Chris Murphy Calls On Congress To Walk The Healthcare Walk
A release from CT-05 Rep. Chris Murphy:
NEW BRITAIN - After hosting public events in Waterbury, Danbury and Washington, Connecticut over the last two days, Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) is announcing today that he is returning to Washington, D.C. next week to call on Members of Congress to purchase their own health insurance on the health insurance exchange. America's Affordable Health Choices Act, the House version of the health care reform bill, will make changes to our current health care system so that more people can afford health insurance and increase choice through a health insurance exchange, which would force private plans to compete with each other and a government sponsored plan.
"For people and businesses that choose to go into the exchange, they will have access to better and cheaper coverage than they have today. There is no reason why Members of Congress shouldn't go into the exchange and choose between the public option and private plans like everyone else," said Murphy.
Murphy wants Members of Congress to be treated like employees of very small businesses are under the House reform bill.
[...snip...]
"We've got to act to bring down the cost of health care for people in Connecticut. If we are going to enact health care reform that the American people believe in, then Members of Congress aren't just going to have to talk the talk, we are going to have to walk the walk. I believe the health insurance exchange will be a good deal for people in Connecticut, and I am willing to place my own health care coverage needs in it to prove my faith in this effort," said Murphy.
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com did a great job of breaking down some poll numbers for the Public Option on a district by district level and across the nation. I did a quick cut and paste of the numbers just for Connecticut:
The results beg the question of why some more of Connecticut's Congress critters are not leading the charge for the Public Option? They know the people want it and they have to know that it is the right thing to do.
It is an all around political winner and just plain old common sense good public policy.
Some important notes on this from Nate Silver:
We can systematize these results by means of a regression analysis that accounts for the Obama vote share and the poverty level in each district. (Technically, we'll be using a logistic regession, treating each of the voters included in one of these surveys as a separate data point.) This analysis finds that support for the public option nationwide is about 55 percent, against 36 percent opposed, similar results to what I believe to be the most reliable polls on the subject.What's more interesting, though, is where we project the public option in individual districts. We find that:
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 291 of the 435 Congressional Districts nationwide, or almost exactly two-thirds.
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 235 of 257 Democratic-held districts.
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 Blue Dog - held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.
Obviously, there is a margin of error inherent to this analysis when applied to any individual district. The polls that inform this analysis themselves have a margin of error, and there is an additional layer of error introduced by the statistical process that we apply to the data.
There is some pretty good reasoning behind this data to tell the few Blue Dogs trying to stand in the way of the Public Option to suck it up and do the right thing, as well. Go and take a look at the data yourself. The information is a real eye opener as to where there is some really strong support for the Public Option even in some supposedly "conservative" districts across the USA.
A little extra previously posted, before Obama's speech last Wednesday, at ePluribus Media, below the fold.
Real Canadians Talk Real Healthcare
Why this video? Why now?
In the spirit of truth, my friend Matte Black (@Shoq on Twitter) and his brother took their video camera to Canada on vacation to interview Canadians about their health care system. When we talked about it, I asked him to try to get negative views with specifics for balance. Here is the result. It has been edited for brevity, but the negative views were not removed, because there were none. He could not find one Canadian who thought they should kill the system. These are everyday people. They have no agenda at all other than being patriotic Canadians.
Please watch it and share it with as many people as you can.
I get a kick out of the responses to the co-pay question: "Co-pay? What does co-pay mean?" This is exactly what happens when the people demand a healthcare system that works for the people instead of for the bottom line of a corporation.
I lived in Canada for about 28 years.
I can't begin to list how much better everything is in Canada compared to the health care disaster we all suffer from south of the border. Cradle to grave, there is never any question about whether they will do everything they can to treat you in a reasonable amount of time.
I could walk in to my primary care physician any time he was open. If it was his golf day or something like his vacation time? I would go a couple of blocks down the street to another doctor. I chose those doctors based on my level of comfort with them.
My primary would even do house calls (probably still does?) if you or your kid were too sick to make it in.
If you had something so severe as to need more than what your typical primary could provide? Walk into the emergency room (or take the ambulance - they don't ask if you have insurance first because that would be inhumane). It is my understanding that they now have CLSCs in Quebec to cover the less severe emergencies like breaks, sprains, stitches, etc., that might just need the basics or to use when your primary caregivers office might be closed. This alleviates pressure on emergency rooms at hospitals so they can concentrate more on the serious emergencies.
My father was diagnosed with cancer not too long ago and given about six months to live.
He was treated by the best medical staff he could find for his specific problems. He also had a good backup for second opinions. He chose them based on how he wanted and needed to be treated and based on consultations with many caregivers. He lived 3 more years after that original dead end diagnosis and died in his 70s.
No healthcare or treatment is perfect but had he lived in the USA he very likely would have been uninsured because of pre-existing health conditions. In the USA he wouldn't have even had that "six months" diagnosis.
