Possibly the most hilarious clip about the summit I've found...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264134/february-11-2010/the-word---political-suicide

Stephen Colbert's WORD: "Political Suicide."

Preventative Health

The New York Times' Nicolas Kristof posted a new column today regarding the growing links between environmental toxins and ailments such as autism and cancer. Kristof asserts that:

As we try to improve our health care, it’s also prudent to curb the risks from the chemicals that envelop us.

As Sean noted a few days ago, Michelle Obama has been on a campaign to fight childhood obesity. Childhood obesity, like autism, has exploded in recent decades. Diseases like heart disease and cancer are huge killers in America, but are preventable in many cases through a healthy lifestyle (of course not all are preventable, and the link of autism to toxins is not absolutely proven). These diseases place a large strain on an already broken health care system and contribute to rising health costs. If we could just work to reduce the number of preventable lifestyle diseases, this strain would be eased.

We do, without a doubt, need reform in the insurance industry and in hospital care. There is no end to this problem without it. Yet we can't sit around and wait for the government to magically fix the health of this nation. Shouldn't we, as a nation, take a stand against unhealthy living that contributes to these diseases? Shouldn't we demand more research and regulation against carcinogens and other harmful chemicals in household substances? Shouldn't we work to improve our own individual health? Yes.

This is a piece to the health care puzzle that we need to take ownership of.

Republicans and the Health Care Summit--Too Partisan or am I too Liberal?

The Health Care Summit approaches and in the light of The Struggle for Democracy by Greenberg and Page, chapter 9, and as a liberal, I am wondering about the Republicans' strategy for the summit. Greenberg and Page continually emphasize in chapter 9 how the parties have become more ideologically based and partisan; bipartisanship almost seems like a thing of the past. However, especially with health care reform, crossing the aisle needs to happen. If cooperation and compromise do not happen and each side simply seeks to outmaneuver the other, health care reform will fail yet again.

As of now, the GOP delegation for the summit could have as many as 19 House and Senate officials. The GOP definitely seems to have a partisan non-cooperative strategy going into the summit, according to The Washington Post: "Senior Republican aides said the delegation would seek to portray the Obama health-care bill as a further threat to the record deficit and target specific parts of the Democratic proposal, including tax increases and Medicare cuts. Republicans also will be prepared to argue that Congress should be focused on the more urgent need for job creation rather than health-care reform." Basically, the Republicans will attack the current House and Senate bills with a proposal to change current insurance rules (many proposed by George W. Bush) and try to refocus the public's attention on jobs and the economy.

It seems like the Republicans are treating this summit like grounds for a potential ambush in a stereotypical Western movie or maybe that's my liberal bias getting the best of me. I would genuinely like to think that this summit could work and get health care reform back on track. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sums up my hopes for the health care summit this Thursday: "We've heard that they [the Republicans] have ideas, and we look forward to hearing those ideas . . . The president did this because he wants to be able to reach out to the Republicans. That's who he is—he is not a partisan president. And I look forward to the meeting."

Sources:
Republicans plan to stress private-sector alternatives to the president's plan
Why Partisan Bickering Works
Whose Side Are You On?

Reid to Republicans: "Stop crying over reconciliation"

Governor Huckabee's Interview With Michelle Obama

Recently, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee interviewed First Lady Michelle Obama. Although their interview touched on a variety of topics, the focus was on childhood obesity and what could be done to prevent and curtail it. Both Mrs. Obama and Governor Huckabee discussed their personal experiences with the issue of childhood obesity and the importance of impressing upon people the severity of the situation. When asked about the role of government in solving the obesity crisis, the First Lady emphasized that a "nanny state" approach would not be an effective solution, and that the issue would have to be addressed by parents, pediatricians, and school lunch providers; a sentiment that Governor Huckabee wholeheartedly agreed with. Governor Huckabee later appeared on the Sean Hannity Show and discussed the interview, praising Michelle Obama for her stand on the obesity crisis, her love of country, and her charming and sincere personality. It was exactly the type of common-sense, civil, bipartisan discussions that our country is so severely in need of. As the bipartisan health care summit rapidly approaches, we can only hope that the negotiations will follow suit.

