While the Senate is almost certain to remove the controversial Nebraska deal known as the “Cornhusker Kickback” in a final health-care bill, President Obama’s efforts to cut out other state-specific arrangements are drawing resistance from lawmakers.

Such deals include a provision exempting Florida from some Medicare cuts, an issue Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised at the bipartisan health summit, as well as extra Medicaid cash for Massachusetts and Vermont.

“We’ve made it clear to the Senate that the president’s position in the final legislation should not contain provisions that favor a single state or a single district differently than others,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said this week.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesperson responded: “We’re going to do what we have to do to get a bill out of the House and Senate.” He said of the White House’s wish: “We’ll certainly keep it in mind as we pull together a final bill.”

Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) also defended the extra money for his state on the basis that Vermont already provides generous benefits to its residents before reform and shouldn’t be “penalized for doing the right thing.”

And Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is pushing back against efforts to cut out a provision granting Medicare benefits to residents of a single town in his state that’s suffered from mining-related health problems. But first, health-care must pass the House.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich talks to Benjamin Sarlin about being the lone liberal “no” vote and Obama’s 11th-hour campaign to win him over.

[Source: The Daily Beast]

If you have been watching Keith Olbermann on Countdown on MSNBC TV you will be aware of his Special Comment about healthcare yesterday and that he is sponsoring The National Association of Free Clinics.

If you haven’t you can watch his hour long Special Comment delivered yesterday on this blog at Keith Olbermann: Special Comment of Wednesday October 7 2009. At the closing of his Special Comment he made us a proposition:

So I propose tonight one act with two purposes. I propose we, all of us, embrace the selfless individuals at the National Association of Free Clinics. You know them, they conducted the mass health care free clinic in Houston that served 1,500 people. I want a mass health care free clinic every week in the principle cities of the states of the six senators key to defeating a filibuster against health care reform in the Senate.

I want Sens. Lincoln [D-AR] and Pryor [D-AR] to see what health care poverty is really like in Little Rock. I want Sen. Baucus [D-MT] to see it in Butte. I want Sen. Ben Nelson [D-NE] to see it in Lincoln. I want Sen. Landrieu [D-LA] to see it in Baton Rouge. I want Sen. Reid to see it in Las Vegas.

I’ll donate. How much will you donate? We enable thousands of our neighbors to have just a portion of the bounty of good health, and we make a statement to the politicians, forgive me, William Jennings Bryan, “you shall not press down upon the brow of America this crown of insurance, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of blue.”

He reiterated his sponsorship the the National Association of Free Clinics again tonight by donating $50,000 as seed money to finance the free clinics. If you don’t know anything about the National Association of Free Clinics your can check out their website here.

The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) is the only nonprofit 501c(3) organization whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.
Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., the NAFC is an effective advocate for the issues and concerns of free clinics, their volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals, and the patients served by free clinics in communities throughout the nation.

I just made a $50 donation. If you have been keeping up with you news. The object of the Free Clinics is to show the six Senators the face of poverty and the need for a public option in the healthcare reform bill being bantered about the Congress. It is a hell of a note that such efforts have to be exerted just to get the eye of these Senators, but they don’t really know any poor people up close and personal.

Perhaps, if any of them actually show up at these clinics, they’ll learn something. We’ll see what they do, and if any of it soaks into their hard heads. If it doesn’t there is always the next election to find someone who does understand and will do something about the atrocious stranglehold health insurance and pharmaceutical companies have on people. Remember what Olbermann said about his visit to the drug store:

The woman who needed the prescription spoke even more slowly than the pharmacist had. She had almost no hope in her voice. “Try the Cigna. Please.” Another drug store, late at night. The pharmacist was a friend of mine. “You have to do something about this,” he said as he handed me my refill and then reached for somebody else’s prescription. “You see this? Anti-fungal cream. I just filled this. You know what this costs wholesale? Four dollars. You know what I have to sell it for? Two hundred and sixty-three dollars. I sell it for less and I get fired and maybe we lose our license.”

Now is you chance to do a good deed, to help get the attention of those Senators, to help get a decent health care bill passed WITH A PUBLIC OPTION that will combat the predatory insurance practices perpetrated on us all. Please make your donation today. There aren’t many days left to act, don’t let them slip away.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Democracy for America have launched the above ad in Montana and Washington, D.C., hitting Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus for blocking a public option from his health care reform bill. [Source: TPM]

Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive wrote yesterday,

There are so many problems with the health care reform bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, it is little wonder that members of his committee have proposed more than 500 amendments to fix it. Unfortunately, some of the worst amendments that would make the bill even more of a gift to the health insurance industry are being offered by Republicans. If there is a God in heaven, they will not be adopted. But many other amendments are vital, including those that will make this key bill more like the better bills that have been reported out of four other Congressional committees. All of those bills call for the creation of a public insurance option, which is an absolutely critical element of reform. Without it, all of us who are not eligible for an existing government-run program, like the Medicare and VA programs, will be forced to buy coverage from the private insurance industry, which is dominated by a cartel of huge for-profit companies.

The adoption of an amendment to create a strong public option, supported by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and many others on the committee, is certainly job one. But there are many additional fixes that are necessary, including other amendments being offered by Senator Rockefeller. They are so important I have sent a letter to Senator Baucus and the other members of the committee urging them to adopt the Rockefeller amendments that will require private insurance companies to be more honest and transparent in their dealings with consumers and more accountable to federal and state governments that must regulate them. As I note in the letter, without those amendments, insurance companies will be able to continue their most discriminatory practices without either transparency or real accountability. Here is my letter:

September 23, 2009

The Honorable Max Baucus
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6200

Dear Chairman Baucus:

As a former health insurance company executive, I am very concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability in the health insurance industry. That is why I urge you to incorporate Senator Rockefeller’s Amendments #C12 and #C13 into the America’s Healthy Future Act (AHFA), in particular with regard to the need for airtight regulations to protect consumer interests.

As proposed, AHFA will allow insurers to continue many of their most discriminatory practices without either transparency or real accountability: cost-shifting to their most vulnerable members through benefit designs that serve the needs of Wall Street; and rationing of care based on arbitrary opinions about what care is needed. In addition, there is no accountability for insurance companies to provide affordable and comprehensive health care coverage. A requirement that everyone buy health insurance accompanied by subsidies for people with low incomes does not ensure that Americans will have affordable care. The explosive cost growth in Massachusetts after health care reform is a case in point. And, AHFA has no mechanisms to enforce the insurance regulations that are included.

In addition, AHFA designates the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to write key regulations. This is of great concern to me because this proposal delegates to the NAIC, a private organization, with rule-making authority that is generally reserved for an agency of the federal government. Any institution given the authority to define the rules that will determine health insurance coverage for millions of Americans must be completely independent of the insurance industry and have a demonstrated record of putting the concerns of consumers first. The institution must also have the will and the resources to carry out the rulemaking process in a transparent and unbiased manner, with opportunity for input from all interested parties at each stage of the process. Based on its traditional manner of conducting business, the NAIC fails to meet any of these standards. The NAIC does not operate independently of the insurance industry. In fact, the NAIC is a private corporation, funded, in large part, by the insurance industry itself. Without industry dollars, the NAIC would not operate as it does today. In addition, eight of the last 10 NAIC presidents, as well as numerous commissioners, have gone directly from their posts to industry positions, creating the distinct impression that leadership positions at NAIC are mere stepping stones to more lucrative careers in the insurance industry.

For all these reasons, as well as my inside knowledge of how easily insurance companies circumvent existing regulations, I support Senator Rockefeller’s Amendments #C12 and #C13 to AHFA, which will:

*Create a grant program for state insurance departments to help them better enforce market rules and protect consumers.

*Establish a federal role for private health insurance oversight and provide resources for the Department of Health and Human Services to hire expert staff to carry out these functions and coordinate with state regulators.

* Require health insurance plans to disclose clear, accurate, and timely information on their policies and practices to ensure that they do not circumvent new federal health insurance regulations.

* Add needed transparency requirements such as: establishing fair grievance and appeals procedures by health insurers; clarifying information for health professionals and freeing up time for patients by establishing transparency standards relating to reimbursement arrangements between health plans and providers; and requiring advance notice of plan changes so consumers get what they pay.

*Establish America’s Health Insurance Trust, a nonprofit, independent, consumer-driven organization that will evaluate and give ratings to all health insurance products offered through the National Health Insurance Exchange. Annual insurance product ratings will be based on factors such as affordability, adequacy, transparency, consumer satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and quality.

* Ensure that ombudsman offices in each state are open to consumers at all stages of the appeal process to allow for early intervention and increase the likelihood of successful appeals.

Health insurance reform requires that we not only create strong new consumer protections. It also requires that those rules be effectively enforced. American families and businesses must have health insurance that is accountable to them, not to Wall Street.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendell Potter, Senior Fellow on Health Care, Center for Media and Democracy

Cc: All Members of the Senate Finance Committee

[Source: Center for Media and Democracy]

Members of the Senate Finance Committee, yesterday, September 29, 2009  rejected Senator Rockefeller’s proposed amendment to the America’s Healthy Future Act even though each of them had Potter’s letter dated  September 23, 2009. Wonder if any of them even read his letter.

OpenSecrets reports,  “Today was not a good day for supporters of a government-sponsored health care plan.”

Two senators, John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), offered two amendments that would add such an option to the the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the massive health care legislation Congress has been considering for months — and the committee handily knocked each down today.

for Rockefeller and Schumer.

