Over the past months I have sent several emails and called our Senators many times to express my opinion and solutions for health care reform. While I have been able to get timely responses, although the same form letter, from Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) the same cannot be said for Sen. Franken (D-MN). Our two Senators have been working hard to eliminate the tax proposed on medical device companies to which they have been able to lessen the rate of tax. Yesterday, I finally received an email from Sen. Franken on the topic of health care reform and here is what it said:
Dear Chris,
Thank you for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate you sharing your views on this issue of critical importance.
When I traveled around the state during the month of August, Minnesotans were asking three basic questions about health care. How are we going to bring down the costs of health insurance? What happens if one of my kids has a pre-existing condition, and I lose my job, or want to switch to a better job? If something bad happens to my family, are we going to have to sell the house or go bankrupt trying to pay off the medical bills? These are the questions I heard most, and they are all great questions. And now they are the ones that I'm focusing on in the Senate.
We must pass health reform this year because too many Minnesota families are burdened with high health care costs, and are afraid of losing the coverage they have. Premiums for Minnesota residents have risen 90 percent since 2000, and 444,000 Minnesotans went without health insurance in 2008. If we don't act now, Minnesota families will pay an average of 40 percent of their annual income in health care costs by 2016. This path is unsustainable.
If you or your spouse loses a job, hits a rough patch or falls sick, you should not need to worry about health insurance. And if you want to pursue a small business venture but are afraid to leave your current job, concerns about health insurance shouldn't stop you.
Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota. If we pass health reform, insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or charge more because of pre-existing conditions. There will be no annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Minnesotans without insurance would be able to buy a high-quality plan through the health insurance "Exchange," which works like a Travelocity for health insurance. For Minnesotans who are having trouble making ends meet, there will be subsidies to purchase Exchange plans, similar to the current MinnesotaCare program.
Every day that I'm here in Washington, I'm proud that Minnesota sets the standard for health care quality in this country. Health systems like the Mayo Clinic provide coordinated, patient-centered care that the rest of the nation can look to for leadership. Minnesota's not-for-profit health insurance companies also create a unique environment which puts patients before profits. Minnesota's commitment to health care quality is commendable, but I know we can still do better.
As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I recently introduced a bill with the Minnesota model in mind that requires insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of health insurance premiums on health services, not wasteful administrative costs and profits. I've also introduced S. 2734, the Diabetes Prevention Act, which is bipartisan legislation to help the 57 million Americans with pre-diabetes to make healthy lifestyle choices and prevent diabetes from developing. This will save lives and money, in Minnesota and across the country.
In the coming weeks, I'll be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move sensible health reform legislation that will benefit Minnesotans by bringing much needed quality, affordability, and security to our health care system. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind throughout this process.
Thank you again for contacting me, and please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Al Franken
United States Senator
I agree with Sen. Franken that pre-existing conditions ought not to be something that insurance companies disqualify people for and agree that premium hikes are on an "unsustainable" path. Where I differ with Sen. Franken is the importance of passing reform before the end of the year. Now, if the reform before Congress actually did reform the industry I would support a push to pass health care reform prior to year end. A question I sent to Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar, both via email and by phone, was this: While we all acknowledge that premiums, affordability, and cost are all factors that are pushing reform for the health care industry, why then will the United States government take the next four years collecting taxes before implementing reform?
Sen. Franken said, "Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota" in his letter above but what the Senator fails to say is that it will not bring "real change" until four years after it is signed. Why is this? If health care reform is drastically required, why then delay the implementation? Just as I struggle with the notion that a public option will increase competition to the point that will reduce premiums and save costs, I struggle with the notion that we will be taxed for four years before implementation of reform. Plus, reform that is being debated is nothing but a band aid. President Obama ran on the stance that the debate on health care would be transparent, yet groups like PHARMA and AARP have met privately with Obama to cut deals. President Obama has brought the Democrat Caucus to the White House for private conversations. Where is the transparency?
Do our elected officials believe that American's are naïve to believe that if reform is passed and not implemented for four years after that that health care insurance company will not use that time to get all they can? For those readers that live in Minnesota take a moment to send a message to our Senators: http://www.healthreformscam.com/fax-minnesota-senators/ .
Now, Sen. Reid plans to have around the clock debate in hopes to pass a bill out of the Senate, how is debate at 1 am open and transparent to the American public?
Al Franken is, I believe, the very type of person the Founding Fathers had in mind as the ideal public servant when they initiated this bold experiment in democratic self-government two-hundred and thirty-three years ago this Saturday: a concerned citizen who would put aside his plowshares (or in Al's case, his Stuart Smalley costume) and head off to the nation's capital to legislate for the people. The thing that has always struck me when reading his books (and I've read them all) is his almost schoolboy-like attachment to - and belief in - all that is good in this country and its potential to do better.
