The Tea Party movement is spreading its message across the country by visiting cities and holding rallies, and garnering quite a bit of media attention. From all the news reports you would think it was a very large movement, but in reality, it's not. Just a very vocal one. It can, however, do quite a bit of damage if left unchecked.
To that end, it is important to counter their rhetoric, particularly to our elected officials. This is the time to write to your Senator and Congressman and tell them what you want to see from your government. If you believe health care reform is a good thing, tell them. If you think student loans need to be modified, let them know that. If you believe the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq need to be ended, be sure they understand you.
You can find your Senators by going to http://www.senate.gov and clicking the link on the upper right that says "find my senators." To find your representative, go to http://www.house.gov and on the upper left enter your zip code. If your zip code has more than one representative, you will need to know your four digit extension. If you don't know it, go to the United State Postal Service website at http://www.usps.com and click on "Find a Zip Code." Enter your address and city and you will get back your zip with extension. Then enter that on the House site to find your representative.
Letters and telephone calls are the best ways to reach your elected officials, followed by faxes and emails. You can also write to representatives outside of your area, but they generally will not respond to you. It is, however, a very good way of letting them know your feelings. So, for example, when I write to Barbara Boxer (one of my Senators) and tell her how pleased I am that the government has finally modified health care in this country, I make sure I copy Mitch McConnell on that message so he'll stop lying to the American people about how many of us don't want such reform.
If we all get involved, the system works.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Mitch McConnell on Healthcare Reform
With the Democrats getting closer to passing a healthcare reform bill the Republicans are characteristically gathering forces and bombarding the media with rhetoric. Take Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell as an example. He stated that the actions of the Democrats are against the will of the American people, and that healthcare reform will be the undoing of the Democratic majority in Congress.
What Mitch doesn't bother with are the facts.
According to the most recent Gallup poll on healthcare reform, 49% of Americans are for it while 47% are against it. While this is certainly close, it does not substantiate McConnell's argument that the American people are against it. Clearly, the majority (albeit a very slim majority) are for this reform.
What McConnell also doesn't bother to mention are the breakdown of Americans polled. When split into parties, 82% of Democrats support healthcare reform, while 13% are against it. The remaining 5% had no opinion. One can't help but wonder what kind of healthcare those 5% currently have.
Among Republicans only 20% support the measure, while 76% are against it. Again, the remainder (4%) had no opinion.
Since Republicans insist on stretching the truth, or completely ignoring facts in order to press their point, why can't Democrats do the same? For example, using the recent polling numbers, let's spin it this way:
82% of Democrats and 20% of Republicans support healthcare reform. 82 + 20 = 102, therefore 102% of Americans support healthcare reform. By this same logic we would be left with 89% who are against it, but we'll simply ignore that number just as we ignore the 9% who don't have an opinion and only concentrate on the 102% who are in favor. Republicans are experts at ignoring anything that doesn't agree with their arguments so why can't the Democrats do the same?
Of course this is absurd and we, the Democrats do not manipulate the truth in this manner for one very simple reason; we are not liars. We present to the American people what is true. In this country our healthcare system is out of control. Insurance companies are making decisions that should be left to the doctors. Premiums are ridiculously high and not because of rising healthcare costs, but simply because insurance companies are greedy. Insurers have been making record profits and paying their executives exorbitant salaries, all the while denying coverage to those who need it most.
Mitch McConnell is a liar. The American people DO want healthcare reform. More importantly, America NEEDS healthcare reform.
What Mitch doesn't bother with are the facts.
According to the most recent Gallup poll on healthcare reform, 49% of Americans are for it while 47% are against it. While this is certainly close, it does not substantiate McConnell's argument that the American people are against it. Clearly, the majority (albeit a very slim majority) are for this reform.
What McConnell also doesn't bother to mention are the breakdown of Americans polled. When split into parties, 82% of Democrats support healthcare reform, while 13% are against it. The remaining 5% had no opinion. One can't help but wonder what kind of healthcare those 5% currently have.
Among Republicans only 20% support the measure, while 76% are against it. Again, the remainder (4%) had no opinion.