Part 1| Mike Huckabee Interviews Michelle Obama - 02/20/10

Crazy Californian Insurance Rate Increases

Anthem Blue Cross of California recently announced that it intends to raise its customers’ insurance rates by a margin of 25 to 39 percent. The company clearly didn’t have to gain any approval for this move – from its customers or from the government. Anthem Blue Cross, a WellPoint subsidiary, is the largest private, profit-motivated insurance company operating in California right now. Its planned rate increase will affect 800,000 Californians.

This scandalous rate increase, if positioned correctly in the media, could be the perfect spin vehicle to keep the prospect of some health care reform alive – it’s not nice, but that’s how it is. California is a state with many (sometimes very active) voices and many electoral votes, and the opinions of Californians do carry some weight in government. This Anthem Blue Cross debacle can serve as proof that the entire health care system needs an overhaul. It’s proof of the fact that health care companies will do anything to make money – and they should, according to a completely capitalist economic theory – but that shouldn’t stand for Americans who are willing to recognize health care as a right rather than a privilege, subject to monopolies and bureaucracy.

SOURCES:

Feinstein to Propose Federal Supervision of Insurance Rates

The Lesson of Anthem Blue Cross

California Death Spiral

Live Health Care

On February 25 there will be a live broadcast of President Barack Obama bipartisan meeting on health care. As of now, it is not clear as to the specifics of the televised event such as the time or what exactly will be happening at this meeting but it has been guranteed that the entire thing will be live. Doing so will fulfill one of President Obamas' campaign promises of holding a televised health care reform negotiation. It is expected that many people from the Republican party would not be willing to participate in this negotiation if President Obama and the Democratic party decide to bring up bills that have already been rejected in the past by Congress. This is most likely what is going to happen either way at this political forum that is going to take place. The Republican party also argues that neither them nor the Democratic party should write their own bill in private and then unveil it at the negotiation. The bill should be discussed at the negotiations and then written later on after the televised event. Afterall, not supporting the bill would project the wron image to the American public which will be watching the entire thing.



This proposed event is a great way for President Obama and the Democratic party to really convey the message that they are heading in the right direction for health care reform. placing it in front of a live audience will only make the politicians themselves more accountable for the promises they have made in the past to the people who voted them in. It also shows the supporters of President Obama that he will most likely try and fulfill his promise on the things he said during his presidential campaign. He is creating more accountability for himself and his staff which is something that the United States needs at the moment from all of its citizens and not only politicians.

The Congressional Budget Office

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) comes up a lot when discussing the deficit or the health care bills. But what exactly is the CBO? An acronym arbitrarily tossed out whenever anyone is talking the health care bill to sound smart? Yes, but besides that (according to their website):

The Congressional Budget Office’s mandate is to provide the Congress with:

• Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and
  
  
• The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.

Since the CBO gives numbers related to the budget and the deficit, both Republicans and Democrats have been using their numbers to prove their positions. The Democrats on one hand are using their prediction that the health care bill will be deficit-neutral (or will even reduce the deficit). The Republicans, on the other hand, have used CBO numbers to show how big the deficit is going to be and how much this bill will cost.

When most people see statistics and quotes on news websites, they rarely question the context and true meaning behind the numbers. I never really questioned the CBO on the deficit-neutrality, as I assumed that they were right. While doing some research this weekend, I stumbled upon this interesting post from the Atlantic:

Doug Elmendorf [director of the CBO], the source of that "deficit neutral" score, has made it pretty clear that he does not think the cuts will take place; he's just scoring them because that's what the CBO process requires him to do. After all, the reason that we need these automatic spending cut mechanisms is that Congress can't make a credible commitment to cut costs now. And the reason they can't be relied upon to cut costs in the future is that doing so is politically costly.

The bill is supposedly paid for by a combination of cuts and taxes, and if the cuts that are planned don't happen then this bill is going to be more expensive than we bargained for. This isn't to say that the Congressional Budget Office is lying, or shouldn't be trusted, or even that their report is wrong. It's only important to note that there are stories behind each of the statistics we see in a newspaper article, and these can have big ramifications for public opinion and general knowledge.