ReplyDeleteAt the conclusion of his 2005 book, The Truth (with jokes), Al wrote a letter dated October 2, 2015 to his three, yet-to-be-born grandchildren:
"Both my parents worked hard and had to overcome adversity in their lives. Like almost everyone does. My Mom developed rheumatoid arthritis at an early age and was in constant pain most of her life. She was married on crutches. Still, she told us, "It's a great life if you don't weaken." And she didn't. After my brother and I were old enough, she became a real estate agent. At dinner, she made sure we had meat and always - ALWAYS - a fresh vegetable. At the table she would tell us about business and things like "redlining." Banks wouldn't lend money to black people who wanted to buy houses in certain neighborhoods. She told us this was wrong. And that's why your Granddad works so hard [in the Senate] to make sure that banks continue lending money to the poor, to minorities and to women, not just to buy homes, but to start businesses."
Now that's what I call real moral values. That's the kind of person I wouldn't mind representing me in the Senate (Nothing personal, Chuck). By the way, in that same letter he predicted, not only his own career in politics, but also the two-term presidency of Barack Obama. This was a year-and-a-half before Obama even announced his candidacy. How's that for prescience? Not bad, Al! Not bad!
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
What is an acceptable timeframe to you? Does 4 years seem like a lot to me, yes. Is this something that can be done in two months, no. Is this a long implementation compared to other inititives?
ReplyDeleteAnon..If we’re going to pass reform that is needed then let's pass reform that has at the minimum some immediate benefits. The bill before the Senate mandates you and I get insurance ASAP or face fines and imprisonment. I understand getting all the beuacracy in place takes time which is why I still contend my original 8 point plan works better and faster.
ReplyDeleteAn acceptable time frame would be within six months. At the same time, do not impose taxes on me or businesses until the program is fully implemented. I heard a great analogy on the Hannity radio program. I paraphrase though.
If you buy a house and the mortgage company says, "Thank you for your purchase. We will meet again in 4 years to give you the keys to your new home but in the meantime you will be required to make mortgage payments." Would you stand for that? If not, then why would you stand for the reform being discussed right now?
Once again your attempt at an analogy fails. Comparing the purchase of a house to the most comprehensive and transformative piece of legislation in the history of health care if not the entire U.S. is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but an individual buying a house is a bit easier than overhauling the entire health care system of the U.S. (see your rant re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly believe that the implementation of this health care legislation is something to just jump into headlong and cram through in six months? Why would President Obama and his colleagues in the Senate want to "delay" implementation of this bill? If there is anyone who would want the benefits of the bill to be seen as quickly as possible it would be those who have staked their careers on it.
And regarding your claim of "imprisonment" for failing to get insurance? Check with the nice people at PolitiFact for the truth:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/sep/29/jail-time-health-insurance-violators/
How can you be required to get insurance immediately but it won't be implemented for 4 years? What is your source for both statements? it's impossible to delay and require immediate action.
ReplyDeleteAnon...I attempt to be respectful when responding to comments but your inability to see an analogy as it is boggles my mind. My analogy is not about the ease of obtaining a mortgage vs. the ease of overhauling the health care system; rather it has to do with implementation and taxation. My analogy is dead on and failure to realize that displays your naive and/or head stuck in the sand approach for seeing what is going on with the Health Care Reform bills.
ReplyDeleteThe delay in implementation is simple. President Obama has cut deals with PHARMA, AMA, and AARP to allow them to increase their short-term profits. Do you honestly believe that insurance companies, drug companies, medical device companies, hospitals, and clinics are not going to raise the price for their services while they can before the boom is lowered? Please. That is exactly what these bills before Congress allows and it was the backroom deals by President Obama that allows it to happen.
Your fact check cracks me up too. In response to "Could someone really end up in prison for lack of health insurance?" The answer the site offers is, "The answer is: Not very likely." Please explain to me on how this translates to No?!?!
Both version of the bill start taxes 3 weeks after passage and neither implements the public option or exchange for another 4 years. In the meantime it is status quo except we pay taxes and are required to obtain insurance or face fines and possible imprisionment.
ReplyDeleteThe implementation is the Health Board, the exchange, the public option and more government oversight..it does not delay the mandate of insurance on individuals and businesses nor does it curb rising premiums. It will save some costs because it will remove Medicare Advantage. At the end of the day, the bill does not reform the system. Just imposes more government will on the people and taxation.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that your analogies are "dead on". I do not believe that they are. If your analogy was about implementation versus taxation, then I'll posit an analogy that is perhaps a bit more "dead on" than your own: road construction; specifically, the crosstown intersection of 35W and 62. I'm fairly certain that you and I have been paying taxes for this project for years yet it will not be fully "implemented" until the end of 2010 or early 2011.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact check? It was not an attempt to say that imprisonment is impossible for failing to obtain health insurance; it was merely an effort to combat the scare tactic and fear mongering that so pervades the rumors about health care reform.
By the way, it's naivete.
