the votes aren't there for public option.
Conservative activist Steve Lonegan managed the Q & A part of the call. One caller - self-identified as a doctor who immigrated from Hungary, said Obama's trying to take over the country, and Lonegan talked about tanks rolling into Hungary. Rather than challenging Lonegan on the tanks rolling in, Garrett said the man is why they are actually fighting against healthcare. That's right boys and girls, healthcare means tanks in the streets. You can't make this stuff up. Leave alone the responsibility Garrett abdicates to educate and keep current his constituents. That's pretty much shot. And Garrett wonders why he hasn't gotten a call back from the White House?
Senator Menendez appeared this morning on MSNBC talking with David Shuster about the vote in the Senate yesterday to overcome a filibuster for the jobs bill and his signing onto the letter calling for the public option for healthcare reform. Both Senators Lautenberg and Menendez have signed onto the public option letter. You can see the segment here:
This was posted last Friday, but just before two big pieces of news broke, Sen. Lautenberg's cancer diagnosis and Bill Baroni's impending exit from the state senate. But it's absolutely worth time up on the frontpage. Cross posted at Daily Kos where it got more than 100 comments, and 222 hits for the Tip Jar. - promoted by Rosi
On Wednesday I headed over to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick to take part in a discussion with doctors, hospital administrators, and consumer groups about repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act - a law giving health insurers anti-trust exemptions.
My position has always been that insurance companies shouldn't be left to their own rules - nor their own devices. For the past 65 years, the health insurance industry has been operating with special immunity from anti-trust laws. While this exemption may contribute to their profit margins, it's the patients and doctors who are ultimately forced to pay the price. Enough is enough. In Congress, I'm proud to say that Democrats will soon introduce the Health Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Enforcement Act - to finally ban price fixing, bid rigging and market collusion, once and for all.
Right now, insurance companies continue to rake in record profits, while consumer costs are skyrocketing. Most states remain dominated by a small number of competing insurance firms. Here in New Jersey, just two companies control 60% of the market. Even when states pass laws preventing the exemption, most insurance companies still simply continue to ignore them by citing federal law. We must stop this double-standard and give patients a fair choice. By creating more competition, we will lower prices and increase access to medical treatments that are often denied because they are not profitable for insurance companies to cover.
Healthcare should be about putting people first, not profits. We must promote a fair playing field in the insurance industry and make certain they operate under the same rules as every other sector. The sentiment I heard from leading voices in the medical profession was that we need to shine a light on the practices used to set rates. Currently, federal regulators do not have the power to investigate anti-competitive tactics used by the industry to control the market, leaving patients and consumers vulnerable to exploitation at the hands of insurance companies and big business.
As President Obama's health care summit with Congressional leaders approaches, we must not forget the reasons why we began the process of reforming health care in the first place. We must give a voice to those patients being denied much-needed care due to an obsession with profits on the part of fat cat insurance executives.
The profit driven mindset has severe consequences, such as private practitioners refusing to provide general care procedures like vaccinations just because insurance companies don't cover them. This is unacceptable and needs to stop. I will continue to work with leaders and medical experts to give patients the care they need and deserve.
Fair competition in the marketplace will keep the industry honest. Even more importantly, it will cut down on medical costs for patients and their families. Such reform all begins with breaking up the insurance monopolies by repealing McCarran-Ferguson.
Today marks the first day of Heart Disease Awareness Month. Often those who serve in elected office mark such events with proclamations or press releases. But for me, this isn't just a simple policy issue. To me, this is personal, as both of my parents suffered from cardiovascular disease.
My father passed away from a heart attack when he was only 51 years old. I was a 19-year old freshman at Montclair State University at the time. The suddenness and timing of his death forced me to grow up very quickly and defined who I became as an adult. Then, a decade ago, my mother suffered a stroke. This inspired me to write New Jersey's Stroke Centers Law requiring designation of hospitals as primary or comprehensive stroke centers.
