Rescued Archives

After some unfortunate ISP issues our blog died. This is what I managed to rescue vie google's cache of our page:

2010-01-27
Permalink 03:12:59 pm, by nick Email , 165 words, 6 views English (US)
Categories: Announcements [A]
Ezra Klein on the State of the Union

It will be huge. Right now the Democrats don't know what to do. They could go with the Senate bill, start over, or give up. They'll probably do whatever Obama proposes tonight, if he proposes something and doesn't dodge.

Every Hill office I've spoken to in the past week has had the same complaint. "Where," they ask, "is the White House?"

There's been no clear message on the way forward for health-care reform. No clear articulation of preferences. No public leadership to speak of. The administration is taking temperatures rather than twisting arms. The White House press team is blasting out speeches where the president says he'll never stop fighting on health care but pointedly refuses to throw a punch. The president is giving interviews where he seems to endorse paring the bill back and also seems to argue against doing anything of the kind. The daily message has run from banks to freezes, and early leaks suggest that tonight's speech will focus on education.

PermalinkPermalink Leave a comment " Trackback (0)
2010-01-20
Permalink 05:47:28 pm, by nick Email , 628 words, 77 views English (US)
Categories: Announcements [A]
A Lot of Us Will Be Upset

A Lot of Us Will Be Upset

If our U.S. Congress passes, or fails to pass, healthcare reform legislation this year, one thing is for sure: either way, a lot of us will be upset. There will be few happy campers.

We will be upset because it will either cost too much or cover too few of the millions of uninsured Americans, compete too much or too little with private health insurance, undermine or encourage high-benefit health insurances gained by labor unions, restrict too much or too little federal funding for abortion, expand Medicaid coverage for too many or too few poor people, upset us for reasons of our own, & or, all of the above.

If healthcare reform legislation is passed by Congress and signed by the president, it will probably get amended many times.

The Social Security Act of 1935 was comparably complex legislation and it was amended many times. Originally it covered only workers in commercial and industrial occupations. It also provided for federal grants to assist the states with programs for the disabled, the aged, child welfare services, public health services, and vocational rehabilitation.

Amendments to the Social Security Act, in the year --

1) 1939, added benefits for seamen, and for dependents and survivors of workers;
2) 1950, broadened the coverage to include full-time farm and domestic workers, many self-employed persons, employees of state and local governments, and employees of non-profit organizations;
3) 1951, added railroad workers to those covered;
4) 1956, extended coverage to members of the armed forces and self-employed professionals;
5) 1956, provided benefits to workers 50 years of age and older who became permanently and totally disabled;
6) 1962, lowered the age of eligibility for retirement benefits from 65 to 62, but with lower benefits for persons retiring before 65;
7) 1965, provided Medicare for persons over the age of 65, and an accompanying Medicaid program for the indigent regardless of age;
8) 1965, added divorcees over age 65, who had been married for at least 20 years, remained unmarried, and were dependent on their ex-husbands;
9) 1972, transferred administration of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from the states to the federal government;
10) 1972, tied increases in Social Security retirement to increases in the Consumer Price Index;
11) 1972, established a minimum benefit;
12) 1972, increased benefits through Delayed Retirement Credit for those who delayed retirement past age 65;
13) 1977, recalculated the procedure for adjusting price and wage increases as the basis for cost of living adjustments (COLA), giving rise to Notch beneficiaries;
14) 1983, allowed partial taxation of benefits for upper-income recipients;
15) 1983, included federal employees under Social Security;
16) 1996, excluded eligibility of applicants for Social Security or SSI disability benefits if drug addiction or alcoholism is a material factor in their disability;
17) 1996, ended by welfare reform legislation the categorical entitlement to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, by implementing time-limited benefits with a work requirement;
18) 1996, terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens;
19) 1996, ordered all federal payments to be made electronically, i.e., no more paper checks;
20)1999, set payroll deductions at 6.2% of annual wages below $72,600, and payroll deductions for Medicare at 1.45% of all annual wages, with employers contributing matching amounts;
21)1999, enabled disability beneficiaries to obtain a ticket for vocational rehabilitation, employment, and other support services from a network of their choice;
22) 2000, eliminated the earnings limitation for beneficiaries above 65.

(Reference: A History of Social Security by Larry DeWitt, of the SSA Historian s Office, available with a helpful bibliography @SocialSecurityOnline.)

Healthcare reform legislation, or its absence, will be a major influence in the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. Only the delusional would call this legislation ideal. Its evolution reflects our contentious American politics. It is political sausage making at its worst or at its best, depending on one s point of view.

If this legislation is enacted into law, the United States will join all other 17 most industrialized nations of the world in having some system of national healthcare insurance.

Joseph A. Gagnon
Marysville, Michigan

PermalinkPermalink Leave a comment " Trackback (0)
2010-01-07
Permalink 04:28:05 pm, by nick Email , 880 words, 517 views English (US)
Categories: Announcements [A]
What If?

What if this is 1935 and Congress is getting ready to vote on the Social Security Act?

As political progressives, union activists, or whatever, do you support the bill or oppose it?

No brainer, right?

So what if I told you that by supporting the 1935 Social Security Act you would be selling out the working-class and capitulating to right-wing interests who wrote half the bill?

Didn t see that one coming didja?

To get Social Security passed, progressives had to agree to exclude nearly Ω of the working class, including 2/3 of African Americans and more than Ω of all women.

Yep, that s the deal you had to agree to in 1935 to pass what we now know as one of the most successful and progressive government programs of all time. Bur in 1935, it didn t look that way when progressives had to accept the deal racist, reactionary Southern democrats laid down in exchange for their votes.

These backward elements held power over key committees that could have scuttled Social Security and even prevented a vote. Their deal? Exclude al domestic workers, agricultural labor, state and local government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital workers, librarians, and social workers. Their special interest? Keeping power by keeping intact the American-styled apartheid system they presided over.

So what do we do? Kill the bill and try to come back later or take what you can get now?

Remember this deal was made during the Left s Glory Days. That s when we had one of the most progressive presidents ever in the White House, the most progressives ever in Congress and the biggest mass movement ever out in the streets. And progressives still had to cut a deal with the devil.

Protesting is easy. Governing is a b*tch.

So let s bring this What If game to the present

What if you are a member of Congress in 2009, do you vote for the deal cun in the Senate or vote to kill the bill?

Not so easy anymore, is it?

We know the flawed Social Security bill was strengthened over the years, adding household workers in 1950 and agricultural, hotel, laundry, and state and local government workers in 1954. What we don t know is the future of our flawed health care bill?

The nice thing we do know is that improving it will be a lot easier than passing the original bill. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out, many of the future improvements can be through reconciliation with simple majority vote as opposed to the anti-democratic, super-majority 60-vote process that gave sociopath Joe Lieberman the power to kill the public option and prevent lowering the enrollment age for Medicare to 55.

So what do we do now?

We still have to figure that one out. But one thing we can t afford to do is make single-payer a dogma. Such rigidity in strategy ties our hands and limits our options. Looking at the world we see that more nations have accomplished the goal of health care for all through a multi-payer system. Only Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea have chosen to go single-payer.

France is considered to be the world s best health care system while Japan has the longest healthy life expectancy. Single payer systems? Hardly. French citizens are covered by 14 private insurance companies. The Japanese have about 3,500 private health insurance plans. These multi-payer systems succeed because private insurers there are not allowed to make a profit selling health insurance.

Every nation that has committed itself to providing health insurance for all its citizens has followed its own unique path to get there. It s a sure bet that the United States will never adopt the socialized medicine system of Great Britain, even though the Veteran s Administration is already a socialized system with government-owned, government-run hospitals and government-hired doctors.

We could build on this flawed health care bill by expanding Medicare to all Americans of all ages. That would be the most direct route to single-payer since the structure already exists, is quote popular (Even Tea Baggers love their Medicare) and operates way more efficiently than private insurance with it s 3% administrative costs verses 20-30 percent for private insurers.
But it s not certain most Americans are prepared to kill a whole industry even if many of the clerical workers are absorbed by Medicare to serve the new enrollees.

The private sector has always had a role in our government-run health care. Most of the Medicare workers who process sand pay claims are employees of private insurance companies. That was the result of deal struck in 1965 to help win support for passage of Medicare.

With the creation of health insurance exchanges under both the House and Senate bills and the Senate s provision that private insurance companies must reduce their administrative costs to 10% could move us in the direction of a French-German-Japanese-Swiss model. In these and other multi-payer countries, private insurers collect premiums set by government regulation, pay all claims immediately under rates set by government negotiations with doctors and hospitals, and cannot deny coverage for any reason under strict government regulation.

So what if it turns out that most Americans decide they prefer a multi-payer over a single-payer health care system?
Protesting is easy. Governing is a b*tch.
Author: Sam Stark
PermalinkPermalink Leave a comment " Trackback (0)
2009-12-21
Permalink 03:08:24 am, by nick Email , 469 words, 767 views English (US)
Categories: Announcements [A]
Senate Bill a Step Towards German-Style Healthcare

Health care reform will not be what we all hoped for or what this country deserves and needs. But its passage can possibly lay the basis for future improvements. Here are two reasons:

1) The Health Insurance Exchange, as passed by the House, will give the appointed federal health commissioner the power to negotiate premium costs with private insurance companies that wish to be included in the Exchange..

Combining this with the Senate's requirement that 90 percent of premium dollars must be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, moves us closer to how Germany, France, Japan, Switzerland and others achieve universal health care and affordability. (By comparison, Medicare pays out about 97 cents for every health care dollar.)

Based on their political, economic and cultural history and traditions, these countries cover every citizen and immigrant through an employer-based, multi-payer private insurer system in which no company is allowed to make a profit off of providing health insurance. Negotiations with doctors and hospitals over costs is standard with these systems, as well.

These countries also happen to achieve better health outcomes and lower costs than Canada does, although Taiwan's single-payer system beats all nations with the lowest administrative costs around.

2) Up until now, our mish-mash, mostly employer-based system has led to a consumer mentality in which most people, left on their own, end up asking the question first and above all, "What's in it for me?" This framework has not led to a national thinking of the common good.

Health care reform, as flawed as it is, has the potential of creating a mind shift nationally where Americans may now be able to see and accept that it is government's role to provide quality, affordable health care for all.

As a nation, we still lack the social solidarity that exists in other capitalist countries when it comes to health care. We have been fighting the predominant "You're On Your Own" ethic in this country, a legacy of 30 years of a Reaganist/Clintonist anti-government, free market and individualistic philosophy.

We have a chance to succeed with a "We're In This Together" framework once it is established in the minds of most American that government protection of Americans goes beyond national defense, police and fire, food and drug safety and other issues to also include protecting Americans' health and protecting us from medical bankruptcy and greedy insurance companies.

As progressives we need to continue the fight for equity in health care for all Americans. And as every other experience has shown, that goal cannot be achieved under a for-profit system.

Single-payer has worked well for Canada, Taiwan and South Korea, the only single-payer countries in the world. However, it may not be the non-profit system preferred by Americans. We may need to consider a mind shift of our own.

Author: Sam Stark
PermalinkPermalink Leave a comment " Trackback (0)
2009-12-19
Permalink 07:10:22 pm, by nick Email , 271 words, 918 views English (US)
Categories: Announcements [A]
McConnel Misinforms

December 17, 2009

Earlier today, Senator Mitch McConnell's office posted a press release criticizing the attempt to "rush" through the Health Care Reform Bill, arguing that Congress has not spent sufficient time on this legislation in comparison with other important bills.

Republicans average 10 days on big ticket legislation.

McConnell overlooks the fact that when the Republicans were in charge, the entire Congress averaged 10 days on critical trillion dollar items of legislation: 9 days spent on H.J.Res.114, the bill authorizing the invasion of Iraq, considered from Oct. 2 to 11, 2002; 11 days spent on H.R. 1836, the First Bush Tax Cut, considered from May 15 to 26, 2001; and 10 days spent on H.R. 2, the Second Bush Tax Cut (after Sen. Grassley's amendment gutted the first version on May 15, 2003), considered from Feb. 27/ May 15 to May 23, 2003. (For details see: http://rethinkingpatientsafety.typepad.com/ )

Why aren't over 400 hearings spanning 70 years enough?

In contrast to this 10 day average for Republican consideration of big ticket items of legislation, Congress has spent over 70 years on health care reform, holding 451 hearings, 175 hearings during Democratic administrations (Roosevelt: 8 hearings, Truman: 71, Carter: 11, and Clinton 85), and 276 hearings during Repubican adminstrations (Eisenhower: 19, Nixon: 73, Ford: 56, Reagan: 22, Bush 1st: 77, Bush 2nd: 29) . (See: http://tinyurl.com/hearings-on-health-care )

McConnell ignores the fact that Republicans introduced health care reform (Theodore Roosevelt in 1912), and championed it nearly a century ago (See the 1928-32 publications of 28 volumes by Committee on the Costs of Medical Care chaired by Republican AMA Pres. Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur).

Do not let McConnell's misinformation further delay our long overdue health care reform.

Lee Tilson

Detroit, Michigan
President
Year
Number of Hearings
Roosevelt
1938 8
Truman
1946 36
1947--1948 11
1949 24
Eisenhower
1954 19
Nixon
1970 2
1971 46
1972 1
1973 7
1974 17
Ford
1975 35
1976 21
Carter
1977 1
1978 3
1979 4
1980 3
Reagan
1983 6
1985 1
1986 4
1987 8
1988 3
Bush (GHW)
1989 12
1990 10
1991 24
1992 31
Clinton
1993 41
1994 34
1995 3
1996 1
1997 2
1999 2
2000 2
Bush (GW)
2001 5
2002 7
2003 3
2004 2
2005 1
2006 1
2007 6
2008 4