Please welcome Speaker Nancy Pelosi to C&L for a live chat about the new Health Care Reform Bill
By John Amato Wednesday Jul 15, 2009 9:29am
I'm very pleased to have Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House join us on C&L to live chat with all of you about the new health care reform bill that was just released. The House unveiled its plan yesterday entitled: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. It's a comprehensive plan that does include what appears to be a very good public option. Speaker Pelosi will take as many questions as she can on this issue for an hour or so and I know you a have a lot of questions.
Today, the Chairmen of the three Committees with jurisdiction over health policy in the House (Energy & Commerce, Education & Labor, and Ways & Means) introduced America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 to curb out-of-control costs, encourage competition among insurance plans to improve choices for patients, and expand access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Here’s what America’s Affordable Health Choices Act means for you...
TNR's Jonathan Cohen, who has been following the health care debate, is very optimistic about what is happening.
The three House committees writing health care legislation have just released the full text of their bill. And my immediate, admittedly tentative reaction is strongly positive. Once fully implemented, this reform plan will accomplish most of the goals on my mental checklist:
- Generous subisidies, available to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty line
- Expansion of Medicaid to cover people making less than 133 percent of the poverty line
- Guarantees of solid benefits for everybody, with limits on out-of-pocket spending
- Strong regulation of insurers, including requirements that insurers provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions without higher rates
- An individual mandate, so that everybody (or what passes for everybody in these discussions) gets into the system and assumes some financial responsibility
- A public plan, one that appears to be strong, although I'll reserve judgment on that until I hear from the experts
- Choice of public and private plan, at first just for individuals and small businesses, but later for larger businesses and--possibly--eventually for everybody
- Efforts at payment reform, if not necessarily as strong as they could be
- Investment in primary care and prevention, which is not sexy but potentially important for general health...read on
The House released its health care reform bill today and will begin three simultaneous committee markups on different provisions later this week. Video of Waxman's statement, courtesy of TPM.
You can access House Committee summaries and the actual text at the House Education and Labor Committee site. Help us read through the bill.
First impression from the summaries: it's an excellent reform package, with lots of very worthwhile features. But we'll be looking through the details in the next few days.
Here's Matt Yglesias on the new plan:
The House of Representatives is now prepared to unveil their health reform legislation with markup taking place tomorrow and Thursday. It’s a good bill (more on that later) but it’s worth also giving a tip of the cap in the direction of the House process. The chairs and members of the three relevant committees did a great mitzvah by putting egos aside, forming a unified “tri-committee” bill writing process, largely shutting up about their internal negotiations, and getting down to the job of writing a bill that fits the parameters Americans voted for in November.
So what’s in the bill?
--
Well, there’s a fairly strong public plan. It needs to be financially self-supporting and nobody will be forced to accept its reimbursement rates, but it will be open to anyone with access to the Health Insurance Exchange will model its payments on Medicare and they say the default assumption will be that anyone who serves Medicare clients will also take Public Plan clients.
I'm still going through the entire plan myself, but please, let's welcome the Speaker to the blogosphere.
Editor's note: Off-topic and rude/inappropriate comments are not welcome and will be dispensed with. Just a warning. Play nice.
FROM THE SITEMONITOR: Comments at this post are now closed. Speaker Pelosi is no longer here to read your comments, and sitemonitors must move on to more recent threads. Thanks to those who participated. If you wish to discuss healthcare some more, trust me, this blog will be posting on it again frequently, and you are also welcome to use the nightly open thread.
ThinkProgress reported this morning: "The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee just passed health care reform legislation that contains a public plan option. Despite the fact that 160 Republican amendments were accepted, the bill still did not garner any Republican votes."
This country is in serious trouble, and the Republicans put us there. Americans have rejected the Republican way of doing things twice now in dramatic fashion in 2006 & 2008.
Q: Why does Congress & The WH still talk of "bi-partisanship" and concern theirselves with appeasing members of the GOP who clearly have NO interest in working with Democrats?
Democrats in Congress have a responsibility to work in a bipartisan manner. It is clear that the Republican leadership in the House has no interest in supporting a bill that provides comprehensive health care for all. This is our goal and we hope to have some Republican support, but we will not be held back by their obstruction.
it's clear that the GOP has no interest in bipartisanship. As a Party they are simply interested in obstructionism, with the goal of damaging this President and embarrassing the Democratic Party.
Haven't the Democrats learned anything about how the GOP operates after the last 30 years?
Thank you for the reply.
This is not the first time Republicans have made changes to a bill that they then later ALL voted against.
Perhaps we need a rule stating that "if your changes are added to a bill, you have an obligation to vote for it". The changes anyone (either Party) makes to a bill should be contingent upon them voting for that bill. If they don't, those changes should be stripped out.
Thank you very much for being here, and this response. Bipartisanship is a good goal, but not at the expense of good policy, especially in this case. Health care reform is just too important, and there needs to be a really good public option.
I've told this story here before, but indulge me. I would like Ms. Pelosi to read it.
As I lay in my hospital bed awaiting surgery, two women from the hospital financial services office came in and drew the curtain around my roomate, a college professor who was being treated for a brain tumor. The first words I overheard was, "Sir, I regret to inform you that your insurance company has abandoned you."
That shocked me wide awake. I didn't know they could do that. And especially not to a college professor with a gold-plated benefits package. The rest of the 20 minute conversation consisted of these two women informing the poor guy of what resources were available to him at home after they sent him back there to die. He was gone that afternoon.