And never, not even once, did he have to make any healthcare decisions based on whether or not he could afford the treatment. He decided (as do all Canadians) in conjunction with and on the advice of his doctors. There was no insurance company in between them to turn him down.
The American system is as cruel to the poor and those that really need the medical help as it is profitable to the insurance companies.
Those are just some of the things I can say about the Canadian system.
Americans, in surveys, appear to be "more satisfied" with their healthcare providers than Canadians do. Maybe you don't understand this, being that you have had a crappy healthcare system all of your life...
That is because Canadians expect a lot more from their healthcare system than Americans do.
Never mind that the polls I have seen always point to satisfaction with providers BUT rarely address the cost and the mode of payment directly. Why? Because the few times we hear the voice of the people on this, for the most part, they say they hate their medical insurance companies.
My primary doctor in the US is great. He supports Single Payer. Most of the hospital people I have dealt with are great at their jobs, too. I always ask them and they support single payer by a large margin. My children have a great pediatrician and, yes, he supports single payer as well. Nothing to complain about the actual service providers. That side is pretty much equal to the Canadian providers. Some are better and some are worse, but competent and caring nonetheless. They want to give you the best service possible. And, for the most part, the majority of those providers want to give you single payer.
I am among the few that has half decent insurance. For how long, who knows? In this economy corporations are stripping workers of higher quality insurance for less costly junk plans. Our family's plan was changed to add higher co-pays and more restrictions on usage AGAIN, this year. And that is just a minor issue when many of these cash strapped corporations and small businesses are laying people off people all together so they have no insurance at all.
If our family lost our source of health insurance we know that our budget would eliminate any possibility of keeping coverage regardless of government's provision of the costly Cobra plans. On unemployment, we would struggling to keep a roof over our heads and the kids fed. Regardless of that, I expect more from my healthcare AND I expect it to cost a hell of a lot less. But that is because I have seen and lived with a better healthcare system than the one we have here.
I expect nothing less than Single Payer!
Of course, that does not mean I am completely rigid on this and unwilling to compromise. It is just a higher standard that could be attained in this country. More recently we have seen a lot of discussion on the public option, since single payer has been banned from the political discussion and the media's coverage of healthcare.
No single payer? Fine.
Most recently some morons are saying that is the "Left of the Left"
that are pushing for the public option and this supposed to be shocking
news to be breathlessly reported on in the traditional media... As they
continue their twisted and contorted takes on reality, let us look at
who really supports the public option, OK?
67% of conservatives support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.
71% of Republicans support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.
77% of Americans support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.
For those politicians and media stenographers that have a problem with reading comprehension I took a moment to annotate this Survey USA graphic. There is your "Left of the Left" in RED and BLUE...
The black ink in the ledgers of insurance corporations is being balanced by the red blood of Americans.
Right now about 22,000 Americans die every year because they are under or uninsured. This has got to stop. Now... You could do nothing at all about this issue OR you could contact your Congress critters and hammer them to bring some semblance of real reform to healthcare. Americans are literally dying waiting for something to be done. And a public option, at the very least, will allow for the uninsured to get insurance and give the underinsured the opportunity to choose better insurance.
Now... As a final thought, some more healthcare experts from Canada:
Addendum: I wish that Obama would pay particular attention to the final message from the former Premier of Saskatchewan. A very simple and clear message of "Medicare for all", even if it is made as the default "public option", would go a long way towards providing a unifying message that everyone in the USA could understand as a really good thing. People understand how good Medicare is. Since there is literally a super majority of support for a public option, this would be the nail in the coffin of the insane rantings from the opposition to reform. Add to that the positive move of putting Congress into the same position as the rest of America and people will understand that reform really is about making healthcare better.
If Obama and the Conservative Democratic party members in Congress think that the super majority of Americans called the "Left of the Left" are going to be happy with just any reform... Then they are not paying attention at all and do not deserve the offices they now hold.
The liberal left has, in large part, already made all of the concessions they were willing to give when they let single payer go for the compromised "public option". And many of us will be very loud and very clear as the next elections come around in punishing politicians for failure to act in our interests.
In a few days President Obama will be meeting with the AFL-CIO leadership to talk about relaunching healthcare reform. I expect that we will see a clearer message from the President on what he wants from reform, since he has really had no clear messaging up until now.
Obama had better understand that he can either invigorate healthcare activists with a strong message of honest reform, including a public option that is even closer to the original Hacker proposal than anything we have seen, or he can fall flat on his face and all alone as allies in real healthcare reform desert him and the Democratic party members that are willing to push for more of the same.
Why? Via The NY Times:
Need we say more?Drug Makers to Back Baucus Plan With Ad Dollars
The move would be a follow-up to the deal that drug makers struck in June with Mr. Baucus and the White House. Under that pact, the industry agreed to various givebacks and discounts meant to reduce the nation's pharmaceutical spending by $80 billion over 10 years.
Shortly after striking that agreement, the trade group -- the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA -- also set aside $150 million for advertising to support health care legislation.
