Ellsworth Vows to Vote Yes

Congressman and Senatorial aspirant, Brad Ellsworth, has vowed to vote in favor of healthcare reform. On his website, Ellsworth states:

“Like most Americans I was frustrated by this process throughout. Unfortunately many in both parties made snap judgments on whether or not they would support this bill based on politics, not policy. I was sent here to look at all sides of the argument in a thoughtful manner and I knew that the status quo was no longer acceptable. I needed to answer only one question when deciding whether to support this reform: will this bill benefit Hoosiers? Put simply, in my core I know it does.”

“There is no issue more important or more personal to every single Hoosier than our health and well-being. My job is to look beyond all the political games, study the bill carefully, and do my best to make the right decision for Indiana.”

“After months of meetings and conversations with thousands of Hoosiers, health care experts and pro-life advocates, I am confident supporting health care reform is the right decision for Hoosiers.”

“Starting this year, children with pre-existing conditions will never again be denied coverage. Indiana small businesses will get the tax breaks they desperately need to reduce their health care costs and invest those savings in growing their businesses and creating jobs for Hoosiers. And our seniors will see significant savings on their prescription drug bills as we start to close the Medicare Part D donut hole.

“As a pro-life Hoosier, one of my central concerns has been preventing federal funding of elective abortion. Throughout my brief time in Congress, I have held firm to my pro-life principles, even when it meant going against my party, and I am proud of my 100% pro-life voting record on abortion-related issues. I have spent time listening carefully to constituents, pro-life leaders, policy experts and reading all the details of every bill. After assurance from the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Nuns and pro-life advocates I am confident in my heart that this bill meets my pro-life principles and upholds the policy of no federal funding for elective abortions. More than that, it invests $250 million in support services for women facing unplanned pregnancies and over a billion dollars to help families afford adoption services. These investments will reduce the number of abortions in America.”

“In addition to meeting my pro-life principles, the plan reduces costs, improves access to affordable insurance options, covers pre-existing conditions, and does not add one penny to the deficit – my five principles for health care reform.”

Now every Democrat who wanted healthcare reform needs to pony up and gear up for Ellsworth because his foes will be coming to get him. And they will be merciless.

Ellsworth Vows to Vote Yes

For Brad Ellsworth: A Slate of Retorts to Anti-Healthcare Claims...Including Abortion

Spencer Valentine, my colleague and friend at A Loyal Opposition, has implored Democratic Congressman (and all-but-certain U.S. Senatorial candidate) Brad Ellsworth to "follow through" on his prior favorable healthcare vote.

Spencer tells the Congressman that, when he does the right thing and votes yes, we will help him make the case. But, as Spencer does a pretty compelling job making the case now, I figured I'd jump on board and help make the case to the Congressman, courtesy of Slate (arguably one of the best reads in a person's day).

Dear Congressman Ellsworth:

As you deliberate on healthcare reform, I hope you will keep in mind the following:

1. Don't buy the "government takeover" myth. I've written repeatedly that the government won't employee anybody or own any hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical companies, or medical device makers. All the government will do is provide some people subsidies to buy private health insurance.

Of course, do not fear conceding in the interest of intellectual honesty that America is spending more public dollars on healthcare, but this trend will continue even without reform. In fact, without reform, it might get worse.

As Slate notes, in 1990, health care expenses were split 60/40 private/public. By 2000, that rate had changed to 55/45 (with two years with a Republican President and six years with a Republican House during that decade). During eight years of all-GOP Whitehouse (and mostly Congress) from 2000 to 2008, the rate fell to 52/48 private/public.

As the recession boosts poverty, more people are eligible for Medicaid, and the reduction in payroll jobs has caused losses in job-related insurance. Wellpoint earnings were below expectations yesterday because it estimated it will lose 400,000 individual policy holders this year. And those people are going where exactly? To no coverage? If all 400,000 stay healthy, great (except every healthy person who bails raises the rates for everybody else, making further exodus even more likely).

But what if these folks who abandoned coverage get catastrophic injuries or illnesses? Hasn't "the market" just given us 400,000 possible "free riders?" Most importantly, didn't the "public share" of our healthcare debt get greater with a Republican-supported prescription drug benefit in 2003? But what elected Republican is talking about dismantling Medicare? Not one. As an aside, if a "government-run system" is so terrible, why aren't Republicans talking about giving our veterans private insurance? Don't they value our veterans, Congressman?

America is going to end up in the same place on public medical expenses with or without reform. Democrats just hope to save more people and money through preventive care in the process.

2. "The Market" Won't Stop Insurance Companies From Hosing Us.

Indiana bears a black mark because some of the biggest insurance companies profitting off of rescission practice have roots here. "Rescission" is when a company invalides a policy after claims are filed based on technical violations on the application.

