Blog For Arizona

AZ House Dems vote for health care bill

by David Safier

Thanks and congratulations are due to our AZ Democratic delegation to the U.S. House. All of them voted Yes on the health care bill -- Raul Grijalva, Gabriel Giffords, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell and Ed Pastor.

Keep up the good work (he said hopefully).

Giffords op ed supports House health care bill

by David Safier

Kudos to Giffords for taking such a public stand saying she plans to vote for the House health care bill Saturday. She could try and do it quietly. Instead, she's making the case for her vote in today's Star.

I have to admit, I don't know all the details of the House bill, so I'm not going to analyze Giffords' comments about the specifics of the legislation. But I do know enough to say that I support this kind of language:

It was 45 years ago that Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 — a historic measure that for the first time outlawed all racial segregation in schools, public places and employment. We are poised to make another historic decision that for the first time would guarantee access to health care for all Americans.

[snip]

Since elected to Congress in 2006, I have voted on thousands of bills. Most have been easy, some have been hard. Providing affordable, quality health care to all American citizens without adding a dime to the deficit will be one of the most historic actions Congress has taken.

Like the Civil Rights Act of a generation ago, the Affordable Health Care for America Act has ignited passionate debate in Arizona and across the country. It is a debate worth having. But like the debate of 45 years ago, I believe this will be a defining moment of equality in America.

I wrote in an earlier post about the upcoming 2010 campaigns, Democrats need to stand for something. They need to define themselves, or their opponents will do it for them. Giffords is presenting us with a good example. She's making a strong public statement of principle. She'll certainly get flak for it, but she's defining herself and setting the terms of the argument. Even those who disagree will have to admit, she's showing that she has a backbone.

The latest from Giffords

by David Safier

This is from an email reply Giffords sent after I called her office supporting the public option.

I support reform that creates competition through a strong public option that lowers everyone's costs and competes with private insurers.  I also support malpractice tort reform, and I will not vote for a bill that is not deficit neutral.  You may be pleased to know that H.R. 3200 is 100 percent paid for through a combination of cost saving measures within the health sector and a new surcharge on the very wealthiest Americans.  Finally, I do not support a "government take-over" of health care or "socialized medicine." 

I can accept that, even though I'm not sure I'd agree on every detail.

You can call Giffords' Tucson office: 881-3588. Call even if you called before. It only takes a minute.

Rep. Giffords, please stand firm on the public option

by David Safier

My last post about Giffords and health care reform was very positive. She came out clearly for a strong public option and held firm in front of a hostile crowd at the town hall I attended.

The rubber is about to meet the road on health care legislation, and I hope she'll stay true to her convictions. These are the times that try legislators' souls. They're also the times that test their mettle.

Ad: Local doctors support health care reform

by David Safier

More than 40 doctors signed an ad that appeared in this morning's Star supporting health care reform. Here is a copy of the complete ad.

This is how it begins:

One in 5 Tucsonans and one in 4 Phoenicians have no healthcare insurance. That is 108,000 and 381,000 people left vulnerable to catastrophe, in just our two largest cities. Our country spends twice as much as other nations that cover all their citizens and yet we leave millions without coverage.

Those with private healthcare insurance find that when a serious health event occurs, coverage is far from complete. The leading cause of bankruptcy is due to medical expenses, and 3/4 of these bankruptcies occurred with citizens who had insurance. We have all heard these tragic stories.

Here is the major reason why we do not have healthcare coverage for all our citizens, as other nations do.

Growth of the number of Physicians compared to Health Insurance Company Administrators, 1970-2007.

This costly army of clerks and administrators is there to find reasons to deny care, not to facilitate it. The overhead average for private insurance plans is 12-15%; for Medicare, it is 3%. The current proposals will only expand the use of this wasteful and costly system and further raise premiums to even more unaffordable levels. It would force citizens to buy these plans or pay a penalty. 

The best solution to providing healthcare for all Americans is to improve and expand Medicare and make it available to all citizens.