I, myself, as someone who's been fighting cancer for years, cannot get insurance without the employer mandate, and am stuck in a dead-end job where I am secure, but unable to put any money away for retirement. So I'm simply waiting to turn 65 when Medicare will kick in, and I can quit and freelance for triple what I'm making now. Then, at least, I'll be comfortable, but retirement? Forget it. If this is the "greatest country in the world", how come I'd be better off in Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark..... Almost anywhere else in the industrial world.
from all of us here at C&L...
I'm happy to be here discussing health care reform with you. These next three weeks are critical - we need everyone to weigh in in support of a bill with a strong public option.
Greetings Madame Speaker
I just want you to know that I do not mind paying more taxes so that EVERYONE can have access to health care. Two of my daughters-in-law live in Canada and they are very satisfied with the health care they're receiving. It would be nice if ALl citizens had the same coverage as all the members of congress and the senate do since they have "Government" insurance.
Good afternoon Madame Speaker.
I hope this letter finds you in good health. The reason I'm writing you this is two fold.
1, Single Payer health coverage for the nation.
It is my belief that this country, being the greatest country on earth, can surely do Single Payer health coverage for it's citizenry.
With a population of slightly over 300 million people, we surely have the tax base to afford this. Even if 1/2 of the occupants are employed.
I'm a veteran and I get VA care because I can't afford health insurance. They wanted almost 800.00 dollars a month for limited coverage.
That comes out to a little less than 9600.00 a year. And once you have a pre existing condition, they deny coverage. But they'll take my money,then, eventually drop me. This is so un American. Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. All three which need health to accomplish.
Secondly, My parents recently went bankrupt because of health care costs. So I had to prop them back up. Which has left me in very bad financial situation .
I'm so close to being bankrupt now, that I have to sacrifice most of what I've earned over my lifetime.
So, at 52 years of age, I have to start over again. These things shouldn't happen in America.
I realize that a compromise will likely be the result of this debate. I'm sorry Madame Speaker, but that's not going to be acceptable.
There are 100's of thousands of people just like me. Probably millions. The current state of health care is abysmal in this nation.
We can do better. We need to do better. Because if we don't, the nation will end up just like me and millions of others.
Thank you for your time Madame Speaker.
Please do try to have a great day.
respectfully
Ger.
The moniker "mudshark" is an old Frank Zappa song.
:)
Ger, thank you so much for your service to our country as a Veteran. Your parents are fortunate to have such a responsible son. For the past 30 years, I have been a supporter of single-payer. If we were starting from scratch, I am certain that would be the best way to go. Working with the President, we will accomplish goals by providing comprehensive, quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
I believe that the best way to do this is with a robust public option to increase competition and keep the health insurance companies honest. With the passage of our bill, people with pre-existing medical conditions will be able to get health insurance. People who change jobs, or lose their jobs, will be able to keep their health insurance in a way that is affordable to them.
Our approach will lower costs, improve quality, increase choice and provide peace of mind and stability to all Americans. We will only be successful if you, Ger, and others like you have the security of health insurance.
I hope you have a nice day and thank you for your kind wishes.
Thank You for your response.
But I still feel Single Payer is the way to go.
My mother has Alzheimer's, My father just had his 3rd heart attack, My wife has Huntington's Corea, and I'm looking at the possibility of having colon cancer. The VA will help me with that.
But what about the millions of others just like me in my situation?
This issue crosses all party lines. I don't understand why the GOP is so set against this?
Aside from the profits, why would they be so objectionable?
You need not respond again Madame Speaker.
I just wanted to give you a further example of what is actually happening to so many people in this nation.
Thank you again Madame Speaker
respectfully
Ger.
I had to watch as a kid as my mom gradually died from 5 heart attacks, 3 strokes (the second one took her speech and the third her life while I was in the Air Force), all the while we went from a middle-class family to one reduced to needing food-stamps, and I don't think the doctors were ever paid in full.
The health care that Congress is preparing is for the Middle Class. Under our plan, your family would not have had to suffer the tragedy of your mother's illness combined with the pauperizing effect of the high cost of medical care on your family's budget.
Thank you for your service to our country in the air force. Health care for all will make America stronger.
Isn't there a way to fold the Veteran's Administration health care system with Medicare and Medicaid, and perhaps any federal office(s) that works with the states on SCHIP into one larger agency with less over-head and less redundancy of efforts?
I'm so sorry to hear of your family's medical problems. It must be very difficult to take care of your loved ones when you have to deal with insurance companies that are only interested in taking your money and giving you nothing in return.
Speaker Pelosi, thanks for talking with my American friends at C&L today. When mudshark mentioned paying $800 a month for limited coverage, my jaw hit the floor. Here in Canada, I pay about $45 a month for full medical coverage, including dental benefits.
Please reconsider Single Payer health care for all Americans. Thank you.
I've got the VA. That's it. No one else has coverage.
With the exception of Medicare. But you have to be almost destitute to get the right class. They range in classes.
Much like the VA. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make, the less you pay.
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
Why won't Congress use our tax dollars for the same standardized health care members of Congress enjoy instead of propping up the military and illegal wars and occupations, indiscriminate killing drones, torture and illegal, secret assassination teams?
The Congress should heed the warning of President Eisenhower: "Beware the power of the military industrial complex".
Congress has the power of the purse. Our tax dollars should be used to serve the taxpayers needs, not the Pentagon's crimes. Single payer H.R. 676 is the BEST way to insure everyone, achieve quality, affordable, standardized care and control costs.