Since Republicans insist on stretching the truth, or completely ignoring facts in order to press their point, why can't Democrats do the same? For example, using the recent polling numbers, let's spin it this way:
82% of Democrats and 20% of Republicans support healthcare reform. 82 + 20 = 102, therefore 102% of Americans support healthcare reform. By this same logic we would be left with 89% who are against it, but we'll simply ignore that number just as we ignore the 9% who don't have an opinion and only concentrate on the 102% who are in favor. Republicans are experts at ignoring anything that doesn't agree with their arguments so why can't the Democrats do the same?
Of course this is absurd and we, the Democrats do not manipulate the truth in this manner for one very simple reason; we are not liars. We present to the American people what is true. In this country our healthcare system is out of control. Insurance companies are making decisions that should be left to the doctors. Premiums are ridiculously high and not because of rising healthcare costs, but simply because insurance companies are greedy. Insurers have been making record profits and paying their executives exorbitant salaries, all the while denying coverage to those who need it most.
Mitch McConnell is a liar. The American people DO want healthcare reform. More importantly, America NEEDS healthcare reform.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Anthem Blue Cross' 39% Rate Increase
When I heard the news that Anthem Blue Cross intended to raise premiums by as much as 39% for Californians, I was a bit puzzled as to why such a hefty increase would be necessary. When the reason was stated as "rising healthcare costs" I realized that Anthem Blue Cross was not being honest.
While it is true that healthcare costs do increase, those increases do not have any effect on the profits of an insurer. Let me give an example that will help to explain this:
Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith are both medical doctors, sharing an office in Los Angeles. They both charge $100 for a physical exam, with an additional $50 for x-rays. Dr. Jones accepts all PPO insurance plans (including Anthem), but is not an in-network provider. Dr. Smith also accepts PPO plans, but is in-network with Anthem.
Mary and Blanche are patients of Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith, respectively. Both women are policy holders of Anthem Blue Cross and have PPO insurance plans. When Mary sees Dr. Jones, her insurance is charged $100 for the visit and $50 for the x-rays for a total of $150. When Blanche sees Dr. Smith her insurance is charged the same.
According to Anthem's Fee Schedule, they allow $60 for an office visit, paid at 100% and $30 for x-rays, paid at 75%. This means that Anthem will pay $60 for the office visit and $22.50 (75% of $30) for the x-rays for a total of $82.50. Since Dr. Smith is an in-network provider, he has agreed to accept Anthems fees rather than his own. His $150 invoice is reduced to $90 (he writes-off the remaining $60) of which Anthem pays $82.50 and Blanche pays the remaining $7.50. Since Dr. Jones is not an in-network provider, he accepts Anthem's payment of $82.50, but then bills Mary for the remaining $67.50. He does not have an agreement to accept Anthem's fee schedule, so his fees are what he charges.
Note that in both cases Anthem pays the same amount.
Now, let's assume that Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith both raise their rates by 10%. This increase only matters to the policy holders. Anthem does not raise their fees because doctors raise theirs. In fact, they have limitations on how often a doctor may raise their fees. For out-of-network doctors, the increase in their fees will be passed along to their patients. For in-network providers, the increase in their fees must be written-off as they are still bound by Anthem's fee schedule. Anthem agrees to pay $60 for an exam. Whether an in-network provider charges $100 or $1,000 they still can only collect the $60 agreed-upon fee.
What this means is that Anthem blatantly lied when they claimed that rising healthcare costs were the impetus for their increase in premiums. Under questioning from the legislatures, however, Leslie Margolin (President of Anthem) and her cronies changed their tune. They claimed that due to the economic downturn many healthy individuals had dropped their healthcare coverage as it had become too expensive to keep. Those people who needed the coverage because of existing medical conditions kept the coverage, but were now costing the company too much money resulting in $68 million in losses.
From the sound of it, it would seem that Anthem has a good argument for raising rates, but consider that with $68 million in losses Anthem still managed to pay $39 million in bonuses and spent another $27 million on executive retreats. If these unnecessary bonuses and retreats had been curtailed, their losses would effectively have been reduced to $2 million. Added to this, if their need for revenue was due to policy holders dropping coverage because they could no longer afford the premiums, reducing the premiums would have kept those policy holders, and possibly attracted more, resulting in increased revenue for the company, since by their own testimony many of those who had dropped their coverage were healthy and rarely used the coverage.
It seems that Anthem did just the opposite of what it should have done. Rather than a) reducing spending and b) lowering premiums to hold on to policy holders, Anthem chose to a) spend wildly and b) raise premiums, which would result in even more loss of policy holders.