CEOs of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, who tend to oppose the public option, might sleep a little easier tonight. These industries have been implementing a variety of strategies to thwart amendments such as these, including spending big bucks on lobbying and campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sided with these industries have collected more money, on average, than those who voted for these amendments, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

for all those Senators that voted against the public option amendments of Rockefeller and Schumer.

Here are the details:

The Rockefeller Amendment

• The 15 lawmakers to vote against Rockefeller’s version of the public option have collected $69,137 more, on average, from insurers (including HMOs and health services and health and accident insurers) through their candidate committees and leadership PACs since 1989 than the eight who voted for his amendment ($297,089 versus $227,952).
• The lawmakers who voted against Rockefeller’s amendment have brought in $167,264 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health care product companies since 1989 than those who supported it ($467,427 versus $297,163).
• The Democrats who voted against their colleague’s proposal have collected $97,472 more, on average, from insurance companies since 1989 than the Democrats who voted for it ($325,424 versus $227,952).
• The Democrats who voted against Rockefeller’s amendment have brought in $163,876 more, on average, from pharmaceutical and health product companies since 1989 than the Democrats who supported it ($461,038 versus $297,163).

[Read more →]

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)  [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] are readying for a showdown tomorrow with Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the conservative chairman of the Finance Committee, who offered a compromise of creating nonprofit insurance co-ops to drive down costs.

Schumer is joining Rockefeller in saying co-ops won’t work, and mounting an insurrection.

The fear is that if a Medicare-like public plan doesn’t exist, then private firms won’t lower rates, leaving people unable to afford policies – and penalized for not getting them. [Source: New York Daily News]

Good! At last the “Medicare for all” option will get on the table in the Senate. It is already in the House as HR 676.

I’ve read about this deal before but don’t fully understand it or its implications in health care/insurance reform. But it has cropped up again, so I’m going to spend some time in trying to grasp what it is and what it means. It references “secret” deals between the White House (Obama administration), Senator Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee and PhRMA (the drug industry). So here goes, maybe some of you out there can help shed some light on what all this is. I’ve added some hyperlinks to the following article to aid in understanding something about the players in all this.

In a stunning moment during the Senate Finance Committee markup Sen. Tom Carper [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] defended a secret deal that the White House, Baucus, and PhRMA had reached. The White House has long denied the deal. Carper publicly acknowledges that part of the deal was that PhRMA would run millions of dollars worth of campaign ads in support of health care reform.

[Read more →]

Despite Senator Max Baucus’ healthcare bill, real doctors who work in the system every day, say single-payer health insurance reform is the way to go.

The Gang of Six, three Republican and three Democratic senators in the group, all of them members of the Senate Finance Committee, received an average of $74,600 from health industry lobbyists, according to The San Francisco’s Chronicle’s analysis of records through June.

That is about 25 percent more than the average of $59,632 in such donations that the gang’s other Senate colleagues raked in from lobbyists for the pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and nursing home industries, according to the analysis, which was based on records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit watchdog group.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee who is seen as key to influencing other conservatives, received the most this year – $223,600. Committee chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., [Wikipedia] [VoteSmart] [OpenSecrets] was second with $141,000.

Baucus’ $856 billion, 10-year bill, which is scheduled to be amended and voted on beginning Tuesday, has been criticized by liberals and conservatives across Capitol Hill.

Conservatives blasted the plan for increasing the tax burden on some Americans. The plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans that cost more than $8,000 a year per person, or $21,000 a year per family.

Liberals dislike the Baucus plan because it does not allow consumers to choose a government-run insurance option, which could hold down costs by promoting competition with private insurers.

[Read more →]

Editor’s Note: This story details how two members of the CNN Special Investigations Unit reported a story about controversial plans to spend $31 million to enhance two remote crossings on the border between the United States and Canada.

SCOBEY, Montana (CNN) — We were driving through some of the most remote country in the United States, chasing a story that seemed hard to believe.

The Department of Homeland Security had announced it was spending $31 million to enhance and upgrade two remote border crossings — just 12 miles apart — on the border between Montana and the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The spending was lauded by Montana’s two senators, even though only an average of 22 cars a day traveled through these border posts.

We hopped a plane from Atlanta, Georgia, to Billings, Montana, and then headed to Scobey and Whitetail. The six-hour drive took us through some of this nation’s most beautiful country into the high plains of the Missouri River Region. It was a drive punctuated with glimpses of cows and antelopes, but few people.

In fact, Burl Bowler, editor of the Daniels County Leader newspaper, which serves the border towns, advised us where to stop for gas en route, so we wouldn’t run out and then really be in trouble.

Besides seeing a part of the country where Lt. Col. George Custer took his last stand, there was the added benefit (sorry CNN management) of having no phone or Blackberry access. In that respect, it was a peaceful drive.

[Read more →]