Citizens' Daily Lobby

Health Care for America Now and Organizing for America are hosting a joint press conference at the State Capitol Rotunda tomorrow, January 18 at 1:00pm to voice support for health care reform.  Sen. Boozman is a cosponsor of the bill to repeal the health care reform act, and all 4 of our Congressmen have indicated that they will vote for repeal.    Please come out if you can, and let them know that health care reform must stand! 

Arkansas Consumers Ask Congressional Delegation
To Side With Hard-Working Families,
Not Big Insurance Companies
 
Little Rock, AR –  Health Care For America Now (HCAN), Organizing for America, labor unions, community groups and faith based organizations, will hold a press conference calling on Tim Griffin and Arkansas’ Congressional delegation to vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act which protects consumers from the worst insurance company abuses.  The leadership of the US House of Representatives postponed an earlier vote on the repeal measure because of the tragic events in Arizona.  The vote has now been scheduled for this coming week.
 
Arkansas consumers who will benefit from the numerous protections in the new law will urge Arkansas’ three new Representatives to take the side of consumers who are struggling to keep their families insured and healthy instead of the big insurance companies that want to roll back the ACA provisions requiring fair treatment of their customers.
 
WHO:  Health Care for America Now, Organizing for America and other organizations
 
WHAT:  Press Conference in Support of the Affordable Care Act
 
WHEN:  Tuesday, January 18, 1:00 PM
 
WHERE:  Rotunda, Arkansas State Capitol
 
###
 
Health Care for America Now is a national grassroots coalition of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million people. HCAN led the fight over the past two years to win passage of health reform and to keep Congress from being steamrolled by corporate special interests.
 
Organizing for America (OFA) is a grassroots project of the Democratic National Committee.  OFA’s network of volunteers and staff is actively working in all 50 states to promote the President’s proposals to strengthen America’s middle class by creating jobs, passing health insurance reform, building a clean energy economy, improving education, and reining in the excesses of Wall Street.

An Arkansas Progressive group is planning to meet in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, January 10 to speak out in defense of health care reform. 

After two years of much blood, sweat and tears to build support for Affordable Health Care Reform. The historic legislation was signed into law less than a year ago and will provide hundreds of thousands of people in our state access to affordable quality health care, freedom from the discrimination of pre-existing conditions and real controls on the insurance company monopolies. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/repealcosts/ar.html

On Wednesday,Rep Tim Griffin and the Republican led US House of Representatives will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. While we oppose this action, we believe it can provide us with a serious opportunity to talk about the positive benefits of this legislation for the people of Arkansas.
Join us Monday, January 10 at 1:00 PM in the Rotunda of the State Capitol to tell our elected officials that we support many of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act and that we want to see it implemented. -Arkansas Progressives

Come out if you can.  If not, please call or email your Congressman (Mike Ross is planning to vote for repeal, I am told), and your state representative and senators.  Health care reform is already working for small businesses, in spite of doomsday warnings from Republicans (Forbes).   Not only are more employees of small business getting coverage, but the insurance industry benefits from small business tax incentives through increased policy sales.  That tends to annihilate the “socialist” argument against reform.

Dr. Jennifer Lee, of Progress Notes, a publication of Doctors for America, remarks on the disparity in Medicaid coverage among different states.

States have varying income thresholds for Medicaid eligibility.   For instance, in Arkansas as of 2009, low-income parents must earn below 17% of the federal poverty line to qualify for Medicaid.  In 2009, the poverty line for a family of four was $22,050.  Astonishingly, in Arkansas, parents in a family of four earning $4,000 would make too much to be eligible for health care benefits under Medicaid.  On the other hand, in a state like New Jersey, parents in a family of four earning $44,100 would qualify.

Health care reform will finally change this situation and allow more consistent coverage across the nation.

For the first time ever, the Affordable Care Act will change this.  The new law sets a national floor for income eligibility in the Medicaid program at 133% of poverty ($14,404 for an individual or about $29,326 for a family of four).  Large variations in state eligibility will be eliminated, and finally, poor adults without dependent children will be eligible for health benefits through Medicaid.  Medicaid will finally be a public health insurance program for (almost) all the poor.[3]

This Medicaid expansion is not insignificant.  It will be responsible for nearly half of the newly covered under health reform—an estimated 16 million people by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The associated costs are not trivial either. The expansions will  cost the federal government an estimated $434 billion from 2010 to 2019, financed through program savings and new taxes on insurance companies (but will not raise the federal deficit).

Those wondering whether the investment is worth it need only ask themselves whether the US is a country that ought to deny individuals and families who live at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder access to health care.  An annual income of $14,404 is not an awful lot to live on.  In passing health reform, we as a society have decided that our neighbors who make less than this ought to have some help in case they get sick—whether they are parents, pregnant, disabled, or not.  We’ve already decided that we ought to provide emergency stabilizing care to anyone who walks into an emergency department.  Now we need to provide a little help on the front end for the most vulnerable.  The expansion of Medicaid by health reform will finally make this a reality.

A study recently published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention found that insurance status is strongly associated with disease severity of prostate cancer in men between the ages of 18 and 99 years.  The study examined a large cohort of men from the National Cancer Database, 2004-2006.  Importantly, results showed that lack of insurance is significantly associated with more advanced disease at diagnosis, even when race and socioeconomic status are controlled.  The relationship held for both men less than and older than 65 years.  The authors conclude

In a large national sample of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004-2006, we found that men who were uninsured or Medicaid insured at the time of diagnosis had significantly higher PSA [prostate specific antigen] levels, clinical T stage, and Gleason scores than men with private insurance. Greater disease severity among men who are uninsured or Medicaid insured likely reflects lower access to medical care and utilization of PSA testing and a higher proportion of non–screen-detected cancers.

The findings suggest that Medicaid insurance may not be effectively covering patients.   In this study, Medicaid was less “protective” than private insurance.  The authors speculate that enrollment times may account for some of this discrepancy.

Increased disease severity among patients coded as insured by Medicaid may be due in part to retroactive enrollment of uninsured individuals after their cancer diagnosis, and may not reflect access to care among persons continuously insured by Medicaid.

For those whose concern is limited to economic factors, the study might be taken further to calculate the costs to the medical system of those more advanced disease patients compared to those diagnosed at earlier stages.

Source: Fedewa et al, Association of Insurance and Race/Ethnicity with Disease Severity Among Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer, National Cancer Database, 2004-2006, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, 2010,  19: 2437-44.

One of the best ways to deal with a viral label is to appropriate it for your cause.  “Obamacare” is an excellent case in point.  When you hear it or read it, don’t attempt to argue that healthcare reform was crafted by many people, including representatives from the insurance industry, and hardly represents the viewpoint of any one man, much less the President, etc.   Argument is exactly what the opposition wants from you.  It puts you on defense and bores the general public, who really just want a catchy slogan.    Instead, be proud of what has been accomplished, imperfect as it is.

Think of it this way:  at least Obama cares.  That’s more than can be said for John Boehner and the rest of the Republican Party.

If there ever were any truly compassionate Conservatives, they are no longer in evidence in this country.  Even purportedly God-fearing Christian leaders fail the compassion test every time.   Today’s case in point:  Mike Huckabee.   Speaking at the Values Voters  Summit, the good pastor equated health insurance with home insurance.   According to Mike, getting insured after, say, being diagnosed with breast cancer, would be like insuring your home after it has burned down.  Sorry, Dear Sufferer, the horse is out of the barn.

Huckabee’s version of the situation ignores the fact that insurance companies can drop the sick from their rolls.  It underestimates the extent to which pre-existing illness can keep a person chained to a dead-end job.   It ignores the abuse of pre-existing condition clauses to exclude workers from insurance on the basis of minor illness.  It equates human health and welfare with real estate.

As long as conservatives align themselves with the most profit-driven of fiscal (and most intolerant of social) policies,  compassionate conservatism will remain an oxymoron.

Business headlines this week gave health reform opponents, and other proponents of trickle-down economics,  something to smile about.  “AT&T Profits Down 21% Due to Health Care Charges” or some permutation of this announcement hit newspapers and blogs, and almost all focused blame on the recently passed health care reform legislation.   “I told you so,” say the Repealers, ” Governmnent intervenes and health care costs go up.”    But that position is misleading.   What’s missing from their equation is the real reason AT&T is losing this money.  You see, AT&T was actually making money through its provision of some prescription drug benefits for retirees.   It’s a complicated story, according to fastcompany.com, and the problem dates from the administration of GW Bush.

The 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, still in effect, gives a tax deduction to companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees. In fact, these companies, including AT&T, can deduct 100%–every single penny–of the money they spend on prescription drug benefits from their taxable income. Thus, AT&T gets to keep a whole chunk of money from being taxed, which basically means they get to pocket more of it. The government even goes one step further and subsidizes (read: pays for) a whopping 28% of those prescription drug benefits in the first place, to make prescription drug benefits as affordable as possible for the companies. The companies get both a 28% discount and a nice tax break, all to encourage them to provide prescription drug coverage.

But there’s a loophole in the law big enough to drive a Chevy Suburban through. These companies get to write off the entirety of their prescription medication plan, even though they’re actually only paying for 72% of it. The new health-care bill simply closes that loophole, and says that companies can still deduct every penny they pay on prescription drug benefits from their taxes–but only the money they’ve paid, not the 28% that the government hands them. That’s where the billion dollars comes from: AT&T is no longer allowed to deduct things they didn’t pay for in the first place.

AT&T (and other companies are almost certain to follow suit) has announced that it is considering reducing benefits as a result of this policy.     The employee, not the shareholder, will once again be left holding the bag.  Perhaps if a public option had been included in the package, these retirees would have a safety net.  As this particular case demonstrates, in many ways a public option would have entailed shifting money from corporate welfare directly to the public.  Don’t let Big Business snow you on this issue.

There is always much offensive material in the John Boozman newsletters, little substance, and even less documentation to back up his regurgitated right-wing talking points. And of course, there are no novel ideas, absolutely none.  On tax day, he outdid himself in a rush to take advantage of the Tea Party anti-tax mentality.  The old boy managed to hit  the Scary Conservative Hot Buttons of the Hour,  health care reform and abortion, especially hard.  What do  these issues have in common?  Taxes, of course.  High taxes for the average American.  High taxes going to questionable (providing health care for the less fortunate) and even downright evil (the feds are gonna pay for abortions!!!) uses.   The Arkansas taxpayer deserves to know the many ways the truth is distorted in this newsletter.

“Federal, state, and local taxes claim almost 27 percent of the average American’s income.”

True.  But Boozman neglects to mention what percent of income the average American Corporation spends on taxes.  Would you believe 2/3 of US corporations paid no income taxes at all between 1998-2005 according to the Government Accountability Office?  Think that rate’s higher now?  Check out the Forbes report on taxes paid (or not owed) by the largest US corporations.  Exxon Mobile reportedly got a tax credit last year.  Tax shelters and business practices of these corporations shift an estimated $100 billion dollars  of tax burden onto the backs of the average American.  Boozman conveniently leaves corporations out of the equation, preferring to place the blame on health care and the government services.

“President Obama and the Majority party are spending the federal government into a record deficit of $1.5 trillion dollars this year alone.”

Really, John?  President Obama is spending all our money?  The truth is the largest consumer of your tax dollar is the military at 26%.  And interest on loans due to national defense is also a big share (full story here).

Finally, in the most despicable and manipulative of the statements in the newsletter

“For a vast majority of Americans, the cost of the health care bill is especially painful. The new law means their tax dollars will now be used to fund abortion services.”

How many times does the truth need to be told in order for people to understand it?   Bans on federal funding for abortion were not only upheld in the new legislation, they were restated, and some believe even strengthened.    Maybe Mr. Boozman is only familiar with the bill passed in the House last year, which did have some loopholes for abortion.  The truth is that the Senate went out of its way to reinstate the barriers.  Mr. Boozman may have fogotten the executive order signed by Barack Obama himself.  That order expressly forbids the use of federal money to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.  Conservatives should not let their strong convictions about abortion make them susceptible to this sort of manipulation.  Get the facts.

Your tax money can’t pay for abortions, but it can go to “Faith-Based” organizations that pressure and manipulate women to forgo abortion.   Physicians and pharmacists educated in the public university system, subsidized by your tax dollars, may refuse to perform abortions or even to prescribe or administer the morning after birth control.   That’s what your tax dollars can do.

I keep looking, but the group, famously supporting repeal of health care reform, isn’t telling.   Their website perpetually promises sponsor information “coming soon.”  They also keep gathering signatures for their ballot initiative that they can’t seem to get certified.

I wonder if Gunner DeLay (could there be any better name for a Republican than Gunner?) is on the rolls?  He’s not only a Repealer, he’s also encouraging those who can’t afford health insurance to just go without, in the name of the Constitution, and personal liberty, and all that.  I wonder if he’s promising to pay health care bills for those who buck the law?   Will he still support “civil disobedience” if he doesn’t get elected?   DeLay’s campaign website  proudly proclaims “government takeover of health care will be the new civil rights movement.”   Good thing our boy Gunner doesn’t have to campaign to many people of color.  Minorities in this country know that the injustice of the current health care system is a true Civil Rights issue.    It’s disingenuous for conservatives to invoke the Civil Rights Movement.  They were on the wrong side of history that time, and they’re on the wrong side this time, too.

It’s great fun watching the conservatives on the 2010 ticket race to see who can go the farthest to the Right without actually endorsing fascism.  (Yes, Tea Baggers,  fascism falls right off the right-hand side of the political chart).   Not to be outdone by the local crazies dying in over health care reform and protesting outside the AGs office, he goes all out for the xenophobe and Repealer voting demographic.

While I agree we must work to reform our entire immigration process, it must be in a manner that does not include any form of amnesty. It’s unfair to provide a shortcut towards legalization for illegal workers. I won’t support a guest worker program that rewards illegal aliens with blanket amnesty while ignoring the needs of American workers.

This “shortcut” to legalization he opposes includes fines and payment of back taxes, no small matter for those here illegally working minimum-wage jobs.   It doesn’t fine the companies who continue to employ cheap immigrant labor (can Boozman say “Wal-mart”?) over American workers who demand better pay and benefits.  No amnesty for the hired help in this country, no Sir.

The legal poor in America won’t get much help from him, either.   He’ll work to repeal health care reform.  That’s right.  No expansion of Medicaid, no guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, no tax breaks for small businesses to pay for health care, and no coops to help individuals afford coverage.  You’re on your own with Boozman and his ilk.

Congressman Boozman voted against the Obama-Pelosi-Reid health care legislation. Since then he’s cosponsored H.R. 4903 to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and he also signed The Club for Growth pledge to repeal the legislation. He understands that Americans want commonsense reforms that don’t cost $1 trillion dollars, raise taxes or cut Medicare programs. Congressman Boozman also sent a letter to Attorney General Dustin McDaniel urging Arkansas to join lawsuits against the federal government over the constitutionality of the health care overhaul legislation. Read the letter by clicking here.

It’s going to be hard to get the base fired up about “Patient Protection and Affordable Care.”   He should have stuck with “Obamacare.”