Here in the United States, heart disease is the number one killer of women. The statistics are simply staggering, and we need to take every level of precaution. The American Heart Association is working to change the perception that heart disease primarily affects men and has set a near-term goal of reducing incidents by 25% in women over the course this year.
There are a number of ways to pitch-in during the AHA's Go Red for Women campaign. This Friday, February 5th, I hope you'll join me - and thousands of others all across the country - by wearing the color red. Together, we can raise awareness of heart disease and show solidarity with the millions of families who have been affected.
In the legislature, I will continue doing my part to combat heart disease. I was a proud sponsor of laws extending a business tax credit to provide employees with benefits promoting physical fitness and well-being. However, in addition to a public policy agenda that promotes awareness and prevention, each of us can make healthier lifestyle choices that reduce the risk of heart disease - lowering health care costs and, even more importantly, saving lives in the process.
Also, while cigarettes are legal and adults have the right choose whether they want to smoke, I firmly believe they don't have a right to impose their unhealthy habit upon the non-smoking public. In 2005, I sponsored the law banning smoking in college and university dormitories. Some of you might already know that I am now pushing for legislation banning smoking in New Jersey parks and beaches. These public areas are paid for by taxpayer dollars and should be available everyone to safely enjoy without worrying about the effects of secondhand smoke. Even slight exposure has been found to pose a serious health risk.
Rep. Bill Pascrell has called fellow Democrats "arrogant" and referred to a key party talking point as "BS." He slammed deals cut by leadership and special interests and said, "We're not going to accept that any longer."
Agitated and unfiltered, Pascrell has become the guy who's not afraid to go public with what many rank-and-file House Democrats have been saying behind closed doors.
Speaking directly to the White House, Pascrell had this to say about chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:
In a front-page POLITICO story Friday, he said he'd like to see White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel "come out from behind his desk" to talk to the common folk more.
He talked about the complexity of the bill and the difficulties getting people to understand what it really would do as a self inflicted wound:
"It's so complex; we made it complex," Pascrell said of the health care debate. "And we knew this from the very beginning."
So he's proposing to split the bill up an pass the more popular pieces, but those wouldn't be a public option or individual mandate.
"We are arrogant when we say, 'Well, as soon as the public understands what we're doing, they'll like it,'" he told a clutch of reporters. "That is not only arrogant, it's BS."
Rank-and-file Democrats are "tired of hearing about and not knowing about" the deals that leadership cut with industries for their support of this legislation, Pascrell said, and in expressing that, Pelosi became Pascrell's prime target.
"We're not going to accept that any longer," he said. "In fact, if you go back to those agreements, they should've been much more robust; talk about robust - those agreements should've been more robust.
The Democrats have been trying desperately to clean up the mess they've made of healthcare. A once popular concept has now become the boogeyman for many, including our elected officials. You've seen support splinter with everyone coming up with their own path forward, whether it be starting over, passing what's there or some path in between. And now the icing on the cake, Harry Reid said Democrats see "no rush" to keep moving forward at this time. I wonder how much more they would all rush if someone took away their health insurance while they waited?
Congressman Rob Andrews appeared On the Record with Greta Van Susteren last night on Fox to talk about what's next in the healthcare debate.
Andrews seemed to take the election result in Massachusetts as a statement on the healthcare bill, but it does seem like there were additional factors at play including the fact they already have healthcare in Massachusetts.
The Congressman said he thought there were going to be changes in the bill. He specifically called out "the Nebraska provision" saying it should go and he can't support a bill that includes it. He also called out the "Louisiana purchase" as something else that should come out of the bill.
He also talked about the poor job that has been done in explaining what is actually in the bill. He says if they do a better job of explaining, they can find that consensus point, but you have to wonder how all of a sudden they will turn things around and better explain the benefits of the bill.
Senator Menendez appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday with Senators Spector, DeMint and Shelby. The roundtable discussion covered the attempted airline attack on Christmas night first. Here is the exchange:DeMint decided that this was the time to take a shot at Unions say it would be their fault if we gave collective bargaining to airport workers saying it was the top priority of the administration. They then turned to Healthcare reform where Senator Menendez had this exchange with host Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Senator Menendez, as a member of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, will the House basically have to accept the Senate compromise, given the fact that you passed your version without a vote to spare?
Well, I'm sure the conference will yield some changes, but the reality is, having served in the House and its leadership, I understand sometimes its frustrations with the Senate, but if we are going to have a final law, it will look a lot more like the Senate version than the House version.
And I'm sure there'll be some compromises, but at the end of the day, I would expect that it will look very much like the Senate version.
Wallace then gave DeMint another chance to take shots at just about everyone asking if he would file suit over the healthcare bill. Make sure you check out the exchange between Wallace and Menendez on the agenda for next year where the Senator tries to put things in perspective for the host.
As long as I've known him, Frank Pallone has been willing to jump in and try new ways of talking to people. This Twitter Town Hall - which you can read along with here - was pretty cool, no doubt about it. Follow him here. - Rosi
I want to thank everyone who took part in my first Twitter Town Hall - I had a great time doing it and I'm looking forward to coming back again to answer questions on different issues. Congress is truly making history by reforming the health care system. Seven presidents tried - none were successful. We are now on the verge of sending President Obama reforms that will lower premiums, increase competition, and increase access to near universal levels.
But this would not have been possible without you. Citizen participation is important, so when a new technology like Twitter comes along and gives me a new medium to reach constituents and activists - I am happy to embrace it.
We had a lively discussion about the effects of the bill on Medicare, how mandates may affect students and what people can expect when the bill is law. We dispelled myths about the bill and clarified the bill's intentions.
After health care reform is passed and nearly 30 million more Americans are covered there will still be challenges ahead. Climate change, Afghanistan, financial regulation, and a slew of other issues need to be tackled - and we need all of you helping us to combat the special interests. I know some progressives are disheartened by the Senate stripping the public option out of the reform package and so was I. But we must keep our eyes open to the big picture. The public option would only affect approximately 5 million Americans;whereas, the health exchanges we are creating will affect over 30 million. In addition, this bill ends discriminatory practices such as pre-existing conditions and expands Medicaid, among other important reforms. This is real progress on an important American issue.
Thank you again for participating. I hope you'll enjoy some behind the scenes photos and video from the Town Hall and if you have any other questions please visit Pallone for New Jersey . And if you aren't already, please follow me on Twitter so you can participate next time.
Congressman Frank Pallone announced yesterday that his Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold hearings over new guidelines released by the he U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that say breast cancer screenings, previously recommended for women in their 40's, should not be done annually until they reach 50:
"Breast cancer is a preventable and treatable disease if it is detected early but we don't want to cause other health problems in the process," said Pallone. "Providers and patients need to understand the risks of both screening and not screening so that they can make a balanced decision."
"We should try to minimize the confusion people have about what is best for their health," Pallone said. "And we should be cognizant that these studies also have an impact on what insurance will cover. This hearing will increase everyone's understanding of the issue."
The new report and guidelines say that having this procedure done on an annual basis might cause more harm than do good for women under the age of 50. It says that exposure to radiation, false alarms and unnecessary biopsies are among the downsides, according to the study.
the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Society for Breast Diseases, have released statements defending the use of mammograms in the 40-49 age group.
They argue that cases of breast cancer could go undetected with the less frequent testing. The Congressman said that the hearing will be held early next month.
In the political context, the new guidelines come in the middle of the debate over healthcare and have only added to the talking points of those who argue the government will ration care. As Congressman Pallone pointed out, insurance companies will make decisions on coverage based on these recommendations, so it's good to examine the situation further because it's a pretty significant change. In the mean time, Senator Menendez has called on the Surgeon General to increase efforts to educate women about the new mammogram guidelines to help avoid confusion.