[...snip...]
But an industry official involved in the discussions said the group and its advertising money would now be aimed specifically at the approach being pushed by Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
[update] Ok... We can say more:
As always, thanks for reading. :)
September 14, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minor Update to add the NY Times story at the end...
September 14, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will they continue to take the $$$ if they know their support will implode with this info!!! Shameless pandering to wall street again by Congress:
WALL STREET IS BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR NOW.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/ownership/institutional.asp?ric=WLP
Wall Street Banks hold these percentages of shares in Health Insurance giants and are increasing shares by the tens of millions
United 77.32%
WellPoint 79.04%
Aetna 79.45%
CIGNA Corp. 68.71%
Coventry Health 82.25%
Health Net Inc. 79.37%
Wall Street is the enemy. Can we afford another bailout for these people and their bonus structure!
September 14, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny thing is that profits in every other industry would likely go up as employee and legacy healthcare costs went down for them. The only industry that would take a real hit is the insurance industry. Not the vaunted "healthcare industry" but ONLY the "health insurance industry".
The only other way to have real reform and keep the private health insurance industry alive?
If they were there were so many regulatory controls put on them that would essentially be mandated as not-for-profit private insurance.
September 14, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
CM1 -- Thanks for this informed and impassioned blog.
There is something seriously wrong with Congress when the numbers stack up this way even among conservatives. And we know what that source of dysfunction is: it is the insurance industry corporations and their lobbies who are the source of congressional campaign funding.
It is striking to me that over the weekend I had discussions with two people my age who are, at 60, attempting to emigrate to another country. Not because they are "unpatriotic" but because they cannot get or afford healthcare in America. One has invested in the intensive language coursework that is necessary as a prerequisite for admission in France; the other is at work on the checklist for admission to Italy.
I have looked into emigration to Canada, for which there are four categories of admission, but only one that I could match. Looking into that category more closely, I discovered a handy pre-screening quiz that awards points per question toward an acceptable total. I scored well in all categories, including the language requirement but .... encountered a zero point award for age, which makes my total point score a fence rider and therefore reduces my chances dramatically.
Who can blame the Canadians for this hardline? They are about to be deluged with such applicants in the age group that will begin to need costly health services sooner rather than much later.
My best advice, then: if you are a professional in your forties, give this option consideration before it is too late. Because the odds of single health payer legislation occurring before you are in the questionable age group to which I belong are, at this point, slim.
September 14, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why retirees are fleeing the U.S.
A move to another country may make economic sense, especially for seniors who don't have enough savings to live in retirement without a dramatic cut in lifestyle."
Healthcare is only adding to the pressure for Americans to leave the USA.
September 14, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The truth. Almost a joke these days.
For the repubs, the truth is whatever they think they can get away with.
I actually have seen Chris Matthews defend SICKO by Michael Moore...many times. I suppose we would have to include Ed and KeithO and Rachel.
When has Williams or Curick ever defend him?
And repubs just paint Moore as a lying pinko commie.
Good presentation. Blue Dogs cannot run from the truths, in general. There is reasoning to be had with that group.
September 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure that on this issue a very corporate owned and operated arm of the Democratic party can be reasoned with. Some of them? Yes, since early on a few Blue Dog members balked when the Blue Dog leadership said their caucus would stop a public option.
The reality is that we may be able to break away some of right wing Dems BUT we still have to hold the progressive caucus together.
Funny how we have known all along precisely who we would have to key on to win this fight, and we had a darned good idea where the opposition would be.
This fight would have been a lot easier if less people had jumped on the "Public Option" bandwagon during the election.
September 14, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this was interesting from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html
snip snip snipThis is historical information. The White House and Congress know this. Why hasn't it been a part of the narrative? The fact that the republican party continuously votes against people, and then gets coddled during the bill-making process is appalling to me.
September 14, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty fricken scary stuff. I read it yesterday at dKos and MLN.
"Tell'em you fell down the stairs or I'll beat you again AND they'll cut off your healthcare"
How to keep a victim down.
September 14, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine, 70% of doctors support a public option.
Hey Connecticut Man. Though now of New Hampshire, I grew up in Connecticut. If you run into Joe Lieberman, tell him I don't like him.
September 14, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you run into Joe Lieberman, tell him I don't like him."
A politician with two faces only a neoconservative could love. Will do. :)
September 14, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am soooo glad I phone banked for Chris Murphy. As I recall he didn't enroll in the government plan for Congress. That may have changed, tho.
Thanks CTMan
September 15, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Murphy is/was enrolled in the FEBHP. I think only Rep. Kucinich and Sen. Brown are the only two not enrolled in it. (There may be one other?)
I did not campaign for Murphy in '06 precisely because of his answers on healthcare. They were very "Blue Dog" like. Somewhere along the line some people have talked some sense into him because his views have changed a lot on healthcare since '06.
He has moved a lot on the issue since then, and all for the better.
September 15, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink