Accompanied by some of his Democratic colleagues, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled the Senate health care bill to an excited crowd at a press conference yesterday.  H. R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes a public option and progressive financing mechanisms, brings us one step closer to comprehensive health care reform.

H. R. 3590 will not only provide more affordable health coverage to families and businesses, stop insurance company abuses and provide the choice of a public health insurance option, but it is also financed with progressive revenues.

The Senate bill unveiled today includes a 0.5 percent increase in the Medicare Hospital Insurance tax for individuals who earn more than $200,000 and couples who earn more than $250,000. Unfortunately, it also includes a tax on health benefits, which disproportionately impacts families, women and children.

At the press conference, Senator Dick Durbin noted that while the Republicans have yet to offer a proposal that expands coverage, lowers the deficit and holds insurance companies accountable, their biggest gripe

about H.R. 3590 is that it’s over 2,000 pages.  For crying out loud, if I wanted to watch someone complain without good reason, I’d re-watch Sarah Palin’s Oprah interview.

Because Senator Reid has vowed not to use reconciliation for health care reform, we’ll need 60 votes to secure passage.  We are so close to victory; however every vote counts and your Senators need to hear from you.

Last month, demonstrators converged at the Capitol Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC demanding that Karen Ignani, President of America’s Health Insurance Plans, meet with seven families from all over the country who have suffered economically and physically from the insurance industry’s coverage denials and mishandling. Ignani refused. This is not surprising, considering that AHIP, as the industry’s lobbying arm, has been ardently opposed to health care reform that cut into the industry’s profits.

Yesterday, Ignani turned down yet another opportunity to redeem herself and AHIP and meet with small business owners. They came to AHIP’s national conference at the Renaissance Hotel in Chicago to tell her how they need reform to keep their businesses going, how they are forced to decrease coverage for their employees, or fire them completely because they can’t afford the rising costs of premiums…all because of insurance company greed. Their letter to Ignani emphasized how rising health care premiums are forcing them to make hard decisions, like cutting coverage for employees or even firing loyal workers.

She refused to meet with them again. Her refusal exemplified how distant health insurance companies wish to remain from the people they supposedly serve. Their greed shined through yesterday, disregarding people who need quality, affordable health care, including small business owners who could provide jobs and security in this tumultuous economy.

As William McNary, USAction President, said at yesterday’s rally, insurance companies are blocking reform efforts “because they are profiting very nicely, doing very well, thank you, under the current arrangement that puts their profits over patients”.

After Ignani’s cold shoulder treatment at the hotel, the eight small business owners ventured outside where the environment was much more welcoming. They were met with five hundred supporters from labor, community organizations, medical students, local doctors and other health care supporters all pulled together by Citizen Action/Illinois. Wendell Potter, a former insurance executive, also came out to show his support and condemn insurance company greed.

As they shared their stories, it was clear that they represent thousands of small businesses all over the nation who struggle with health care costs and employee retention. These small business owners represent American entrepreneurs and self-starters who are essential in the effort to kick-start our economy’s recovery.  Their stories showed us how profits are a bigger priority for big insurance, and that profit-gluttony kills jobs while

endangering the health of millions of hard-working Americans.

“These small business owners want the four C’s of health care: costs that are affordable, coverage that is comprehensive and guaranteed, commitment, they’re willing to contribute their fair share but they need everybody to do their part and choice, between a private insurance and a public health insurance plan,” exclaimed William McNary at the AHIP rally.

Who would be against that? AHIP and Karen Ignani, apparently.

Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos reported on an alarming study done by George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services on the long-term effects of Stupak-Pitts Amendment. While the short term effects of Stupak-Pitts is are concerning enough, the study indicates that coverage for medically indicated abortions (i.e. a woman’s life is in danger) will disappear, even if you are covered by private insurance.

Daily Kos’s article is below, with excerpts from Sara Rosenbaum, the chief author and Chair of the Department of Health Policy.

GWU Analysis Details Industry-Wide Implications of Stupak-Pitts

by mcjoan

Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 07:00:03 AM PST

The George Washington School of Public Health and Health Services has analyzed Stupak-Pitts, and concludes that “the Amendment would produce industry-wide effects, leading to the elimination of health plan coverage for nearly all medically indicated abortions.”

Although the Amendment appears to address only plans that receive federal exchange subsidies, even health plans sold to private, large employers that purchase outside the exchange ultimately are likely to be affected, the analysis concludes. These findings are based on an assessment of the extent to which the health benefits services industry adjusts its products over time to conform to the regulatory environment in which it operates.