So, providing insurance to 30 million people who are uninsured and eliminating the ability of insurance companies to refuse coverage of preexisting conditions isn't reform to you? I'm curious what you call it.
ReplyDeleteThe last CBO stated that not 30M will get coverage but I have not seen the new CBO since Sen. Reid made his changes. I do agree that pre-existing is reform but they can do that without the rest of the government taxation in the bill. Refer back to my 8 points of ways to enacted reform without increasing taxes or violating the Commerce Clause..these are not scare tactics rather the truth..
ReplyDeleteAs for the example regards to infrastruture, I do not see how it is applicable in regards to our Highway fund is established for the maintenance of infrastructure and is different than reform of infrastructure as is taking place in health care.
ReplyDeleteJust curious how this bill violates the Commerce Clause?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the CBO 30 million will be covered under the revised bill and they are projecting deficit reductions, especially in the second decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900797.html?hpid=topnews
See link for argument on the Commerce Clause:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm
I like the fact that one of you used a Washington Post article to back up their argument. Washington Post being one of the more progressive newspapers in the country.
ReplyDeleteViper uses the Heritage Foundation. Easily one of the most historically conservative foundations in the country.
This blog is just turning into another version of the Fox News Channel.
So, instead of refuting the claim against the Commerce Clause you sling mud into the conversation. The Heritage Foundation is not the only one. Several liberal pundits agree, i.e. Dillian Ratigan on MSNBC. Even those in the judical branch have raised concern over the Commerce Clause.
ReplyDeleteRe-read teh Commerce Clause and then come back to understand the unconstitutional aspect of a mandate on health insurance. Or offer up a support on how the indiviudal mandate does not violate the Commerce Clause.
You really think I'm slinging mud? Are you that offended that you are taking a more conservative position on this argument?
ReplyDeleteDid you know that the insurance companies wanted to work with Obama and the congress if the mandate on health insurance was in there. It was dropped from one of the plans and the insurance companies started to oppose everything. So, what did it surmount to? Insurance companies didn't get their way so they cry foul.
I know that you are not a big fan of the Democrats in Congress or Obama, and their policies. However, if you believe just a few non-enforcable regulations on a several billion dollar industry is going to do the trick, I would say you are delusional.
Truth be told, healthcare delivery in this country is a mess. I really don't think that those who oppose reform are really that knowledgeable about what kind of abuses are taking place. I know you disagree, but a single payer system is really the only way towards reform.
My slinging mud reference is to your calling this blog an extension of Fox News because of some of the sources used. I take no offense to your position or reference to mine on the topic; rather the grouping of the blog in with Fox News. I will use references that are truthful regardless.
ReplyDeleteIts not that whether I am a fan of Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, conservatives, or Obama. I am not a fan of policies that remove/restrict our freedoms, liberties, and intrude into our daily lives. I agree with you that enforcement of regulations are required in order to achieve reform.
What is before Congress goes to far to restrict our freedoms. The Commerce Clause explicitly states that the Federal Government cannot legislate that Americans must purchase a particular product. There are some good in the bills - elimination of pre-existing conditions.
I agree that health care costs are out of control but the bill does little to reverse it. I do not believe that a single payer system is the answer. If we were to remove the anti-trust exemption, open up state borders, and phase out Medicare in favor for Medcial Assistance Savings accounts - which would be taken out ones check much like Medicare is now - then we'd see reform correct itself within the free market. Plus, the Government can stay with oversight to ensure that insurance companies comply with anti-trust, pre-existing conditions, no limits on benefits, etc...
Contrary to your assertion above, the Commerce Clause does not explicitly state "that the Federal Government cannot legislate that Americans must purchase a particular product." The Commerce Clause states that the Congress shall have the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” If you choose to invoke the Constitution or inform people of what it "explicitly states", please be accurate and present facts. I would love to be able to boil down the commerce clause into a few sentences or paragraphs, but that is impossible to do. It is necessary, and I would suggest this to you and all readers, to take the time to read some of the seminal commerce clause cases. Cornell University has put together a great website on the Commerce Clause and all things related to the Supreme Court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_commerce_clause.html. Only after reading these cases can you have a better understanding of the Commerce Clause and its implications.
ReplyDeleteWill take a look. I believe I posted a research paper done by the Heritage Foundation that explained how an individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause. If not, I can repost.
ReplyDeleteBut you are correct that the Commerce Clause does not explicity call out against such mandate but it is interpretted to mean so.
Don't take this the wrong way, but if it doesn't say explicitly, what did you say so? It goes to credability. Also, unless there has been a Supreme Court ruling on it, which there hasn't, the individual mandate has not been interpretted to be unconstitutional. The Heritage Foundations opinion might be that it is UC, but others will disagree and I would bet that the administration has lawyers that would argue it's not.
ReplyDeleteJust a bit of constructive criticism, I think you could/need to do a better job of distinguishing facts from your opinions.