Ed. Note: The following is an op-ed Becky Moeller, President of the Texas AFL-CIO, wrote about this week's health care debate.
By Becky Moeller President, Texas AFL-CIO
A report commissioned by the health insurance industry and released this week claims that one version of the proposed health care reform bill will raise insurance premiums for families over the next 10 years by $4,000.
The America’s Health Insurance Plans document reminds me of the Transformers movies, where some pipsqueak machine (the saboteur who started spreading tall tales of “death panels”) morphs into a monstrous end-of-movie threat (the big-money opponents of reform). Even the accounting firm that worked on the cartoonish study is disavowing its own estimate, acknowledging that various proposals actually in play would dramatically reduce the cost.
Although the AHIP report clearly has a “Yeah, that’s the ticket” feel to it, one important area in which it doesn’t dare to dwell is the estimate of what will happen if health care reform fails. Those of us who get to see the full cost of annual health insurance premiums know, for example, that health insurance premiums have risen by a lot more than $4,000 over the last 10 years under the current system.
And what will happen over the next 10 years if we repeat the error of past decades and do nothing about rising health insurance costs and declining coverage? A new Urban Institute report breaks down what it will cost those fortunate families who manage to keep their coverage over the next 10 years.
In Texas, the report states, employer premiums will rise by 86 percent. Family premiums will rise by 57.9 percent. And the proportion of uninsured Texans will continue to approach one-third and amount to 7,268,000 people by 2019. That would be fully one in eight of all uninsured Americans.
Those numbers represent a bleak future and cry out for reform, but I would argue that the Urban Institute report is itself flawed. The actual picture would probably be much worse than the numbers suggest because employers in Texas are not likely to sit still as health insurance premiums rise by another 86 percent. They would reduce coverage instead, or hire fewer people, or try to pass along so much of the cost that workers themselves would start to give up on having insurance as more and more of them fall short of what it takes to buy a policy.
The core reform proposals moving through Congress offer a better future for Texas workers and employers alike. Our state, already 50th in the percentage of our residents who are covered by health insurance, cannot condemn 7.2 million people to perpetual health care limbo and hope to enjoy broad economic growth. Texans cannot afford to suffer even more denials of coverage and spiraling costs.
Under a meaningful health care reform bill that delivers coverage for all Americans, employers who do the right thing and provide workers with decent coverage would not have to worry that competitors who take the low road are reaping a huge cost advantage. While the very large majority of workers who now have coverage would simply keep it, an injection of real competition into the system in the form of a public option would control costs and ensure access to quality care.
Meaningful health care reform would make certain that Americans with pre-existing medical conditions would be able to obtain coverage. Reform would eliminate the fiascos in which some insurance companies respond to a major illness by hunting for the failure to report any medical condition, like acne in one notorious example, as an excuse to avoid paying benefits.
Americans have figured out that the status quo in our health care system is the enemy and that future growth depends heavily on fixing the system. Poll after poll shows strong support for a robust public option -- even in states whose lawmakers continue to resist change of any kind. If there was one message in the 2008 election, it was that voters expect meaningful health care reform that delivers decent coverage to all Americans.
There is plenty of room for legitimate debate as the health care bill passes through the 11th legislative hour. But on one point there should be little discussion: as we hear bigger and scarier tall tales about health care reform, the scariest thing of all would be to do nothing. Becky Moeller is president of the Texas AFL-CIO, a state labor federation consisting of more than 200,000 affiliates who advocate for working families in Texas.
You're at it again. You're talking about the possibility of resigning and coming to Texas. But you're not sure. This month...December...Never?
Quite frankly, as your constituent, I do not care when you resign to fight Rick Perry. All I know is that, after joking about job losses and covering up evidence that an innocent man was executed, the country is once again being presented with evidence that Texas has one of the worst governors in the country. I will never support you for governor, but someone who aspires to replace one of the worst governors in history should fight him tooth and nail.
Instead, you are talking about fighting him tooth and nail. If your worry is staying in the Senate to fight Health Care Reform, I guarantee you that as bad as Mr. Perry is, his temporary replacement will do that for you. Besides, you aren't actually fighting it - you are talking about how your presence is important to fight it. It isn't, especially with you sitting there idly.
Just set a date and stick to it. It doesn't matter when, but you have told us you were going to resign for this battle. Then, afterwards, shut up and fight the good fight. Texans, Republicans and Democrats both, are folks of big action. Right now, you're the opposite. Right now, you are sitting and twiddling your thumbs.
And you want to be Governor? And you think you are doing a good job as our senior Senator? Oh wait, that's right! The best Senators and Governors twiddle their thumbs all day long! I mean, Come ON!
Fight the Good Fight, please! Yah, so what if I disagree with your fight? Fight the fight or don't fight at all!
In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.
(Just as a point of comparison, insurance rates under the status quo have risen 119 percent in the last decade, and are projected to double again in the next decade, if the status quo remains. Under the status quo, by 2020 the Commonwealth Fund projects an average family policy to increase to $23,842. So when they pretend they're looking out for you, don't buy it.)
You're going to see a lot about this report on TV, and in the coming days. I expect Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Governor Perry, and the entire Republican lobby front to go crazy with these numbers in the previous days. So do remember:
Key Point: The same group that supported the tobacco industry in the 1990's is the group putting together these numbers.
This brightened up what had certianly been a very dreary day for me. From the Washington Post:
The Congressional Budget Office rendered its verdict (pdf) on the Senate Finance Committee's bill this afternoon. In effect, the agency said the Senate Finance Committee can pass go, and can collect $200. The legislation is projected to cost $829 billion over 10 years, reduce the deficit by $81 billion and cover 94 percent of Americans. It also expects the deficit-reduction to accelerate in the second decade, cutting the total deficit by one-quarter to one-half percent of GDP.
That's about as good as the Finance Committee could've hoped for, and it means the legislation is likely to sail through committee next week. More as I read through the full score.
Hell. Yeah.
Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn want to vote against a health care bill that will reduce the deficit and cover 94% of Americans?
Please, Senators. I'd love to see you two spin that one.
Fact: "About 31 percent of Hispanics and 19 percent of blacks were without health insurance in 2008, while 11 percent of non-Hispanic whites were uninsured." (Source)
Four counties along the Texas-Mexico border region are among the top seven counties in the nation for the percentage of uninsured residents, a new study shows.
Hidalgo County is third highest with 38.0 percent, Webb County is fourth highest with 36.2 percent, Cameron County is fifth highest, with 35.7 percent, and El Paso County is seventh highest with 31.8 percent.
The study, limited to counties with a population over 65,000 and focused solely on the year 2008, was conducted by the American Community Survey (ACS). Texas State Demographer Karl Eschbach.
The national health care debate, and general conversations about health care here in Texas, are not discussed in terms of race -- and I don't think they should be, either. But I do think that when the disastrous policies put forth by Governor Rick Perry and the one-party rule of Republicans here in Texas lead to an outsize effect on a broad category of Texans, then we should take note of the issue and talk about why.
I'm welcome to a productive discussion -- as well as some additional research and notes -- on this subject in the comments.
Congress is elected represent their district and represent their ideas and beliefs in Washington. Right now, some elected members think they know what is best for the people in their district with out ever asking them. DailyKos decided it was time to ask what the people in Henry Cuellar's district actually think.
The Research 2000 poll asked a few key questions about health care, Henry Cuellar, President Barack Obama and the 2010 election.Henry Cuellar has gone as far to The Hill he can't support any bill with the public option due to current costs structures.
A quick break down on the top lines of the poll indicate Cuellar's district does not feel the same way as Cuellar. When asked, "Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?" 53% favor creating government administered health insurance options, 40% oppose the plan and 7% were not sure. The numbers change slightly when asked about a vague plan and attaching Barack Obama's name. When asked, "Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama's health care plan?" 51% of all respondents still favored the plan, with 42% opposed and 7% still unsure.
It's important to point out again, Cuellar is opposed to a public option and stand on the fence of health insurance reform as it is now in the House.
Another interesting question asked to the good people in Congressional District 28 was a question on trust. Republican's have been making the case that they are winning the debate on health care and are earning the average American's trust. Again, the top line results challenge this myth. When asked, "Overall who do you trust more on the issue of health care, the Democrats or the Republicans?" 44% favor Democrats and only 35% favor Republicans. Not quite the hearts and minds the Republican Party would have you imagine.
The poll finally shows that 49% of all respondents do not favor Cuellar's positions on health care and 41% do. Keep this number in mind because 22% of respondents also said they would be less likely to vote for Cuellar if he opposed a public health care option.
There is substantial more to this poll, and I encourage you to look at the whole thing, but with 1 in 4 Texans and 1.5 million children without insurance, maybe it is time for our elected officials to listen to their districts and fight for a public option.
Update: Just finished talking with Congressman Cuellar's office. The congressman stands in support of the public option but his staff has indicated he is not a strong supporter of the current House bill as indicated in the Hill article. A public statement is coming soon and we will get that up as soon as we get it.
Update:As promised, the Cuellar office released this statement to clarify the Congressman's position. Ashley Patterson, Cuellar's press secretary, e-mailed me. This is statement is unedited and is the entire statement.
"Congressman Cuellar is an advocate for health care reform and he has gone on the record supporting the public option. In fact, this August one publication in the 28th district referred to Cuellar as "Defending the Public Option". Another said Congressman Cuellar "maintains" that a vast majority of his uninsured constituents could be covered by the proposed House plan. The Congressman indicated last month that he could not support the bill in its current form, because he wanted to ensure Congress amended H.R. 3200 to ensure the plan's cost-efficiency. President Obama echoed similar cost concerns during his address to Congress earlier this month.
Congressman Cuellar has supported health care since serving in the Texas State Legislature. He coauthored the pilot program for what's now the Children Health Insurance Program in Texas. He hasn't wavered from recognizing the need for reform nor does he plan to in the future. He's asked honest questions about how this plan will affect the nation's deficit, but he hasn't pointed to the public option when asking these questions."
Speaking of Honorary Texans (as they are right now on the Big Orange)...our most recent honoree, Mr. Sean Hannity, is proof positive that good solid hypocrisy can only improve Glenn Beck's chances for getting this award:
If you get a phone call tonight it could be from your Congressman. Chet Edwards is holding a telephone town hall meeting tonight between 6:30-7:00pm, and will call over 200,000 households throughout the twelve counties of Texas' 17th Congressional District. It should be expected that those phone calls will be filled with questions about the Obama Administration's health care reform plan. Many of the people that Edwards will talk to tonight will be critical of the plan to reform health care. It is evident from reading the internet forums, the comment sections of local media, and the letters to the editor that conservative constituents, that comprise a significant portion of this district, are critical of Edwards and have expressed their disapproval. However, in reality the people that should be expressing their disapproval are Progressives. While Edwards may not be conservative enough for some of his constituents, who would never vote for a Democrat, he may be losing support from the very people that help him get elected. While conservatives may have the loudest concerns with Edwards, progressives have the most legitimate concerns with Edwards.
Health care is one of the most important issues facing Americans today, and perhaps the most significant problem in the health care system is the number of uninsured people in America. The National Coalition on Health Care notes that "nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007." According to Health Affairs, due to the economic recession the number of uninsured people in America will increase by 6.9 million by 2010. Bloomberg reports that health-insurance premiums for families have risen 119 % since 1999, and in the last fifteen years America has increased the amount it spends on health care from $912 billion to $2.5 trillion and the amount of uninsured has only increased.
Edwards states that his goals are "lowering costs, maintaining competition and choice, and preserving quality health care." However, the most significant way to lower cost is to provide a public option, without a public option it is unlikely that health care reform will actually be able to significantly lower the cost of health care. Also, the idea that Edwards supports maintaining competition and choice suggests that there is current competition and choice, while for many Americans that only competition is the choice they have to make on whether or not they will actually be able to afford health insurance. It is obvious that "preserving the quality of health care" is important, but the real goal should be expanding access to the quality health care that is currently not available to many Americans. It is often said that the best quality health care can be found in the United States, however, who is that health care actually available to?
This is posted on behalf of SDEC member and frequent commentor at BOR John Robert Behrman, who is traveling in the Northeast after having attended Netroots Nation. John Robert asked me to post his following comments:
I agree w/ recent open letters by SDEC member Dennis TEAL and DNC member John PATRICK that there is no point to negative campaigning in a "Louisiana Primary" today, given that (a) there will be a highly partisan run-off and (b) there are both real primary elections as well as an important general election - a decisive general election in Harris County -- next year.
I would add that, in any event, there are much more important matters than battle of the bitch-lists immediately at hand. And, the credibility of every single Democratic elected party or public official is on the line over one of them right now:
The Abilene Reporter News has an excellent, in-depth interview with former Democratic Congressman and Blue Dog Charlie Stenholm. The interview, titled, "Stenholm's 'Blue Dogs' show muscle in health plan debate" is worth a complete read-through. I wanted to highlight a section on health care and Blue Dogs, since that is so relevant to current discussions going on across the country (emphasis added):
Q. Blue Dogs have come under criticism for accepting contributions from that industry and then working to alter health care legislation, some think, by weakening the public health care option pushed by the administration. Do you think that criticism is deserved?
A: Let’s take political contributions out of our political system. If you can find a constitutional way to do that, I think it would be very, very positive. But right now, there is no constitutional way to remove contributions.
What I was quoted in many stories on is that it should not be a shock to anyone political contributions go to people who vote like the individual entity.
Business, labor union or any other organization that has a political action committee, they tend to support those who do vote their way most of the time. People do not contribute to people that vote against them.
Blue Dogs, as we started out talking about, they are the swing vote now on whether or not we’re going to pass center, right-of-center or left-of-center but close-to-the-center legislation on health care, on climate change, on energy policy, on agricultural policy, on health care policy, every policy.
So people and political action committees are contributing to Blue Dogs in the expectation that they will vote for something that is center, right of center and not too far left of center.
That’s a reasonable political expectation. And it’s all public.
And if Blue Dogs vote for the insurance industry to the detriment of the country or to the pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of the country or to the oil and gas interests to the detriment of the country, the people will judge them. And they will be unelected in 2010.
Mid-term elections for the party in power are always very interesting.