“Under national health reform, millions of women, including women who are covered by small employers (as employees or spouses or dependents of employees) as well as those who are currently uninsured, will receive their coverage through health insurance exchanges. By barring the sale of subsidized products that cover medically indicated abortions as part of a broader package of benefits, the Amendment can be expected to cause the industry to re-design its offerings in order to avoid violating the legal restrictions on abortion applicable to exchange products that receive subsidies,” said Professor Sara Rosenbaum, JD, lead author and Chair of the Department of Health Policy. “The Amendment also can be expected to chill efforts to develop supplemental coverage for medically indicated abortions, because it appears to prohibit the joint administration of both a basic and supplemental product,” Rosenbaum noted.

Additionally, “based on past experiences with claim administration decisions involving treatment exclusions,” the analysts conclude that insurers are likely to interpret the exclusion broadly, and exclude not just elective abortions, but also medically indicated abortion and “treatments for serious illnesses, injuries, and medical conditions that include an abortion undertaken for health reasons.” Insurance administrators, they find, are likely to err on the side of coverage denail in order to avoid sanctions.

The report also includes findings on the “rider” provision of the legislation, the provision that would supposedly allow women to purchase supplemental abortion coverage. From the full analysis [pdf].

The provisions of the legislation, as well as the technical challenges that arise in benefits administration, militate against the creation of a supplemental coverage market. Thus, if the result of national health reform is to move millions of women into a market that operates subject to the exclusion, then it is fair to predict that the entire market for coverage ultimately will be affected as a product tipping point is reached and virtually no supplemental market appears.” (p. 14)

Orrin Hatch plans to introduce the Stupak amendment in the Senate. This amendment isn’t just a reiteration of Hyde, it’s a direct attack on a legal, medical procedure, not to mention the women who might need it.

Read more about the study on Progress Ohio’s blog.

  Working In These Times recently published an astute article on the possible inclusion of progressive financing in the final health care bill.  While regressive financing mechanisms like the excise tax are on the table, they’ve received pushback from progressives in Congress along with USAction, Citizens for Tax Justice and their coalitions with Health Care for America Now and Rebuild and Renew America Now.

USAction Program Director Alan Charney, prominently featured in the article, articulated that taxing the rich is not only a moral imperative, but smart politics:  “This excise tax was causing serious political problems with the progressive base, not just unions.”  In addition, Charney goes on to say that “the only fair way to pay for reform is to tax those who benefited from this economy:   the rich.”  The article concludes with Charney’s analysis of the financing fight: 

First, both houses of Congress pass their versions of progressive, tax-the-rich financing. Then, he hopes, “The excise tax is squeezed out, so in conference they come up with financing that doesn’t involve the excise tax anymore.” Given how far reform advocates have come on financing and keeping some form of the public option alive, these are realistic expectations for the tense health-care combat that lies ahead.  The Senate leadership’s new direction on taxation, he observes, “is a sign that there’s a better chance that the final bill will be good, and we’re helping this process along.”

Click here to read the full article.

Today, the following question was posed to political commentators, legislators, and intellectuals in The Hill’s Congress Blog:

Which issue will be more important to voters in 2010–the deficit or jobs?

Part of my job is to know what legislators are thinking and trying to influence that with the voice from the people, so I pose a very similiar question to the American public, especially the unemployed, underemployed and those who are on edge about receiving the pink slip or getting called into the boss’s office without any explanation:

What issue is most important to you as you think about going to the polls next year–our nation’s debt or jobs?

Let’s hear it!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) reportedly is moving closer toward a progressive way to fund quality, affordable health care for all.

Last night, the Associated Press reported that Senator Reid is considering asking individuals who earn more than $250,000 a year to pay a modest increase in the 1.45 percent payroll tax that funds Medicare.  Additionally, this morning, Bloomberg News reported that Senator Reid is mulling over another proposal to apply Medicare tax to non-wage income including stocks, capital gains, dividends, interest, royalties and partnerships to individuals earning more than $250,000.

As stated by USAction Program Director, Alan Charney, and quoted in today’s Bloomberg News,

This would mean a significant shift on the part of Senate leadership.  It would move the Senate leadership closer to the House. The Senate would be asking the very wealthiest Americans who have enjoyed tax cut after tax cut over the past eight years to pay their fair share. That’s the only we  are going to  finally realize the dream of quality, affordable health care for all with a public health insurance option.

The House, in part, funds health care reform by applying a 5.4 percent surtax on income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples.

Earlier this year, USAction, along with coalition partners Citizens for Tax Justice and SEIU, called for a set of progressive revenue measures to fund health care reform. These measures included a surcharge on the wealthiest one percent of Americans, reforming the Medicare tax and limiting itemized deductions.

These progressive financing measures would bring in needed revenue to pay for comprehensive health care reform, but also would be consistent with President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000 a year.  Please take a few minutes and contact your senators to express your support for progressive financing.  In order to provide quality, affordable health care for all, we cannot place a burden on working families.