Just remember: the things we hold up as facts in politics are not necessarily solid facts.

Health Care Reform's Clouded Debate

Bipartisan squabbling versus bipartisan cooperation is currently the biggest issue in the health care reform debate. Will the Republicans and Democrats be able to work together and accomplish this legislation at the bipartisan summit? Is this even a good idea or is the concept of this summit distracting the public from the very issue at hand, health care?

This summit could get health care reform back on track, according to Dough Schoen's Fox News' opinion article. Others, like The Daily Beast's Reihan Salam, see this supposed bipartisan effort as an ineffective method Obama is using in order to try to show voters that he is earnestly attempting to work with the GOP.

However, in my opinion, this focus on the bipartisan summit has distracted from the issue of health care itself. There are still large points of contention in the House and Senate versions of the bill that need to be resolved. In the article, "Representation and Agenda Setting," Bryan D. Jones and Frank R. Baumgartner conclude that the public's priorities do influence the "lawmaking activities in the national government" (20). So, issues like the Stupak/Pitts Amendment or the Nelson Compromise and excise tax need to be brought to public attention if there is any hope of practical, effective health care reform.

For more about the excise tax read:
Excise Tax Loses Support Amide White House Push
Can Dems Bridge Their Health Care "Cadillac" Tax Divide?

For more about the upcoming bipartisan summit:
Obama, Republicans spar over starting point for health care summit
White House Invites Congressional Leaders to Summit

Other Health Care Reform Sources:
The Struggle Over Health Care
Health Care Reform
CNN: Health Care in America
The Zombie Hypothesis

Some Republicans Critical of Healthcare Summit

"Pointless", "jamming through votes", "Chicago-style politics". Generally, harsh criticisms such as these are offered after the offending event has taken place. Not so with President Obama's February 25th bipartisan healthcare summit. Ten days before the scheduled meeting, many leading GOP politicians are already doubting the President's motives and his ability to broker a true bipartisan exchange. Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) has already appeared on CNN, prophesying of Democrats' intent to "ram [their version of healthcare reform] through, whether we like it or whether the American people like it." As a politician of the minority party, it makes sense that Sen. Kyl would be concerned about a pressing political matter such as this, however, the way he promotes the conservative agenda is antagonistic and off-putting to intelligent, fair-minded conservatives and liberals alike. Both the Republicans and Democrats in Washington have agreed that our current healthcare system needs some change. Without bipartisan negotiations, any sort of well informed, lasting change will be nearly impossible. In that spirit, we should all hope for a favorable, two-sided summit on February 25th.

PRO Tort Reform

I've been doing some research on tort reform and I've decided that tort reform is for the best.

Since 1954, when Congress overruled a Supreme Court ruling, insurance companies have been exempt from anti-trust laws. I don’t know if Congress should have been exempt from anti-trust laws in the first place – it seems a little silly when you learn that only Congress and Major League Baseball are the chosen ones!

Most state attorney generals do support tort reform, and the House proposal includes tort reform while the Senate proposal does not.

A recent academic study found that tort reform on the state level would probably help avert “local physician shortages,” and it also found no relationship between malpractice premiums and tort reform (in particular, damage caps) – but that doesn’t mean that tort reforms may not restrain exceedingly high premiums in some states, particularly those with very high premiums.

Throwing in their two cents, insurance companies stated in a letter addressed to Congress: “Every state has a comprehensive insurance code that governs the insurance industry, including subjecting the industry to antitrust enforcement.”

I think it's necessary to take this letter with a grain of salt. Why are the companies so intent on keeping tort reform from passing if there are already “comprehensive insurance codes?” Something's fishy here...

SOURCES:

Defensive Medicine and Disappearing Doctors

Bill Would End Antitrust Exemption for Insurance

Democrats want to revoke insurance's antitrust exemption in healthcare reform bill

Democrats Push to End Insurers' Antitrust Exemption

Focus on Health Reform

Insurer's Antitrust Exemption is Harmful

Dog The Bounty Hunter Approves of Public Health Care?