Are the contributions to Congress members by the for-profit insurance corporations the main reason Single Payer has been shut out Ms. Pelosi?
Shouldn't Congress members be serving their constituents and not the for-profit corporations most of the American people loathe?
Comment please?
Eisenhower said:
He neglected to tell us that they were already in control.
Concern now applies equally to the Financial Sector and the Health Insurance Sector, ETC ETC.
Update:
This might be best be put under general rubric of;
OWNERSHIP of the US Government by WALL STREET.
For 30 years I have supported a single payer plan, but our next best choice is to support an exchange and a public option. In the exchange, as with the health insurance that Members of Congress have, consumers can shop and compare. The insurance companies cannot descriminiate among people on the basis of their preexisting conditions. I share your frustration with the insurance companies, and we must stop them from coming between patients and their doctors.
He interviewed Wendell Potter on how CIGNA ruined Michael Moore's film and clearly set out the mechanics of corporate interference and takeover of our government?
"I share your frustration with the insurance companies, and we must stop them from coming between patients and their doctors."
Madam Speaker, that made my day. Woo hoo!!
Unfortunately, NZ time zones means I missed this one. So Madame Speaker is already long gone.
But I am confused by the idea that 'our next best choice is to support an exchange and a public option'... I can shop and compare all I want, but if I can't afford A, B or C, it doesn't matter if I've got 'preexisting conditions'; my preexisting condition is that I can't afford medical insurance. So frankly, this 'next best choice' is not any choice at all.
I've lived in France and the UK and now live in New Zealand, all of which have socialized medicine (oops, sorry to use that terminology, even if it IS accurate). If it were not for the NHS, I would not have been able to afford spinal surgery two years ago, and would now be partially paralyzed and incontinent. If it were not for socialized medicine in France, I would not have been able to afford surgery to remove lumps in my breasts. If it were not for socialized medicine in New Zealand, I would not be able to afford to see a doctor just to get my HRT script.
Socialized medicine (single payer) works. I owe my life and my health to it. It is one of the MAJOR reasons I have no desire to return to the USA.
Just as a final note - a good friend in the States who retired after a lifetime as a serving police officer and marshall had to give up either paying for medical insurance or her mortgage. She didn't want to lose her house, so gave up medical insurance. Got cancer. Treatment costs were so high... she had to sell her house. Now the cancer is back, but she doesn't have a house to sell to pay for more treatment.
Single payer medical care, Madam Speaker. Now. No more excuses. No more bi-partisan appeasement. While you and those in Congress with the power to push this through talk about 'next best choices', people are dying. It's really that simple.
Madam Speaker, thank you so much for joining us at C&L. While we wait for our readers to catch up to the new thread, I’d like to ask a few questions.
First and foremost, I want to thank you for all your hard work for getting the House to admit the rather radical notion that health care is a RIGHT for all Americans, instead of a privilege for some. But I think I speak for a lot of liberals and people who have actually studied the concept when I express some disappointment that we are not discussing a single payer system.
I understand that President Obama said that pursuing a single payer system at this time would be too disruptive to the current system, but as someone who has actually lived in a country that has a single payer system, I can speak from experience that the system is far superior to ours—as it is truly a health CARE, not health INSURANCE system. The per capita costs and outcomes have been shown to be far more sensible than ours.
Do you anticipate that this Health Care Act with its public option is the first step towards an eventual (and in my view, optimal) single payer system?
isn't it clear after the last election and the myriad of calls being placed to Congressional offices all over Washington that there is a clear majority of the American People who are solidly in favor of a full blown government funded healthcare program, similar to Medicare, that provides basic coverage to all, that the American People are clearly willing to pay for in higher taxes and firmly in favor of successful government run programs? Given that...why has the entire discussion in Washington, every option looked at, involved skirting around those issue?
When is the clear will of the people going to be honored and the heck with this ridiculous showmanship and kowtowing to the special interests be stopped and good legislation finally passed?
look at Single Payer, and bring IT to the table? I fear this country can afford no less, and our citizens deserve no less.
Profiteering needs to be removed from health care.
PS Welcome, Madam Speaker and thank you for taking time to talk to us
single payer - YES
I agree with miss kitty.
Thank you Madame Speaker
It has been stated by Wendell Potter that the insurance companies have an overhead of 20% and Medicare has an overhead of 3%.
With this in mind, in the interest of cost containment, why are we not talking about single payer.
Thank you.
Alice said the bad words. Be careful Sen. Max doesn't send the Capital Police after you! Well at least you didn't bring up the I or the T words.
In an attempt to understand your comment, could you expand upon the "overhead" issue?
From an all things being equal mindset; I ask the following...
...What exactly is included in the comparison, with regard to "the insurance companies have an overhead of 20%" and "Medicare has an overhead of 3%", relatively speaking.
Is there a synergistic advantage or disadvantage? A corporate or political, advantage or disadvantage? Can the two entities overhead(s)... with what they encompass, be justly reconciled, to reflect a true comparison?
The disparaging difference between 20% and 3%, seems odd. If ya get a chance, I'd appreciate it. ThanX :)
Madam Speaker,
Thanks for being here. After the stimulus vote earlier this year, you said this:
"I didn't come here to be partisan. I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest... We reached out to the Republicans all along the way. And they know it... They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress."
It seems we are following the same path on health care. If, like the stimulus bill, the health care legislation doesn't look like it will get a single Republican vote, will you still commit to bringing it up for a floor vote?
While we believe that our bill is the best path to quality, affordable health care for all Americans and would hope that our Republican collegues would share that goal, we will pass a comprehensive bill with a robust public plan in the House with or without Republican support.
the devil is in the details. Robust plan? For who?
Who pays? How? Define "public plan". Forcing people to buy insurance is not coverage. It's holding a shot gun to people's heads to buy stuff from insurance companies.
Would Public Option include dental?
I'm having to get a new crown, and it's costing over a thousand dollars, my insurance will pay for a little over $400.00, and me a little over $600.00.
Also what will be the impact of public option on monthly payments, deductibles and co-pays, as well as pharmaceutical costs?
I have to join the crowd here and ask why are Dems so concerned with bipartisanship when the republicans have clearly shown that they will have noting of the sort?
Do I have to do something or go somewhere else to participate?
Ask your questions...civilly, of course.
What is the earliest that this bill would become law and go into effect?
What does it mean to people who already have health insurance? I'm retired military and I have Tri-care.
Thank you for your time.
The earliest the bill would be signed into law would be October 2009. Some provisions take effect immediately, but the exchange and the public option go into effect in January 2013.
If you have health care and you like it and your doctor, you can them and nothing will change. Tri-care will remain in effect.
Gee, right after Obama gets his second term for "providing" healthcare for all. I am truly sorry, Madame Speaker, but 2013 is NOT acceptable, not in the least. If it can be done in 2013, it can be done NOW. Enough of the political game playing.
The earliest the bill would be signed into law would be October 2009. Some provisions take effect immediately, but the exchange and the public option go into effect in January 2013.
If you have health care and you like it and your doctor, you can them and nothing will change. Tri-care will remain in effect.
We need it NOW. We are falling off a cliff financially.
The stress of that cliff is causing more health care problems than you can imagine.
Don't we have at least two election cycles between now and 2013?
There's one in 2010 as well as 2012.
The elections could derail all of this.
And give the Democratic leadership yet another chance to say "it isn't our fault"? Say it isn't so.
Yellow bird is correct.
I do mean correct - not right (gop)
How will that address the problems that exist now and how come the public option cannot go into affect right away?
You have the ability to allow anyone who CHOOSES to buy into MEDICARE. The system is there, ready to go. RIGHT NOW.
gives me a sinking feeling of despair.
I'm 58 now, and all those years may literally be the best I have left.
By the time they make it law, I will be retired. I am 58 now. I need it now.
These premiums are killing off my mortgage and retirement. I had planned to pay off my house and retire at 66 but the $1400 a month for 9 years now has ruined my plan to pay off my house. So I have a $1090. mortgage with $97000 left on it. And my husband works at (a big chain hardware store) because he is one of the LAID OFF PROFESSIONALS who never made it back into the PROFESSIONAL job stream. Neither did I. The stress killed my health off and I am very sick now. Which is why I can't quit my health care.
When I look at what you are doing to us now? It makes me hate my country. I hate what it has done to the people. We have been let down by all you folks in D.C. and I don't know how many more people have to be ruined for you to get this message.
I am 59 and will not be eligible for Medicare for another six years. For us boomers that's a dangerous window of time to be without healthcare.
Ms. Pelosi, what can be done for someone like me, who worked hard full-time for thirty years as a Registered Nurse and ended up semi-retired with not enough money to buy insurance due to a bad back FROM BEING A NURSE!!?
Blue Cross/Blue Shield said because I am 59 and haven't had any insurance for so long that I'd have to pay $500/mo. for a YEAR then they still would refuse to cover me AND keep my money if I didn't prove, at my own expense, that I didn't have any "pre-existing" conditions. I can't even bend over and touch my toes due to severe back pain!
By 2013 many of us Boomers may be DEAD without care! In the meantime, when will the "penalties" begin??? Right away???
This is so unfair to so many. It seems like the American People are being hit while we're down and we are PAYING FOR THIS! We need help out here Ms. Pelosi!
Doesn't anyone in Congress actually CARE about the American people?
Please answer these questions.
Abbybwood, R.N.
has brought out the cynic in me.
For once, I need to see the courage from Congress to enact change BEFORE an election cycle, so elections are based on the reality of change, not just the campaign promises of change.
I would beg your forgiveness for my cynicism, Madam Speaker, but could you address this timing issue?
I just turned 60, I have a self purchased insurance policy so small I doubt if it would pay for aspirin in a hospital.
It is absolutely all I can afford.
I will die on the curb outside of the hospital before I find out.
That is my CHOICE in health care.
I've accepted that to be my destiny as well.
but that's my fate also. Except i don't have any insurance and refuse to buy something that provides nothing material to healthcare but only profits from peoples health problems. Hell I won't even go to a hospital since these days they are more a profit business then a healthcare business. Makes no sense to me to go someplace that's more interested in profit then in healing.
Broke my toe at work Sunday morning so I could have used their insurance to go have it looked at. But there wasn't any sense to it since it will heal just as well on it's own.
SINGLE PAYER is the only thing that will actually address the problems with our current system. It is also the only thing that will help break the economic spiral the country is in. And for that downward spiral we can thank Congresses lack of will to put forward needed reforms over the past 4 decades. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to make any meaningful reforms now!
I'm 67.
A lifetime of 50+ years of work is for naught and very discouraging.
More people will be employed scooping up our bodies at our hospital's curbsides.
Sorry kids, take care of your kids-forget me.
Do I seem depressed?
Damn right - many of us do.
all of American middle class dispossable income will be wiped out. I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable to me.
... for bankers and insurance companies in a matter of weeks.
Why does it take years for similar funds to be allocated to a program that enjoys immense popularity with actual voters?
Exactly. Congress does NOT HAVE TO WAIT until 2013. Ron is right that the entire middle class will be wiped out by then.
<
'cause Congress doesn't get any campaign contribution from that like they did from the bank and insurance bail-out?
Thanks for coming by, Madam Speaker.
1. I'd heard that the House health care package wouldn't be available until 2013. Is that true and if it is true, why wouldn't this be available on day one?
2. What's the deal with people being able to sell slots in line for committee hearings in the House? I don't have an issue with lobbyists at these hearings but it's totally unfair for them to pay someone to hold their slot for them. They should have to wait in line themselves like any ordinary citizen would.
Thanks for your efforts to support a strong public option!
Hi, some aspects of the bill will go into effect immediately but it will take 2-3 years to set up the exchange and the public option which will be ready by January 2013. Because this represents major systemic change, it requires time to make it right with consumer protection and insurance industry regulation.
Thank you also for your support of a strong public option. I hope that you and others on this chat will make your views known to your Member of Congress and Senators.
Yes, this is major systematic change; hopefully it is.
But there are models throughout the world to follow, and one right here in Medicare. Consumer protection is important, but insurance industry regulation should be a moot issue if the public option is strong. They claim to prefer self-regulation anyway.
2012 will be a lost cause for enacting systematic change as most of Congress will be busy with re-election campaigns.
I would suggest setting a goal prior to the onset of these campaigns, which would also avoid the perception of campaigns based on promises of reform.
It's called "running out the clock", Madame Speaker.
It's the worst of American politics,and the reason why the American People are cynical.
It gets it off the radar screen, pushes it to the next Congress.
Game playing. Plain and simple.
'Major systemic chance' that appears to involve a relative few!
Does not compute.
Why is health insurance still coupled to employers?
Many of these businesses are barely keeping the doors open as we speak.
Thank you for joining us in our daily conversation.
My health care premiums are $1400 a month and it's KILLING my budget. Has anyone in Congress discussed what kind of INSTANT natural stimulus would happen if this kind of purchasing power were released?
EXCELLENT point.
Thank you for mentioning the dynamic effect lowering health insurance costs and guaranteeing coverage will have on our economy. Both from the standpoint of purchasing power and from unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of America, our economy will benefit and be more competitive in the global economy. Even the Wall Street Journal ran articles this week to this effect.
If I had insurance like that I'd still have $200 a month for food, transportation and rent.
The fact is insurance companies are raping Americas workers and Congress isn't going to do squat about it!
... regarding the issue of bipartisanship, if the Democratic Caucus consistently makes an effort to include the Republicans in their legislative endeavors, and the Republican response is all-too-often, 'thanks, but no thanks,' isn't the burden for bipartisanship on their desks, and not a sign that the Democrats need to offer further concessions or find new and creative ways to cater to their Republican colleagues? Is it wrong to lay out a bipartisan path, but if the Republicans refuse it, use the current majority to proceed without them?
Several years ago, when I was being treated for a medical condition unrelated to trying to prevent pregnancies, I discovered that prescriptions for birth control pills were NOT covered by my health insurance (ironically, that same insurance did allow for Viagra, but I digress). Will the public option allow women to have access to birth control? Will women’s reproductive rights be addressed?
Since the Federal Government has never paid for elective abortions, even in military insurance, I don't expect that to become part of the public option, but I think a great deal can be done to instruct fertile Americans on how to best manage their fertility for the sake of better overall health. The website for the pharmacy chain Walgreens provides accurate information about reproduction and birth control, including a statement that abstinence is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STD's but abstinence is not always desirable by all. If a corporation like Walgreen's understands its responsibility for accuracy the federal government can do no less.
I also think the public option and medicaid should provide condoms as an HIV/STD prevention mechanism.
You can be sure that it is a priority for me that women's health is included.
When Congress stalls legislation it hurts people. If the choice is to wait until 2013 I am not going to make it that long. I have to quit my health care or be homeless.
Clearly, as long as manufacturing (most notably automakers) are forced to compete with countries paying their workers pennies on the dollar AND/OR in countries where the government carries the healthcare burden, our corporations will NEVER be able to compete.
Why not restore import tariffs and use that money to pay for healthcare?
Take care of two birds with one stone: create jobs and provide healthcare to all American without adding to the debt or raising taxes.
PS: Talk of "trade wars" is just a GOP canard. We already aren't selling products overseas because we no longer make anything and foreign goods are cheaper than American products in those countries. And given the choice between imported and American goods for sale in the U.S., lower export sales would more than be made up by increased sales in the U.S..
PPS: All members of Congress should give up their coverage until a healthcare reform bill is passed. Maybe that'll light a fire under them?
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
After two elections in which the Republican party has receded into near irrelevance in Congress, we still seem to face a Congress in which corporate interests, and those of the wealthy and powerful generally, still seem to dominate: economic relief for bankers and insurance companies yet none for those bankrupted by the economic collapse; protection for war criminals while kids with a dime bag of cocaine are sentenced to severe mandatory minimum sentences; and a host of Bush era deregulation which has not been undone.
It has been over two years since Democrats have assumed a majority in Congress and six months since the Democratic party has ascended to formidable dominance in both Houses, yet the agenda still appears decidedly conservative.
What steps have the Democrats taken, or plan to take, to address the supremacy of corporate interests in Congress over the interests of the voters?
would be public financing of elections. Madame Speaker, could you weigh in on this?