Before the doctors are listed, the ad asks readers to take action:

Please contact Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at 881-3588, Rep. Raul Grijalva at 622-6788, Senator John McCain at 670-6334 and Sen. Jon Kyl at 575-8633 and strongly urge that they support Medicare for all legislation. If they do not, have them explain to you why they do not.

See the complete ad.

Presented without comment

by David Safier

From the Arizona Guardian (subscription only):

Health care and child care facilities will have to pay thousands more to be licensed in Arizona under new fee schedules released Tuesday that are intended to make businesses shoulder the regulatory cost.

The largest child care centers will see their licensing fees increase 90 times over, while small behavioral health group homes will pay quadruple their current costs.

Across the board, the facilities that care for Arizona’s youngest, oldest and most infirm will over the next three months go from paying some of the lowest regulatory costs in the Western region to the highest. Advocates say that's likely to increase the supply of unregulated care and raise costs as the fee increases are passed on to families.

Officials with the state Department of Health Services say the fees, which take effect Jan. 1, are necessary to recoup budget cuts under a new funding scheme approved last month by Gov. Jan Brewer and GOP legislators.

The fiscal 2010 spending plan strips about half of the licensing division’s $9 million budget and gives DHS  the authority to make up the rest by hiking regulatory fees.

(If this is old news, sorry. I was out of town. It's news to me.)

Grijalva writes about health care in The Hill

by David Safier

Grijalva continues his heavy lifting on health care reform with a long op ed in The Hill: Public option — accept nothing less. 

Some highlights.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) recently released his version of healthcare reform. 

However, his bill fails to meet the most basic principles of healthcare reform. The legislation presented is nothing more than a giveaway to the insurance companies. It is telling that even with the concessions made to the bill, no member of the Senate, including the “Gang of Six,” stood with him in support.

The Baucus bill is all about the insurance industry’s bottom line: no teeth in enforcements and regulations, endless patent hoarding for the pharmaceutical industry and laws that rein in citizens to pay these industries the largest transfer of wealth in history.

[snip]

Republicans are not going to support any healthcare bill we put forth. It is time for Democrats to start talking honestly among themselves about what is best for the American people, not offering watered down bills to appease Republicans and the insurance company executives who have them in their pockets.

[snip]

We in the majority must have the courage to do what is in our power to do, and pass a bill that guarantees access to affordable, quality healthcare.

The public option will serve as this guarantee. It will be one entity, operated by the government, which will set policies and bear the risks for paying medical clams to keep costs low and quality high. The public option will be modeled after successful public programs, like Medicare, and provide the transparency and consumer protections that are lacking in the private insurance industry today. My progressive colleagues and I envision an option that is available to all individuals and employers, without limitations. We do not need a “trigger” to let us know if healthcare is unaffordable. The 47 million uninsured Americans are proof of our healthcare system’s failure.

The public option is absolutely critical to control costs and act as a check on private insurance companies because no anti-trust regulations are applicable to private insurers. Real competition is currently stymied by large national insurance companies buying up smaller firms and creating a monopoly. In some states, a single company may control over 83 percent of the insurance market.  Lower premiums are out of reach for millions of Americans because of the lack of competition.

The public option that so many of my Progressive colleagues and I support will end the insurance companies’ monopoly and control over our individual health. The public option is one of the choices that individuals will have as consumers of health insurance. The era of insurance companies dictating who receives care and what care they receive will be over.

Standing by and praying the insurance companies will develop a conscience can be no more. If we are to ensure that all Americans receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high quality, we must include a public option. I will continue to be vigilant on ensuring that the final legislation contains a strong public option that prioritizes people, not corporations.

GIFFORDS UPDATE: So far as I know, Giffords is standing firm for a strong public option. Let's hope she can help lead the way to bring others in the Blue Dog flock into the fold (a mixed animal metaphor if I've ever written one. She's a Blue Dog sheep herding other Blue Dogs? What the hell, it stays in). I am ready and more than willing to be justly proud of our two Southern Arizona Democratic Reps on the health care issue.

Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Jon Kyl

by David Safier

Jon Kyl makes it absolutely clear, he doesn't have a uterus and he's not going to worry about health care for people who do.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to think anymore."

by David Safier
Out of the pens of cartoonists. Two of the most astute, our own local treasure, Fitz, and the inimitable Gary Trudeau.

In case you missed this

by David Safier
Will Ferrell and friends put together a Public Service Announcement, "Protect Insurance Companies." Because they're the real victims here. Worth a watch.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

"You can give me some money for migraine research."

by David Safier
Cindy McCain is a migraine sufferer. I believe her episodes are incredibly painful, even crippling at times. I wish there were some medical treatment that would bring relief to migraine suffers, whoever they are, wherever they may be. I say that even though I don't suffer from them, and neither do any of my close relations. I just don't like people to be in pain if it's preventable.

Recently, Cindy has turned into a crusader for government funded migraine research. I don't remember her campaigning for medical research to alleviate other painful or life threatening diseases, nor do I remember her advocating for government spending on other make-things-better-for-people issues. But this is her pain, so she, in the best conservative fashion, understands it and wants someone to make it stop.

Here's a quote from Cindy in a New Yorker piece.

“For the first time in my life, I’m going to go to Congress, and I’m going to be tenacious and be forceful and be honest and tell them that it’s time. If you can give five million dollars to study flatulence in cows and its effects on the ozone layer, you can give me some money for migraine research.”

Give me some money. She ridicules money spent to prevent environmental damage by using the joke line, "flatulence in cows," to make it sound like the money for me is far more important. Who cares about cow farts? She doesn't even bother to couch her personal desire for relief in a more general "for migraine sufferers everywhere." I hurt, therefore I care. If you hurt, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not the kind of person who wishes bad things on people. But part of me thinks, if some dire problem caused by our broken health care system happened to every Republican in Congress or to a close family member, maybe they would pass health care reform legislation "for me." Because they're sure as hell not going to help pass it out of concern for others.

Grijalva blasts Baucus bill, restates commitment to public option

by David Safier

Here's a statement Grijalva released today about the Baucus health care reform bill.

“Today, the Senate Finance Health Care Reform bill was released by Senator Max Baucus.

“It is telling that Senator Baucus stood alone at today’s press conference. There was no “Gang of Six,” including the absence of Senator Snowe and no Democrats. Even with huge concessions to the legislation, including no public option, it not so shockingly, has not garnered any visible support.
 
 “Now that we've seen that Senate Republicans are not going to support any bill, no matter how weak, it is time to start earnest negotiations among Democrats for what is best for America, not what is best for people’s personal politics.

 “This bill fails to meet the basic principle of health care reform; that all Americans will have good, affordable health care. It would give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans without having to face competition from a public health insurer.

“Under the Baucus bill, employers would have no responsibility to help pay for their workers coverage and would be given incentives to have workers pay more for barebones insurance. This “free rider” provision would divide workers into two classes, “the have and have-nots”. This effectively could discourage employers from hiring those who comes from low-income families.  And those who don’t get health benefits through work would still not be able to afford any coverage at all.
 
 “As I have said in the past, a strong public option is the most effective way to achieve our goals of controlling costs, eliminating abuses of patients by insurance company abuses, and providing quality health care to all.
 
“I urge the Senators on the Finance Committee to replace the Baucus plan with legislation that will guarantee that quality, affordable health care that includes a strong public option. Anything less is unacceptable.”

We're number 37

by David Safier
Eat your heart out, Bruce!

Cindy McCain: compassionate (about migraines) conservative

by David Safier
How typically conservative is this?

Cindy McCain, wife of U.S. Senator John McCain, today announced she would work to raise awareness of migraine among the public and health professionals and pledged to take her message to leaders in Washington to increase funding for research into migraines, a condition that affects some 36 million Americans.

How is that typically conservative, you might ask? Here's the answer.

Mrs. McCain recently revealed publicly that she has suffered severe migraine attacks for the last 15 years.

Bill Clinton famously said, "I feel your pain." It's a typically bleeding-heart-liberal statement. Cindy just said, "I feel my own pain, so I want all of you to spend time and government money to make my pain go away. Your pain? Eh, not so important." A typically conservative sentiment.

I shouldn't be too harsh, though. Conservatives also feel the pain of their spouses, children and close relatives.

Joe Conason gives examples. Nancy Reagan got religion about stem cell research when she saw her husband slipping ever deeper into his Alzheimer's disease. When she was first lady? Didn't seem so important then. New Mexico's Pete Domenici became a mental health care advocate when his daughter showed increasing signs of schizophrenia. He worked for mental-health insurance parity. Pete wasn't known as a crusader for health care reform, but when tragedy struck his family, this issue became the exception. It required government regulation.

Imagine if, during the presidential campaign, a Democrat had said, I understand what John McCain suffered as a prisoner of war, because I've been sick a lot. Republicans would have said a firing squad is too kind a punishment for the unpatriotic traitor. Only torture would do.

Here's what Cindy said recently in an interview with People magazine:

[Cindy] says one of her first challenges was finding the words to describe how painful the headaches can be. When she first told her husband, a former POW during the Vietnam War, she used a word she knew he would understand.

"Torture," she says. "Being tied to a chair for four days. I can't imagine how unbearable that pain must have been, but yeah, I can, because a migraine may come close."

Conason suggested, the only way to get Republicans in Congress to support health care reform is to make it personal. Maybe if we cut off their health care and members of their families have preexisting conditions that make them uninsurable, that would do the trick. Sounds cruel, I know, but it might make a light go on in their thick, selfish skulls.

Star coverage of Obama health care speech worst in state

by David Safier
I read the Star this morning, then I looked at the AZ Republic and East Valley Trib's websites. The only one that has a seriously slanted anti-Obama coverage of last night's health care speech is the Star.

Star, front page, above-the-fold story: "Case for health care tests leadership." It's from the NY Times, and the Star must have an agreement with the Times that it can't put articles on its website. You can read it here.

It's analysis, not reporting. The thrust of the article is, Obama was using the speech as much to jump-start his slipping presidency as to push health care, so he doesn't become Jimmy Carter. It has scarce little information about the speech itself.

Nothing wrong with the analysis as such, though I think it's got a somewhat anti-Obama slant, but if I didn't see the speech and I read this, I would have only gotten a picture of a slipping president trying to get his mojo back.

The other article, inside, is Health-care overhaul: What Obama said, what facts bear out from AP. It's one of those fact checker articles. The conclusion: Obama pretty much fudged the facts.

To recap the Star coverage: Obama is a desperate president trying to claw his way back up by misstating facts in a speech to Congress.

Now the Republic. The front page article is, Obama to Congress: 'Time for bickering is over'. It's AP's overview of the event that goes over the speech and reactions to it. Other articles listed on the website (I haven't seen the paper itself) are Analysis: Obama gambles on making nice, no vetoes and Lawmakers denounce 'You lie' outburst at Obama. The editorial is Eloquent Obama makes partisan call for reform.

And the Trib. Obama: No more 'bickering' on health care, the same AP overview as the Republic with a slightly different headline, Obama tries to build up steam for health plan and FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge, the same AP fact checker in the Star.

More-or-less balanced coverage from the Republic and the Trib, both anchored by a piece of reporting about the speech. Jaundiced analysis of Obama and selective fact checking from the Star.

What he said too?

by David Safier
Joe Scarborough -- yes, the conservative Morning Joe guy -- sounds a little fed up with his own party, based on a string of twitter feeds.

[Truth in advertising: I don't know Twitter from a hole in the wall. I believe these are Scarborough's tweets. If I'm wrong, someone a bit more tweet-savvy (is it possible to use the word "tweet" and not sound silly?), please straighten me out.]

Indoctrination of socialism? The president as a racist? Death panels? Seriously? That's all you've got? If so, it's time for you to go home
3:41 PM Sep 3rd from web

WHERE ARE THE NATIONAL GOP LEADERS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS KIND OF HYSTERIA?
3:38 PM Sep 3rd from web

GOP leaders in my home state are accusing the POTUS of trying to "indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda." Seriously?
3:38 PM Sep 3rd from web

Dear GOP, argue the issues and avoid the insults...or just shut up. Enough with the conspiracy theories. Shouldn't our beliefs be enough?
3:35 PM Sep 3rd from web

Please say it's so, Joe!

What he said, Sunday edition, part 2

by David Safier
Bill Moyer is pretty disgusted with the level of dialogue in the country right now -- emphasis on right.

If you prefer, you can read the transcript here.

What she said, Sunday edition

by David Safier
Sarah Garrecht Gassen of the Star wrote laid it all out in a terrific op ed, combining her personal battles to get adequate coverage from her health care insurance with her wealth of information and skills as an essayist. It's a must read.

I know what it's like to be powerless. And I am tired of making reasoned, thoughtful arguments for health-insurance reform that fail to trump hysteria and lies perpetrated by the other side, which is fighting to maintain the status quo.

I am angry that politicians and lobbyists are fighting so hard for the right to deny me — and millions of people like me — health care. It is tragic that millions of people are without health insurance and it's not considered a national scandal.

It is a national embarrassment that politicians, blowhards and lobbyists can lie, twist reality and make up claims that no rational person would believe with impunity — and that millions buy into this load of garbage without a second thought. What needs to be a rational debate about a major policy question facing our nation has devolved into shouting matches where facts are feared and obedience to ideology reigns.

Follow the link to read the whole column, including her own story of trying to get a new prosthetic leg to replace hers that was so worn out, "I was falling down in the middle of busy streets and each step felt like wearing a way-too-small right shoe on the left foot. I almost couldn't walk."

And if you have more time, read the op ed by Doctor/Representative Matt Heinz, an illuminating discussion of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), which he says is one of the best of its kind in the nation and a possible model for national health care legislation.

What he said, part 2

by David Safier
Different "he" this time -- John Harwood -- same feeling. You can't say it much better than this.

Be sure to make it all the way to the end. It's only 37 seconds.

Arizona's Own Death Panels

by Michael Bryan

You would think that the idea of condemning people to death by withholding medical treatment would be pretty abhorrent to just about everyone. That is certainly what conservatives are banking on with their invocation of mythical 'death panels' that was supposedly a feature of the health reform legislation before Congress.

You would think, then, that they would be rather sensitive of anything that smacks of euthanasia here at home. You would be wrong. Here in Arizona it is perfectly legal to let a person who cannot care for himself die by withholding medical care - as long as you pray for them to be miraculously healed.

Many states have statutes that make it a crime to allow a vulnerable adult or child to come to harm through neglect, including withholding needed medical care. A vulnerable adult is mentally or physically impaired person who cannot protect himself from neglect, abuse, or exploitation, such as a person who is gravely ill. Here in Arizona that statute is the Child and Vulnerable Adult Abuse Act.

However, there are some exceptions to criminal liability for allowing harm to come to vulnerable adults. One is, sensibly, medical providers who are withholding care pursuant to the patient's own refusal or an advance health care directive.

The second is quite extraordinary:

"E. This section does not apply to:

...

2. A vulnerable adult who is being furnished spiritual treatment through prayer alone and who would not otherwise be considered to be abused, neglected or endangered if medical treatment were being furnished."

So, in Arizona, you can withhold needed medical care that would save a person's life, even if they don't consent, so long as you pray for them.

Maybe health insurance companies should set up prayer groups to pray for the recovery of the folks they deny treatment through pre-existing rulings and rescission of their policies. We could call those prayer groups 'death panels' with a straight face.

To me, this exception is outrageous. Are Christian Scientists such a powerful lobby in Arizona that their wacky beliefs about medicine merit an exception in our criminal code? Note that this exception doesn't apply to children, just vulnerable adults. It's not OK to let your children die by denying them medical care, but grandma is fair game, apparently. Or were Arizona's conservatives looking ahead to day when insurance companies needed a cheap way to get away with the moral equivalent of murder?

"Yeah, we denied that life-saving procedure and the patient died, but we prayed for him to get better!"

I wonder how many conservatives will jump to the defense of Arizona's own 'death panels' of the prayerful in the comments?