This was too good not to post. The Daily Show's John Oliver goes to Hawaii and uncovers the frightening truth behind public health care.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Apparent Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

GOP Agenda

My name is Roberto Soriano and I am a first year student from Occidental college and I am from Los Angeles. My political views are fairly liberal when compared to my parents ideals. Yet I have not been involved enough in any type of politics to have a strong enough political view. I hope that by the end of this semester I will have a firmer stance on my political views due to the amount of exposure to the subject that will come in the near future. So I will be posting my blogs on Fridays and getting as much information as possible.

Healthcare reform is a topic that seems to be one of the main dividers between the Democrats and the Republicans. I read in an online article posted by the New York Times, the GOP would like to simply make Health Insurance more available to the public and more affordable. This would not be able to cover the same amount of people as the Democratic proposal has suggested. A way that the Republican party is trying to compensate with this plan is to offer tax incentives to those who offer more health coverage and would give states incentives if they had a reduction of people without health insurance or premiums. The bill also mentions a change in states medical malpractice laws could possibly cut cost and slow growth premiums.

Although it seems that both parties seem to acknowledge that there is a problem with the current healthcare system, they each hold different ideas as to how to deal with the problem. Until the next time,
Roberto Soriano

Is Bipartisan an option when it comes to Healthcare?

My name is Becca Cooper and I'll be writing your Thursday blog posts. I'm born in raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a freshman at Occidental College. I will try to be as objective as possible, but its no secret that I tend to have a very liberal bias. As far as the controversy over health care is concerned, I know that I'm in favor of Health Care Reform. I really need to learn some more before I can make my ultimate decision, as far as which policies and amendments I like and which ones I'm not too fond of. Hopefully these weekly blog posts will help me find my stance and educate me more on the different Health Care Plan options.

Following the heated election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the State of the Union, and now our president's announcement that he will be holding a televised bipartisan summit on health care reform on February 25th, the results of a Health Care public opinion poll have been released. This Harris Interactive survey that was conducted online indicates that half of United States' adults want healthcare reform in the next two years. The controversy lies in the question of whether Obama's proposed democratic health care plan should be passed.

Overall, and specifically for Independents, the most important aspect of health care reform is now to control the out of pocket costs of healthcare and health insurance. The split between Republican and Democratic interest seems to lie in the concept that Democrats are more concerned with everyone having healthcare, while Republicans' top concern tends to be that taxes aren't increased to pay for it. Both core arguments seem to make sense to me, so it will be interesting to see where this current debate takes us.

The same survey also asked the participants which policies on the agenda were most important to them personally. The results showed that although healthcare is prevalent, reducing unemployment and creating new jobs, along with preventing terrorist attacks, are more pressing issues at the moment. If you take public opinion and pair it with Obama's State of the Union Address in which he stated that "jobs will be our number one priority," it seems that taking care of unemployment is currently a higher priority than healthcare.

For now it will be interesting to see how President Obama's televised summit goes, and what we can get accomplished as a nation. Is bipartisan an option? We'll see.

Until next Thursday,

Becca Cooper

Re: Bipartisanship's 2010 Debut

This poll from the Washington Post is an encouraging reminder that bipartisanship is still possible. 63% of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, believe that we should keep trying to work out a deal. While it may be an exceedingly difficult task to do so, it's nice to see that all hope hasn't been lost.

It's also a reminder to Democrats about the dangers of giving up.

Bipartisanship's 2010 Debut

My name is Jordan Faires, and I'm a first-year at Oxy who hails from the Seattle area. I am a liberal democrat who has been a believer in health care reform, especially with a public option.

In 2009, Barack Obama's efforts to win Republican support for health care reform went over about as well as Martha Coakley's recent efforts to win over Red Sox fans. That is to say: they didn't.

But that's not stopping him from trying again. According to recent reports, Obama is holding a televised bipartisan summit on health care reform on February 25th. The President has invited Republican Congressional leaders to bring their ideas to the table to discuss a compromise on the final bills. Could this idea for a televised discussion stem from Obama's successful speech at the Republican retreat, and the criticism he received for not televising debates on CSPAN? Probably.