“Over the weekend, men got further than ever in their journey toward affordable, accessible, and comprehensive health care. Women? Not so much.” This was the opening line in a mass email sent yesterday from the National Women’s Law Center.

Last Saturday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, the momentous Affordable Health Care for America Act. Due to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, however, the bill leaves out one critical demographic: women in their child-bearing years. This amendment is a blemish in what would have otherwise been a more-than-acceptable health care bill.

Sponsors and supporters of the Stupak Amendment contend that it is merely reinforcing the Hyde Amendment, which has banned federal funding of abortion since 1976. However, the Stupak Amendment goes farther than any federal law to restrict women’s rights.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D, MI)

The Stupak Amendment would ban coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange. Furthermore, it also prohibits public money from being spent on any plan that covers abortion services even if the procedure were to be paid for by private premiums. Consequently, no public or private plan that covers abortion services can operate in the Exchange unless its subscribers can afford to pay every penny of their premiums. Because the majority of people in the Exchange will depend on at least some government “affordability credits,” many plans will forego abortion coverage in order to participate in the Exchange.

The amendment’s supporters say that it doesn’t outright ban abortion from the Exchange because it allows women to purchase a “rider,” which is extra insurance to cover abortion services. Given the fact that the necessity for an abortion is always unexpected, it’s not practical to expect women to plan for such an event when choosing their insurance plan. This brings me to another point: Stupak and his allies are continuing to engage in the age-old anti-choice strategy of divorcing abortion from other standard medical procedures. No one would ever propose requiring men to “plan” for prostate or testicular cancer by forcing them to choose whether to pay for extra insurance months in advance.

The Stupak Amendment is just another method by the anti-choice movement to roll back women’s rights and now they’re attaching it to the health care bill and doing it in the guise of fiscal conservatism.

There is no doubt that H.R. 3962 is the strongest health care bill to every reach the House floor: it guarantees quality affordable health care for all, provides Americans with the choice of a public health insurance option and restrains insurance company abuses. However, the Stupak Amendment is bad for women and must be removed in conference committee.

While the Stupak amendment is very detrimental to women’s health, we can fix this and help ensure that it does not end up in the final bill. While it seems very unlikely that that a Stupak-like Amendment will pass the Senate, nothing is a given, so please make sure you contact your senators and urge them to keep the abortion language out of the Senate bill. As stated by President Obama, ‘This is a Health Care Bill, Not an Abortion Bill.’

The fact of the matter is that one in three women will have an abortion by age 45 and countless women depend on these services. If passed, the Stupak Amendment takes us backwards and for many women, it will invalidate Roe v. Wade. In order to have comprehensive reform, we must have health care policies that work for everyone.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act will make health care more affordable for consumers, hold insurance companies accountable and increase access to health care for millions of Americans.

USAction today called on the House to approve the measure and not pass up the best opportunity in 100 years to pass comprehensive reform that guarantees quality, affordable health care for millions of Americans.

“If the House votes yes, Americans will be one step closer to having more affordable health coverage with good, comprehensive benefits and true choice and competition in the health insurance marketplace,” said USAction Program Director Alan Charney. “We must not pass up this opportunity.”

The House bill, in particular, makes health care much more affordable, ends egregious insurance industry abuse, and injects real choice and competition with the inclusion of a national public health insurance option.  It also draws revenue from fair financing as opposed to taxation of middle-income Americans’ health care plans. Finally, it includes shared responsibility between individuals, employers and government.

On Saturday evening, the House of Representative will choose whether to stick with the status quo or take another step towards enacting quality, affordable for all.

Hundreds gathered yesterday in Chicago to mark the one year anniversary since the historic election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.  However, the anniversary event was not organized to lavish praise on our President, but to push him to act on the promises of his campaign.

“We need an America where we not only bail out the banks, but bail out the people on the bottom. People need good jobs and need to live in their homes without being foreclosed on,” USAction President William McNary said. “This is an America that should work for all of us.”

Last year’s election gave us a glimpse of the power of an organized, passionate grassroots base fighting for progressive change.  But as the health care fight has shown this is an elusive power that the progressive community must make sustainable to move legislation on the Hill.

Too many look to President Obama for this sweeping change, but Obama himself has echoed FDR’s famous “go out and make me do it” sentiment. So in the end it is on us, the people, or as President McNary says in the video below,

“Barack said ‘Yes WE can, not yes I can’. We’ve come far but we’ve got far to go.”

As the economy sheds more jobs, as more families lose homes, and as the legislative slate ahead of us gets more - not less - challenging, progressives all over the country have to be prepared to fight the powers that be for the change we seek in our country.