Now Leslie Margolin is surprised that the legislature wants the government to regulate insurance rate increases. Go figure.
While it is true that healthcare costs do increase, those increases do not have any effect on the profits of an insurer. Let me give an example that will help to explain this:
Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith are both medical doctors, sharing an office in Los Angeles. They both charge $100 for a physical exam, with an additional $50 for x-rays. Dr. Jones accepts all PPO insurance plans (including Anthem), but is not an in-network provider. Dr. Smith also accepts PPO plans, but is in-network with Anthem.
Mary and Blanche are patients of Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith, respectively. Both women are policy holders of Anthem Blue Cross and have PPO insurance plans. When Mary sees Dr. Jones, her insurance is charged $100 for the visit and $50 for the x-rays for a total of $150. When Blanche sees Dr. Smith her insurance is charged the same.
According to Anthem's Fee Schedule, they allow $60 for an office visit, paid at 100% and $30 for x-rays, paid at 75%. This means that Anthem will pay $60 for the office visit and $22.50 (75% of $30) for the x-rays for a total of $82.50. Since Dr. Smith is an in-network provider, he has agreed to accept Anthems fees rather than his own. His $150 invoice is reduced to $90 (he writes-off the remaining $60) of which Anthem pays $82.50 and Blanche pays the remaining $7.50. Since Dr. Jones is not an in-network provider, he accepts Anthem's payment of $82.50, but then bills Mary for the remaining $67.50. He does not have an agreement to accept Anthem's fee schedule, so his fees are what he charges.
Note that in both cases Anthem pays the same amount.
Now, let's assume that Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith both raise their rates by 10%. This increase only matters to the policy holders. Anthem does not raise their fees because doctors raise theirs. In fact, they have limitations on how often a doctor may raise their fees. For out-of-network doctors, the increase in their fees will be passed along to their patients. For in-network providers, the increase in their fees must be written-off as they are still bound by Anthem's fee schedule. Anthem agrees to pay $60 for an exam. Whether an in-network provider charges $100 or $1,000 they still can only collect the $60 agreed-upon fee.
What this means is that Anthem blatantly lied when they claimed that rising healthcare costs were the impetus for their increase in premiums. Under questioning from the legislatures, however, Leslie Margolin (President of Anthem) and her cronies changed their tune. They claimed that due to the economic downturn many healthy individuals had dropped their healthcare coverage as it had become too expensive to keep. Those people who needed the coverage because of existing medical conditions kept the coverage, but were now costing the company too much money resulting in $68 million in losses.
From the sound of it, it would seem that Anthem has a good argument for raising rates, but consider that with $68 million in losses Anthem still managed to pay $39 million in bonuses and spent another $27 million on executive retreats. If these unnecessary bonuses and retreats had been curtailed, their losses would effectively have been reduced to $2 million. Added to this, if their need for revenue was due to policy holders dropping coverage because they could no longer afford the premiums, reducing the premiums would have kept those policy holders, and possibly attracted more, resulting in increased revenue for the company, since by their own testimony many of those who had dropped their coverage were healthy and rarely used the coverage.
It seems that Anthem did just the opposite of what it should have done. Rather than a) reducing spending and b) lowering premiums to hold on to policy holders, Anthem chose to a) spend wildly and b) raise premiums, which would result in even more loss of policy holders.
Now Leslie Margolin is surprised that the legislature wants the government to regulate insurance rate increases. Go figure.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Healthcare Reform
Well, they're at it again. President Obama began his Healthcare Reform Summit today, which was meant to be a bi-partisan agreement on what this country needs in this regard. What he got was bickering back and forth, and little, if anything accomplished.
What we, the people got was much more. We were able to see in a definitive way that the Republican Party is truly the party of NO. They are not coming up with new ideas, they don't care about supporting our president, they don't want reform. They will do everything in their power to ensure that we do not get this passed.
Republicans consistently state that the American people do not want this reform, yet every poll shows that we do. Republicans claim that they have a better solution, yet they were in control of both houses AND the White House for eight years and never did a thing.
Republicans lie.
Listening to the coverage of today's summit was like listening to Rush or Glenn or Bill or that other dimwit. Nothing constructive was being offered from the right (who should be referred to as "the wrong") and it's time for the Democrats to take charge.