One thing that's coming out of this debate, with so many Americans directly affected by the outcome and therefore really paying attention, is the increasing sense that Congress is owned by special interests rather than responsive to the overwhelming numbers of Americans who favor a public option.
My own congressman Shimkus is so beholden to the coal industry I have no expectation that he will ever vote for clean air for my children.
I support public financing and with deep regret, term limits at this point as well. There seems no other way to battle the status quo.
Thanks for the support ron and bluegal - especially for focusing my question into public financing (where I had originally intended to go).
Ciao from Abruzzo Speaker Pelosi. Four ounces of Abruzzese wine every day should be included in the plan.
moved here
In regards to bipartisanship...
You say that the Democrats have a responsibility to work in a bipartisan manner. How does this responsibility work out in practice when the Republicans are adamantly opposed to a public option which 76% of Americans support? Are Democrats more beholden to bipartisanship or the public's wants and needs?
I ask this question specifically as it applies to health care, but there have been (and I'm sure will continue to be) many situations where Democrats caved to Republicans in the name of bipartisanship on issues where the Democratic position was backed by both public opinion and sound social/economic theories (the Stimulus Plan's size/scope comes to mind as an example).
Isn't bipartisanship what they used to call Tweedledee and Tweedledum politics?
In the Vietnam War years, it seemed to be a way of deflecting blame.
.
Clearly, the rule only applies to Democrats. :(
the Democrats created the public option.
They created unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc.
The GOP fought every one of those initiatives, tooth and nail...including civil rights.
The GOP doesn't believe in bipartisanship. They use it as a political tool to beat their opponents over the head, particularly when they are in the minority.
[off-topic--please limit your questions to health care]
per John Amato:
The New Pecora Commission was announced today...
the focus is on health care, but please ask all your questions. I'm interested in the new commission myself..
here
When Congress stalls legislation it hurts people. If the choice is to wait until 2013 I am not going to make it that long. I have to quit my health care or be homeless.
Without the VA I would have to give up my mortal shell.
You do not mean, I suspect, shell as in explosive ordinance.
As some out of the military would say:
Mortal Coil
Structurally as a riposte of the preceeding comment I chose shell as it is more like a house than a coil.
Not according to the Bard.
Shuffle off this mortal coil
versus
Give up this mortal shell
Either way without health insurance, dying is what you are likely to do.
21st century USA = 16th century England
With the Aristocracy but without the poetry.
And the leadership of the House committees.
What can folks do in the next few weeks to make sure this bill passes the House without getting weaker?
You know the republicans will do their best to destroy it..
In the next few weeks it is necesary for everyone who cares about universal quality health care to make their voices heard to their Members of Congress and the Senate.
We will be more successful if the emphasis is on a robust public option and the exchange, rather than single-payer.
This can be a transformative moment in our country's history with great impact on America's families. Please help us achieve affordable, quality comprehensive health care for all Americans.
You can be sure that the special interests will be carpet bombing the Congress to prevent this important change from happening.
Thank you for all that you are doing.
Our President has often said that if we like our private insurance, we can keep it.
I have private insurance because I have to, and I DON'T like it.
If a public option is legislated, will I be allowed to drop my private insurance and opt into the public option?
Possibly by January of 2013.
Good luck on not developing a terminal condition that your Wall Street driven private insurance won't cover before then.
You have the support of the American people with a mandate won in the last election.
The gop have not accepted this reality so will the Senate use reconciliation to get this passed?
Does this bill effect Medicare?
Welcome, Madame Speaker!
Can you talk at all about the role of progressives in proactively shaping this legislation - and particularly the role of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's leadership in ensuring that a strong public option would be a key element of the package?
I hope you plan on running again for office. My extended family in Washington all supported you.
That if we take the burden off of employers for health care ins, They stand a better chance to recover and turn a profit. Which strengthens the tax base.
Thank You again Madame Speaker.
Thank you for joining this discussion and for your exemplary leadership. My question concerns the ability of large corporations to defeat good health care legislation via their lobbying power. I understand the insurance industry is spending over a million dollars a day to defeat a public option. Isn't it time to pass legislation that relegates lobbying to a lesser-protected form of speech than ordinary political speech - say, at a minimum, commercial speech, which would require a less than strict level of judicial scrutiny? Thank you for insisting on a public plan and for supporting single payer in the long run.
"Nancy, one of your former constituents, Howie Klein, a fellow blogger and a member of the Blue America PAC, is in Indonesia this month so it's 3am there and he had to miss this session. But he asked me to ask you this:
There was a story in the news about a man - a licensed dental technician (i.e., he makes dentures and other appliances) whose office was raided. Mario Pacheco was charged with practicing dentistry without a license, and returns to court next week.
While the merits of the case are for the courts to address, Pacheco insists that he only provided services to people too poor to afford full dental services. How do you see this fitting into healthcare legislation and any plans to provide adequate care for all Americans?
May I second support for "dental" in any public plan?
It seems like every procedure my dentist does costs $1000. I've "gone without" on several procedures because the cost would of been $5000... all of which would be out of pocket.
Dental insurance is a form of healthcare more people pay for "out of pocket" than any other type of healthcare. But when you DO need it, it'll eat into any saving you may have saved up in a blink of an eye.
and should be covered as well. People die from oral health concerns or are made catastrophically ill from same. It is an integral part of the body's holistic system.
I've heard various gum and mouth diseases can impact cardiovascular health; these are diseases common to uncared for dental needs.
And if you are not going to provide us with the most cost effective solution to healthcare, HR 676, then we fully expect not only a public option that opens Medicare to all that want it but, and more importantly, we expect all of Congress to be covered by that same public option in order to guarantee the quality of the care in a public option.
So far all we have heard is excuses. "Can't get the votes" Get them. "Can't upset the business" Profits are killing people. "Can't, can't can't..." OR Won't?
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters. From the lips of Congress to the floor. We will no longer listen to the excuses.
Single payer march in D.C. July 30th
Thank you for making yourself available. I'm concerned about the availability of the Health Insurance Exchanges. If they are limited to small businesses and individuals purchasing health care, we will have only opened up the insurance system to a small group of people, without much ability to fundamentally change the dynamics of the for-profit insurance industry. Right now the CBO predicts that only 27 million or so people would join the insurance exchange by 2019, and only 9 million in the public plan. That's not nearly enough to force competition from the insurance industry. Shouldn't we be offering this kind of competition to whoever wants it instead of circumscribing it to preserve the employer-based system?
during the recent election we heard often that small business is the 'engine of the economy'. well small business has been squeezed beyond the ability to compete. a small business with 10 employees can't afford to provide healthCare insurance. the concern for many small business owners is hiring an employee that may have a serious health condition that will greatly increase healthCare insurance premiums. it's common practice for businesses to rid of an employee with potential/occurring healthCare condition. also businesses discriminate individuals with respect to their age and gender because of the perceived healthCare risk. this healthCare reform is economically essential. the paying pool must be increased and the current model needs change.
what is the status of covering reproductive health in the public plan, as 90% of all private insurance plans do? Given that the public plan is self-sustaining, it doesn't seem like taxpayer dollars would "fund abortions" in this case, or run afoul of the Hyde Amendment.
Is there a way of getting Wall Street and speculation out of our healthcare?
Yes, single payer.
All the recent plans put forth by the AMA, Congress, etc. have always included insurance companies. Why? Why not take universal healthcare to a new direction? On several blogs, folks have been positing the idea of a health-care co-operative modeled somewhat on the private care concierge practice. Rather than maintaining the middle-man - insurance companies - why not create a plan by which patients and doctors work together? Monies paid into a health cooperative would be used for wellness care as well as helping to ensure that others in the plan could have access to such things as mammograms, colonoscopies, MRIs, C-Scans, etc.
Is acting up. sigh. It's not everyday we get to speak with the Speaker of the House.
oh well.
Thank You Madame Speaker. I enjoyed your visit.:)
It's the Gremlins from the Kremlin.
to afford a new one after 2013!!!
Madame Speaker,
One of the things that is very different now than the healthcare reform battle of the 1990's is the level of participation of this country's citizens in day-to-day governing. This conversation is an example of that.
How do you see the role of the public in policymaking changing as a result of the technologies that make it easier than ever for citizens to research, understand, and participate in governing? What would you like to see?
a return to the way things were without having to play nice to the DFHs. Just my hunch.
revelations that just came out?
health care only :>)
And the follow up:
When will there be COMPLETE investigations of the CIA, a la the Church Committee.
Into all the Wall Street/Federal Reserve shenanigans?
Torture?
See my reply to your first question here
Apart from Rep. John Boehner's little show-and-tell with a convoluted flow chart, there's Rep. Mike Spence, who characterizes the plan as putting the burden on 'small business owners' and 'higher taxes.'
Any response?
That's all they have...Charts and obstructionism.
does this bill carry a provision that everyone has to get some kind of insurance, whether it's the government plan or private insurance? If so, what are people to do if they make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but can't afford insurance? Obviously, you can't throw them in jail & they wouldn't have enough money to pay a fine.
It's very simple RedStateLiberal:
There WILL be a PENALTY from the Federal Government and it will be addressed through your Federal Income Taxes.
If you don't/can't pay it they will give you a "payment plan" WITH INTEREST. LOTS AND LOTS OF INTEREST.
And you will die owing the Federal government the penalty because you couldn't afford to pay the for-profit insurance companies or buy into the "Public Plan".
How many different ways can you spell S-H-A-F-T-E-D?
I am a law abiding citizen, but I have to say this; if I am mandated to give money to an insurance company so they can deny me care, they can penalize and fine me all they want. I will go to jail before I just give some company who knows how much (currently, $12k annually) so some schmoe can buy a 10th house or another airplane.
I flatly refuse to be mandated into giving money to a company who refuses to give me care.
Thanks Abby.
So, what kind of good could that kind of provision do? Do politicians honestly think that people don't carry insurance out of choice? The reason we don't have it is because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. And they're going to fine us for not being able to afford something? I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing about such a provision (unless you're an insurance company).
when we need him??
I feel like the people out in the woods he was protecting....
Only Robin Hood never shows up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltps17if3t8
Last week, I believe, the Baucus-Grassley Gang were crowing about how much money they'd be able to net from the fines levied on non-partakers of their "health reform". They are actually looking at this as a way to finance health reform. Deplorable!
This bill was written some time ago and explained funding and the whole shebang. Why did a new bill have to be written? American's need and deserve to have healthcare - as every industrialized nation has.
How many more American's will die by having to wait through two more election cycles? And what will happen during those cycles? This isn't terribly heartening.
bringing the total to 86 members in the house in support of HR 676 (including John Conyers).
HR 676 is NOT what was put out by the Dem leadership yesterday, was it? I thought this new bill from the House was completely different.
Hence my question.
Correct me if I am wrong.
The 1000 page bill the house released is not even universal coverage, never mind single payer like HR 676.
A mere bandaid over the cancerous tumor.
By 2013 the patient will be dead.
And that's just the way the for-profit insurance companies want things.
Only the wealthy and healthy need apply.
If I turned 65 tomorrow I'd be covered by Medicare within a month! Why can't the federal government simply write a one page law that says "Everyone will be covered by Medicare in one month."?
You know....kinda like the legislation on one piece of paper that Secretary of the Treasury Paulson handed Bush last October? The paper that said, "Stick 'em up! This is a hold up! I'm with Wall Street and we need for you and the Congress to empty the vault and put all the money into AIG and Goldman Sachs! Now! Don't make any funny moves. And don't ask any stupid questions. Just do it. Otherwise we might have to declare MARTIAL LAW!"
An economic coup d'etat if I ever saw one.
The Congress gave our hard-earned tax dollars to the Big Banker and Insurance Boyz and then they tell us, "Here's a bandaid for your cancerous tumor. Oh, by the way. Sorry, but you'll have to come back four years from now to pick that up. You're not feeling so well, eh? Well, too f'ing bad! And one more thing. If you don't do what we tell you to do, we're gonna fine you! So you'd better not die! We need the loot so we can fork it over to the Banker Boyz in case they need more!"
Snark.
Why can't we have more Dems out there talking about the positive effects of this type of legislation? I have seen only one Dem (from FL) actually call the liars out on all the BS they are saying. There are always 2-1 GOP-Dem ratio (if not more) on the news shows. Why can we not have a more aggressive force of sheer numbers of Dems talking about this?
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
Thank you for making yourself available to the readers of C&L.
I am a constituent of yours in San Francisco and I would like to share my experiences with my private health insurance in California as a background to my question/suggestion that follows. I apologize in advance for the long post.
I have been a freelance contractor for 11 years, the first 8 of which I did without health insurance because it was too expensive.
Luckily my services have been in demand and just over 3 years ago I was able to finally afford private health insurance. However to make it affordable I had to choose a plan with a high deductible and even higher co-payments so I still pay for nearly 90% of all of my health care related costs out of pocket, I just now have the additional burden of monthly premiums.
In the 3.5 years that I have had private health insurance my premiums have more than doubled! The latest rate increase being the most immoral, egregious and criminal of them all at 25%! IN A SINGLE YEAR! And I am a healthy, 40-year-old, long-time vegetarian, non-smoker with no kids and I have had no significant or chronic health problems ever.
I contacted the Senior VP at my health insurance company via email after a bit of Googling and after a polite back-and-forth with one of his underlings where I offered to sign a contract tying my rate increases to the national inflation rate (plus a couple of points, because I am a reasonable man) so that I could live free of the stress and uncertainty of any future outrageous rate increases and I was informed that they could not possibly do that because it wouldn't be... (wait for it)... FAIR?!?!
So I concluded the conversation and proceeded to contact the CA Dept. of Insurance and was told that they had no regulatory responsibility over health insurers, that was the domain of the CA Dept. of Managed Care. So I called them.
An employee there informed me that they couldn't do a thing because there were essentially no provisions in their charter to regulate or oversee in any way, the health insurance companies. I said that it sounded like she was on the health insurers payroll rather than an employee of the citizens of CA and she was kind enough to confirm this by informing me that the CA Dept. of Managed Care was not funded by taxpayers but rather by "fees" payed to the State of CA by the health insurance companies.
Checkmate.
So my question to you is how can we move forward on this issue as a nation if we try to included companies that show such a callous disregard for decency, fairness, or anything resembling true competition? These are the characteristics of criminal enterprises and they must be done away with if we are going to solve this crisis.
I would also humbly offer my best suggestion for solving the health care crisis. Post all prices on lighted overhead display panels in every doctor's office and hospital the way they do at fast food restaurants. That would change the entire dynamic overnight and reduce the need for oversight and regulation considerably.
Since I currently pay the overwhelming majority of my health care costs even with private health insurance, the scariest part for me (and millions of Americans) is that bill that comes 2 to 3 months after a visit, procedure or test because I have no idea what it is going to cost.
Imagine going to the grocery store, making responsible choices about your nutrition without any knowledge of the cost and then receiving the bill 2 to 3 months later. You'd probably stop eating or only eat if it was en emergency.
This cannot continue and we need you to use your unique position in history and government to get creative and FIX IT NOW.
Thank you for your time and patience with this long post.
scott
I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi and our Democratic leaders in the House for proposing a real national health plan. My wife and I have been unemployed for the last 3 months and a day doesn't go by when we don't worry about health care. We are currently on Medicaid and I've found that they will not cover some of the basic prescription drugs I need to maintain my health. I worry.. I've been hospitalized for congestive heart failure in the past. I have a 6yo daughter and worry about our future.
This is EXACTLY what I am complaining about. People are DYING Madame Speaker. While you guys fiddle, ROME IS BURNING.
I would like to see legislation concerning not allowing healthcare companies to be publicly held and traded. Because they are publicly traded, they are beholden to Wall Street. Profits and actual care cannot coexist peacefully. I have no problem with profits, IF they are providing care.
Healthcare companies should not be allowed to be part of Wall Street.
this may be apples and oranges to some but china just recently decided to implement a universal healthCare system. this is not talked about. my point is this how are we to compete in the global economy if the other major players all have universal healthCare? how is this country going to slow down outsourcing/companies overseas if we can't compete? china has infrastructure, unlimited people and NOW universal healthCare.
is part of their stimulus plan. Pretty darn embarrassing to watch them build up their economy and surpass us in human rights at the same time.