Despite Obama's rhetorical advantages, how successful can this bipartisan effort be? We can look at it in two ways:

One)

Liberal Democrats have already cut so much from the bill to appease Republicans (and centrist Democrats such as Joe Lieberman) in the hopes of bipartisanship that they're not going to want to budge on more compromises. The Democrats (and Obama) have to pass something though if they don't want to lose substantial respect and credibility. This puts them in a sticky situation. How much more do they give up before they're able to pass at least a ghost of what the bill just was? The Republicans know that they can filibuster now. They're not going to budge unless they get what they want.

In the health care reform debate so far, bipartisanship has consisted of the Democrats retreating from their position to hopefully gain some kind of non-existent Republican support. The Republicans have been somewhat nihilistic (a charged word, I know) in their voting so far, and unless they can accept some compromise I honestly don't see how successful this new venture could be.

Two)

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic (disclosure: my favorite blog) had another good point about this bipartisan summit:

I think it shows that Obama is going to keep revealing just how centrist and sensible much of the Senate bill is, move away from ideological histrionics toward specifics and use this process as a way to call Republicans' bluff and Democratic purism in the House as well as explain to the public what is actually in the bill (hint: not socialism).
...
Politically, it seems to me that for independent voters, it's in the interests of the GOP to show they are not merely obstructionist and in the interests of the House Democrats that they are not mere purists.

Let's hope that it turns out this way. The bill is rational and reasonable, and hopefully this kind of transparent logic can bring about real change: an actual compromise.

Health Care for All Genders

Hello! My name is Nona Gronert; I am from Albuquerque, NM and will be the Tuesday blogger. I am currently a first-year at Occidental College. I am a liberal and a feminist; I support the public health care option without the Stupak/Pitts Amendment (in the House version of the bill; "Affordable Health Care for American Act" H.R. 3962) or the Nelson Compromise (in the Senate version of the bill; "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" H.R. 3590) (Health Insurance Reform & Women).

How Health Care can Discriminate Against Women:



While the above ad cannot be considered "objective," it does give a good summary of how women are mistreated by the health care industry through gender rating and classifying acts like rape and domestic violence as preexisting conditions. At A Woman is not a Pre-Existing Condition other videos easily summarize other discriminatory practices in private health insurance coverage.

Overall, the current health care reform proposals do treat the genders equally in health care coverage. However, as mentioned by Alexis, abortion coverage is the exception; it is severely limited in both of the bills.

For a very comprehensive overview of the current status of women's health care and the House and Senate health care reforms' affects on women go to: Health Insurance Reform and Women.

The bipartisan Health Care Summit is scheduled for February 25 (The Foundry).

Sources:
Health Insurance Reform and Women
Kaiser Family Side-by-Side Comparison of House and Senate bills (available at above source)
Reform Matters
A Woman is not a Pre-Existing Condition

Proposed Pre-Existing Condition Ban Doesn't Reach Far Enough

I'm Sean Smith and I'm going to be posting on Mondays. I am a freshman at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California, originally from Salt Lake City, Utah. I tend to fall in the conservative-leaning moderate section of the political spectrum. That being said, I have liberal opinions on some issues and conservative opinions on others, and I like to form my opinions based on the specific issue or candidate. On the issue of healthcare, I tend to favor stronger regulations on private health insurance companies rather than socialized medicine or a government option.

One of the biggest problems plaguing our healthcare system is the denial of coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. This practice creates a system where those who need coverage the most are oftentimes the people who don't have it. One of the new Democratic proposals in Congress would ban excluding anybody under nineteen years of age due to a pre-existing condition. The problem with this proposal is that it leaves everybody over nineteen out in the cold; it doesn't reach far enough.

According to an October 4, 2009 article on CNN's website, eight states and the District of Columbia still allow insurance companies to count domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, even though domestic violence isn't generally considered a health condition at all. This evil form of insurance company trickery is still routinely used to deny abused women the right to purchase health insurance. Women who had a pregnancy prior to coverage are also often excluded.

The exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions amounts to a modern day system of Jim Crow laws for sick people; a disgusting blight on American decency. It is time for morally upright people in all political parties to stand up and rectify this profound injustice.

Students struggle with health care too

My name is Alex Bogrand and I will be posting on Sundays. I am pretty moderate politically, having many differing liberal and conservative views depending on the topic, and as such will apply as little bias as possible in my posts. Today I want to write on students and health care. It seems there is an oft-overlooked section of the American populace that need their own healthcare reform. Up to 5 million college students (20 percent of college students) go without healthcare in America (most of them minorities and from middle income families) yet this fact does not receive the necessary attention it should warrant. This issue goes overlooked because of widespread notions that students are healthy, vibrant and well off, being young and involved in higher education. Furthermore, many college students are simply grouped by their age, in the “young adult” classification. Many are pushing for them to have their own classification, such as Jim Mitchell, the director of the student health services at Montana State University: “They are assuming college students and young adults are the same and they think the solutions they are coming up with for people under 30 will also work for college students,” Mitchell said in an interview, “They are a unique population and they need to be looked at as an individual group.” It is clear their situation is different; they or their families can often not afford health insurance because of school costs, they are more likely to injure themselves through sports or risky activities, and the healthcare they must then settle for through their school is often inadequate. Despite beliefs that the young are always healthy, “The reality is, accidents and illnesses do happen, even to young people,” said Denny Ebersole, an insurance broker in New Orleans and board member of the National Association of Health Underwriters (from the attached article). The mess of options presented to students is just as intimidating and confusing as those presented to any other person and they should be collectively recognized and given as much attention as everyone else in any sort of Healthcare reform. Being a student and having to deal with my own health care options I can say from personal experience that it is a muddled and frustrating process that needs attention and reform.

Here is an article describing the situation of student healthcare which also provides some helpful tips:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/health/02patient.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

Fast Facts About Healthcare

Hello readers! I’m Alexis Greco, a freshman at Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA. The team and I will be covering health care policy on this blog. I have a somewhat liberal bias. Personally, I was hoping for a public government healthcare option with a premium slightly higher than that of Medicaid’s to pass in Congress – my hopes have obviously been dashed as that proposal failed in the House! At the moment, it seems to me that the success of any healthcare bill in Congress is absolutely crucial to the health of the Democratic Party. Particularly with Mr. Brown’s election and the loss of a filibuster-proof majority, the ice seems to be getting thinner for the Democrats and President Obama’s image. I do feel that some sort of healthcare reform has to pass; healthcare is a patchwork system – unfortunately, one cannot realistically expect a comprehensive overhaul to come from Congress. Baby steps will need to be taken to reform health care. When looking at the hard facts, such as the rise in government health care spending and dip in health care efficacy, it is indisputable that health care needs to be reformed. It is vital to recognize that this bill may not reform all policies for the better; instead, it may simply change some for the worse.

At a very quick glance, there will be some sweeping reforms that will benefit the country as a whole:

1. Halt to the rise of health care spending, which has grown at alarming rates. Health care spending now eats up 16.2% of the USA’S GDP, in contrast to 13.7% of the GDP at the time of the last health care reform. Forbes
2. Up to 30 million people may be covered under the proposals (it’s important to mention that this will also create a new base of customers for insurance companies, depending on how many people choose to buy health care plans and how many choose to pay opt-out penalties.) NYT

And negatively:

1. The anti-trust exemption to private insurance companies was removed as a compromise between the parties and lobbyists.
2. Discrimination of lower-to-middle income citizens in abortion coverage. Both the House and Senate bills restrict these citizens' access to abortion coverage and government funding of the coverage itself, if retrieved. Regardless of one's views of abortion, this section of the bill blatantly targets lower-to-middle income citizens over higher-income citizens. NYT
3. Malpractice reform has not really been addressed in any proposed healthcare legislation.

This article from Breitbart, via the Drudge Report, describes President Obama's determination to pass some sort of healthcare bill through Congress.

Just some food for thought...