We want real reform. A robust public option. Premiums limited to no more than $100 per month. Basic and preventative care 100% covered. No deductibles or co-pays and no pre-existing conditions. Further, any decisions on our medical care should be made with our doctors, not by an insurance company. If my doctor wants a particular medication, that is the medication I should be receiving, and it should be 100% covered by my insurance. I shouldn't have to settle for a generic just because it saves the insurance company money. If my dentist recommends a composite filling for my molar, my insurance company should not be allowed to reduce it to the cost of an amalgam just because it saves the insurance company money.
Give us real reform. Give us what we want.
What we, the people got was much more. We were able to see in a definitive way that the Republican Party is truly the party of NO. They are not coming up with new ideas, they don't care about supporting our president, they don't want reform. They will do everything in their power to ensure that we do not get this passed.
Republicans consistently state that the American people do not want this reform, yet every poll shows that we do. Republicans claim that they have a better solution, yet they were in control of both houses AND the White House for eight years and never did a thing.
Republicans lie.
Listening to the coverage of today's summit was like listening to Rush or Glenn or Bill or that other dimwit. Nothing constructive was being offered from the right (who should be referred to as "the wrong") and it's time for the Democrats to take charge.
We want real reform. A robust public option. Premiums limited to no more than $100 per month. Basic and preventative care 100% covered. No deductibles or co-pays and no pre-existing conditions. Further, any decisions on our medical care should be made with our doctors, not by an insurance company. If my doctor wants a particular medication, that is the medication I should be receiving, and it should be 100% covered by my insurance. I shouldn't have to settle for a generic just because it saves the insurance company money. If my dentist recommends a composite filling for my molar, my insurance company should not be allowed to reduce it to the cost of an amalgam just because it saves the insurance company money.
Give us real reform. Give us what we want.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A Look at Domestic Terrorism
Recently on Good Morning America, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani made the statement that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama." One finds it difficult not to stagger under such a dizzying intellect. Take a moment to analyze this statement.
"We had no domestic attacks under Bush." We can start with this part. First, it is grammatically incorrect. The verb have (of which had is the past singular first person conjugation) denotes possession. The addition of the word no negates this and therefore the phrase as a whole is without meaning. It is nonsense to say that you have something that you do not have. The sentence should read, "There weren't any domestic attacks under Bush" but no one ever gets this correct, so we can forgive Rudy this slight transgression.
Second, and more importantly, September 11 was a domestic terrorism attack that happened under Bush. As Mayor of New York City on the day of the attack, you would think Rudy would realize this, but apparently his memory is failing. Next, he stated that we had one attack under Obama. What attack was that? If he is referring to the so-called Underwear Bomber (Christmas day 2009), then one must remind him of the so-called Shoe Bomber (December 22, 2001), which would be the same type of incident. If that's the case, then he would be incorrect because neither of these can truly be called attacks. Both were attempts and both failed.
Apparently Rudy was speaking of the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood, Texas. This attack was perpetrated by Nidal Malik Hasan, who was soon to be sent to Afghanistan and retaliated by opening fire on the military base where he was employed. Rudy is right that this happened under OBama, but is it domestic terrorism?
According to the Department of Justice, domestic terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." This was an act performed by an individual and therefore is not domestic terrorism under this definition.
The U.S. Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as "activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." By this definition the Fort Hood attack is not domestic terrorism as none of these objectives were attempted by this attack.
Rudy Giuliani seems to be confused as to what constitutes domestic terrorism. One must wonder why shows like Good Morning America would continue to ask for his opinion.
"We had no domestic attacks under Bush." We can start with this part. First, it is grammatically incorrect. The verb have (of which had is the past singular first person conjugation) denotes possession. The addition of the word no negates this and therefore the phrase as a whole is without meaning. It is nonsense to say that you have something that you do not have. The sentence should read, "There weren't any domestic attacks under Bush" but no one ever gets this correct, so we can forgive Rudy this slight transgression.
Second, and more importantly, September 11 was a domestic terrorism attack that happened under Bush. As Mayor of New York City on the day of the attack, you would think Rudy would realize this, but apparently his memory is failing. Next, he stated that we had one attack under Obama. What attack was that? If he is referring to the so-called Underwear Bomber (Christmas day 2009), then one must remind him of the so-called Shoe Bomber (December 22, 2001), which would be the same type of incident. If that's the case, then he would be incorrect because neither of these can truly be called attacks. Both were attempts and both failed.
Apparently Rudy was speaking of the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood, Texas. This attack was perpetrated by Nidal Malik Hasan, who was soon to be sent to Afghanistan and retaliated by opening fire on the military base where he was employed. Rudy is right that this happened under OBama, but is it domestic terrorism?
According to the Department of Justice, domestic terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." This was an act performed by an individual and therefore is not domestic terrorism under this definition.
The U.S. Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as "activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." By this definition the Fort Hood attack is not domestic terrorism as none of these objectives were attempted by this attack.
Rudy Giuliani seems to be confused as to what constitutes domestic terrorism. One must wonder why shows like Good Morning America would continue to ask for his opinion.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Loss in Massachusetts
It's sad to say, but the Democrats have lost a seat in the Senate. The Massachusetts seat held by Ted Kennedy for decades was won tonight by a Republican. This disrupts the precarious balance of the Democratic majority in the Senate, and puts into serious question what the outcome of healthcare reform will be.
Why did the Democrats lose the seat? There will undoubtedly be a lot of finger-pointing and excuses, but the Democrats in office need to take long, hard looks at themselves and the work they have been doing.
A year ago (or slightly more than) we elected a new president. This new president was supposed to bring us sweeping changes. We elected him for this because we were tired of the old ways. We wanted fresh. We wanted new. We wanted change.
We did not get it.
We want healthcare reform. We need this reform, and when it was first introduced, Americans supported it, but in the interim Republicans have lied about what it is, what it is not, and what it will do to hard-working Americans. They successfully scared the public enough that support fell drastically. What was the Democratic response? Nothing.
Republicans dug in their heels and resisted every attempt by the Democrats to create a working bill. They rallied their troops, stormed town hall meetings, lied to the American people over and over again, and successfully halted this legislation from becoming a reality. What did the Democrats do? Nothing.
Now the Democrats have lost a seat, and probably due to their own actions, or lack thereof. Had the Democrats shown any backbone at all, they would have stood up to these attacks. They would have fought back in the place where the Republicans are winning; on Fox News. They would have pushed through their legislation without any support from the Republicans, and made their case that the Republican party wants America to fail.
Hopefully, this loss will be a wake up call to the Democrats currently in office. If you're not going to give us what we want, we're going to replace you with people who will. We, the people of the United States, are fed up with wishy-washy representatives who fail to show any concern for our wants and needs.
Give us healthcare reform, or get out of our way.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Don't Believe Bill O'Reilly
On a recent episode of his fictional program, "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly stated that the majority of Americans support torture in cases where it is necessary for our countries safety, and that he agrees with them. He then used this as a springboard to get to his equally ridiculous point.
Pundits like O'Reilly and his ilk often do this. They make a false statement as if it's a fact, and then use it to prove their point. What this statement lacks, however, is a citation to show its credibility. You'll never find these people citing their claims because they can't. In fact, they often distort the truth to win over viewers.
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics conducted a torture poll and asked the question "Do you favor or oppose allowing the CIA, in extreme circumstances, to use enhanced interrogation techniques, even torture, to obtain information from prisoners that might protect the United States from terrorist attacks?"
Favor 43%
Oppose 48% http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/27/oreilly-torture/
This was on O'Reilly's own network, yet he seems to be unaware of the actual results. It should be noted that a similar question was asked, but specifically asking if torture were allowed to be used on Osama bin Laden and for that the majority concurred, but that was for one man, not torture in general.
A Washington Post/ABC News Poll asked the question this way:
"Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?"
58% stated that torture should NEVER be used compared to 40% who favored the use of torture.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/22/torture/
Also, Gallup conducted a poll and asked the following question:
"Would you be willing -- or not willing -- to have the U.S. government torture suspected terrorists if they may know details about future terrorist attacks against the U.S.?"
Yes 38%
No 56%
http://www.gallup.com/video/20002/Torture-Ban.aspx
Note that unlike Bill O'Reilly, I have cited my sources. So, when Bill O'Reilly states that most Americans favor torture, he is lying. Obviously most Americans do not favor torture, and the polls indicate this quite clearly, yet Bill O'Reilly states the opposite. This is the definition of a lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