Slate notes that three health insurance companies - Assurant Health, Wellpoint, and the hypocritically-named Golden Rule - saved $300 million by rescinding nearly 20,000 policies based on omissions policyholders made in filling out enrollment forms that had nothing to do with the claims filed. When asked to pledge to stop this practice except in cases of intentional fraud, the CEOs of all three told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks."

A lawsuit now charges that Assurant Health has engaged in "recission profiling" by launching investigations into fraud among HIV-positive clients. You think insurance companies don't do the same thing with cancer?

3. A holdout for the Stupak Amendment is Stup-id and Intellectually Dishonest. Congressman, there is nothing in this bill that says the federal government will pay for abortion. What the bill says is that IF a person enrolls in an insurance plan that provides abortion coverage, they must pay $1 per month into a separate segregated fund. But anybody who doesn’t want it covered can select an abortion-free plan, and in the Senate version of the bill, every exchange much have at least one abortion-free plan.

Stupak might argue, however, that the bill may commit tax dollars in the form of subsidies to somebody who could then choose to select a plan that provides such services. In other words, not only won’t Stupak and his supporters fund choice federally, they won’t even fund an individual's choice to fund a plan that funds a choice.

There's not only hypocrisy at work here, there's also terribly tortured line-drawing. How many times have you heard a Republican say, "We don't want to take your tax dollars because we trust you to spend it in the right way more than government?" How does that trust evaporate if the government is the one that gives you the dollars in the first place?

There are literally hundreds of ways government puts money into people's hands. Does anybody say, "Hey, we can't give you your crop subsidy, military pension, social security, educational grant, or mortgage interest deduction unless you let us know you won't use any part of those dollars to pay for an abortion for you or anybody you know." Every time I file my taxes, I check that I want $3 to go the public financing of presidential elections. What if one of the candidates favors federal-funding of abortion, and (s)he gets elected and changes the law? Have I just "funded" abortion?

Stupak has said that he won't vote for a bill without his language, but, as Slate's Tim Noah points out, it "can't be shoehorned into President Obama's package, because it's nonbudgetary and therefore ineligible for inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill."

In short, Stupak obviously wants the bill to fail, and so does anybody who clings to Stupak's amendment. In fact, Congressman, I'm starting to wonder if the "Stupak amendment" is a canard for conservative districts where a majority of people (particularly folks inclined to vote for Democrats) would benefit but where representatives are afraid a vote would be unpopular before November, 2010.

While I do not say this is the case for you, how easy would it be for your bluedog colleagues to go home and say to working-class, pro-life constituents, "Boy, I really wanted to do this for you because I know you needed it, but it would have funded abortion! You understand, right?"

Pro-life folk need to take a step back and ask what is more important: symbolic politics or actually reducing abortions? If you agree with the latter, Congressman, you might like to know that if your choices are: (1) kill the bill and do nothing; or (2) expand access to all medical care, including unsubsidized abortions, only the latter will reduce abortion rates.

The New England Journal of Medicine has a study that bears this out. Romneycare provides direct funding for abortions, but two years later, even though non-elderly insurance rates rose six percent, the abortion rate dropped 7.4 percent among teens and 1.5% overall. In other words, you give people access to information and all medical services, and some won't get pregnant in the first place and some will have children because they know medical care will be available.

As Spencer stated, Democrats stand ready to help you.

Give us the chance.

For Brad Ellsworth: A Slate of Retorts to Anti-Healthcare Claims...Including Abortion

GOP Encourages Communication With Dems; Churns Phony Opposition to Healthcare

It seems lately that with every fiber of its being the Republican Party stays on one message: No.

Whatever President Obama wants, don't give him. No matter what. No matter how much he agrees with us.

And now they've wed their "Go with No" mantra with a nice slice of "divide and conquer" by targeting Indiana Democrats in conservative districts.

Via blast email from the Indiana GOP, entitled "Alert: Help Stop Democrats Healthcare Reform!" -

Last summer, you helped us generate thousands of phone calls and e-mails into the offices of Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly regarding the health care legislation that Democrats in Washington are trying to force on the American public. Once again, we need your help in this effort.

Since last summer, Reps. Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly voted for the House version of the bill after months of pretending to have the same concerns as Hoosiers: How much will it cost? Will you get to keep your doctor? Will premiums go up? Will quality of care go down? Months later, we still don't have definitive answers to those questions and the Senate passed an even more egregious bill.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is talking about passing that same Senate bill through the House. We must encourage Reps. Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly to stand with Hoosiers and oppose a government takeover of health care. They already ignored our concerns once, but with a renewed effort and a worse piece of legislation, we might convince them to oppose their own party's bad idea!

Please contact these Congressmen today and tell them that Hoosiers won't stand to have this legislation thrust upon us.

If you want healthcare reform, Democrats, you better get to work offsetting this Republican-orchestrated astroturf opposition. Contact Baron, Brad, and Joe.

While it's masterful political strategy to call this a "government takeover" of healthcare given how people hate the word "government," it's intellectually dishonest.

Under no Democratic plan will the government own hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, or medical device manufacturers or employ a single medical provider. What the government will do is cut checks and negotiate rates, just like with Medicare.

How many elected Republicans have called Medicare a "government takeover" or asked that it be dismantled? Not one. In fact, when Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) proposed a budget that talked about even cutting Medicare benefits, House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues ran away from it, though when pressed Boehner couldn't name a single substantive disagreement he had with that budget.

There are robust discussions to be had on healthcare. Most Americans do favor market-based solutions. The problem is that "the market" has almost never delivered solutions Americans want in healthcare.

Has the market done away with prohibitions on pre-existing conditions? No.

Has the market kept premiums down? No.

Has the market kept healthcare costs down? No.

Did the market create portability in coverage? No.

Did the market ensure that medical decisions were made by doctors and not HMOs? No. (This is why "the government" tried to pass the Bi-Partisan Patient Protection Act).

Some may contend that the problem has been "the market" is artificially restricted because you can't sale insurance across state lines. That's an excellent point. But each state has a Department of Insurance that heavily regulates insurance products sold within its boundaries. If companies sell across state lines, who ensures that companies in Ohio haven't denied claims arbitrarily for customers in New York? Who ensures that all plans sold comply with minimum terms that even Republicans would claim they want? Who ensures comparable pricing structures so people can make informed comparisons? It will have to be some entity with federal authority, won't it?

Another Republican Party disconnect is on the notion of forcing people to buy insurance. Oh, the horror! But isn't that precisely what forty-seven states, including Indiana, require before you can operate an automobile? If you drive without insurance, you get a suspended license; drive with a suspended license, go to jail. Why aren't Republicans talking about dismantling these laws in 47 states?

Because many Republicans right now aren't serious about dismantling anything except the Obama administration.

Here's the truth about insurance. The more people in a pool who don't file claims or really even need the insurance, the cheaper it is for everybody. In other words, there has always been and always will be a subsidy from good case to bad case.

A healthy person might want to play the "healthcare lotto." I know because did. I was self-employed, young, single, and healthy, and I could get coverage for $258 a month. Instead, I opted out and spent my money having nice dinners with friends. Fortunately for me, the gamble paid off. But I was precisely the person Wellpoint points to as the cause of its 39% premium increase in California. When you let healthy people (or good drivers) walk away, there are fewer payors to subsidize the remaining people in the pool, and the irony is, the more the premiums go up, the more people will walk away, if they can.

This is how you know the GOP is not serious about eliminating pre-existing conditions. As soon as insurance companies can't "cherry pick" (i.e., offering coverage only to the healthiest people least likely to ever file a claim), premiums will go up unless you ensure that people can't leave the "national" pool. You might let them go from one company to another, but they can't walk away completely, or the premium cost containtment breaks down.

And this setup is precisely what Medicare is, except you have to think of senior citizens as the ones with the "pre-existing" condition of old age. They pay less in "premiums" than they'll use in claims, which is why the system has to be subsidized by healthy people. And guess what? Medicare pays less for services than private insurance. Why? Because it's "government" at the switch negotiating rates, not thousands of smaller insurance companies with less bargaining power.

Republicans also claim they want to empower consumers by advertising prices for services just like at Jiffy Lube. This is a talking point with common sense appeal. But has "the market" made anybody list prices? No. As it stands, there is no website or pricing sheet I can get at a hospital to show me what a tonsillectomy runs. So who is going to compel price listings if not "government?"

Of course, I need to be able to compare apples to apples, or competition doesn't work. But how do I compare the value of an appendectomy? Republicans say they want performance measures for healthcare providers advertised. But to compare appendectomies to appendectomies, we'd need uniform criteria and data collection methods. Has the market developed that to date? No.

What if hospitals fudged their numbers? Would the market impose a penalty on them? Of course not. "The market" wouldn't even know. Detecting wrongdoing by insurance companies, doctgors, and hospitals and penalizing it is what "government" does. (Lawsuits can serve this purpose as well, but Republicans do everything they can to limit those and the resulting damages).

But at the end of the day, all you need to remember is that sixteen years have passed since the Republicans killed the last effort to reform healthcare, and the House Republicans plan will increase coverage by only three million people. Has "the market" gotten thirty-six million Americans coverage they don't have now? No.

In short, when more Republicans get real on what America needs to get healthy, I'm in the market to listen.

GOP Encourages Communication With Dems; Churns Phony Opposition to Healthcare