|
|
By TWAY Kris
I found some interesting data today that backed up a suspicion I had, and I thought I would take the opportunity to share it. The suspicion came from some of my progressive friends who have been arguing that Congressman (and gubernatorial candidate) Artur Davis is somehow abandoning the needs of poor people in his district by promising to once again vote against healthcare reform.
Let me preface by saying, I am 100% in favor of passing the healthcare legislation that the President is recommending, which runs closer to the bill that passed the Senate than the one that passed the House, but eliminating some of the “giveaways” the Senate included. And there are many, many important provisions of the legislation that have nothing to do with getting more people insured. However, the idea that Rep. Davis’s district somehow needs this legislation more than other parts of the country because he represents so many poor people is a bit misguided. Why?
Poor people have insurance! It’s called Medicaid. It isn’t perfect, but it’s not the poor that are losing out the most in the system that we have, that honor belongs to the almost poor and those who have pre-existing conditions, amongst other groups. The U.S. Census Bureau offered the data I was interested in to try and back this up. No doubt, there are many Americans who don’t have insurance, and many of them are poor. The map below shows the percentage of people who are under age 65, below 200% of poverty and uninsured by county:
In case you need it, here is a map of the congressional districts of Alabama to overlay in your mind:
Notice that the LOWEST percentage of poor uninsured Alabamians are in the counties of the 7th congressional district (Clarke, Choctaw, Wilcox, Dallas, Perry, Hale, Greene, Sumter, Tuscaloosa, Perkins and Jefferson). And which counties have the highest percentage of poor people without insurance? Baldwin, Shelby and Lee counties…extremely interesting to my eyes. What could explain why poor people who live in three of the richest counties in the state don’t get the same level of insurance as people in other parts of the state? I honestly don’t have any idea, but it surprised me and would be interesting to explore further.
I’m not saying this is the final word on what is best for the 7th congressional district, but when you combine these facts with the fact that Rep. Davis continues to maintain that the vast majority of people who contact his office are opposed to the legislation, some of the criticism I see of the congressman’s position are not based in reality. I don’t maintain that people don’t have the right to criticize or that reasonable people can differ on how the congressman should vote, but I do maintain you should have some facts to back up your assertions.
Your thoughts are appreciated below.
By TWAY Kris
As noted already by Politico (first in a blog, then a full-blown article) and Left in Alabama, candidate for Alabama governor, Rep. Artur Davis released a statement today blasting his primary opponent and advocating taking a step back from healthcare reform to focus on jobs,
Leadership is about building broad support for results. By that definition, it is increasingly obvious that the political process in Washington has failed to lead on health care reform, and that Americans in every corner of the country want a different approach.
It is clear that Alabamians share the same deep concerns. They believe, as I do, that we need to get on with the essential task of revitalizing this economy and getting Americans and Alabamians back to work. They also agree that instead of trying to do too much, Congress should return to a simple focus: helping individuals and businesses afford the cost of insurance and stopping insurance companies from discriminating against sick people.
Ron Sparks, who supports the flawed health care legislation in Washington, should realize that he is not only out of touch with the state he wants to lead, Ron Sparks would even be out of touch in Massachusetts.
To put Sparks’ position in perspective – he supports new mandates and taxes on businesses during the toughest business climate in a generation; he supports raising income taxes and Medicare taxes while the costs of insurance would still keep rising; and he apparently has no problem with a process that has been corrupted with secret deals that favor some states and make the rest of us pay for their special treatment.
Whatever else you say about Congressman Davis, you cannot say he is afraid to lead. The question still remains whether there will be enough people willing to follow. He’s saying the things many Alabamians want to hear, but not necessarily a majority of those in a Democratic primary. I am extremely interested in how this rhetoric is playing with the electorate, or if they’re even listening at all.
There was also an article today describing comments Rep. Davis made to the District Attorneys Association on Wednesday regarding gambling,
“Gaming, bingo, the degree to which we allow, don’t allow gambling, you recognize that we need practical approaches to those issues,” Davis told the group. Davis said the choice really is not whether the state is going to allow gambling or not, because the Poarch Creeks for years have had gaming operations over which the state has no control.
“The real question is, what are the rules of the road going to be? How do we regulate the gaming we have?” Davis said.
The key words in that quote are “practical approaches”…it’s a phrase you will hear over and over again from Rep. Davis and it’s one of the reasons his message resonates with many Alabamians. You can have all the high-minded ideals in the world, but the practicality of how government works (or doesn’t work) and the problems we face is going to stare the next governor right in the face.
Rep. Davis is continuing to hit a strong general election message tone with his statements, it’s a gamble when he is not running unopposed to run this far to the right this early, but it’s also where he is most comfortable. He has been a moderate voice in Congress and it’s apparent the campaign decided to emphasize that, even in the Democratic primary. Will those that are more progressive than the congressman put their support behind Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, remain on the sidelines or swallow the bitter pill and acknowledge that, particularly in 2010, a pragmatic moderate governor who leans a little to the left may be the best they can do?
I’m interested in your comments below.
By TWAY Kris
Anytime you can get budget analysts from the Urban Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Brooking Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Concord Coalition to agree on anything, I’m going to listen. In a joint statement a group of budget analysts who call themselves “The Fiscal Seminar” voice their support for the president’s goal of reducing long-term healthcare costs, but are concerned that the Senate bill, while coming closest to meeting the goal of the proposals so far, does not go far enough.
Now, the means of going further in cutting costs is where the group parts ways, but they offer what they call a “credible menu of solutions” to choose from:
- More thorough reform of the open-ended tax treatment of employer-sponsored health plans. This subsidy creates strong incentives for higher health care spending, and perversely bestows its largest benefits on high earners with the costliest health plans. To really bend the cost curve, Congress must go beyond half-measures intended simply to raise revenue. Instead it should sharply limit the tax exemption or shift it toward a uniform credit.
- A stronger Medicare Commission that delivers both structural reform and immediate savings. Medicare’s costs have risen steadily even though its payment rates are well below those of private insurers. Congress should empower the Commission to examine all aspects of Medicare – including its dominant, fee-for-service design – not just prices and payments. And it should take up on an expedited basis the Commission’s recommendations for savings that would be used both to defray part of the cost of expanding health coverage and to reduce the program’s long-term liabilities.
- Powerful incentives to promote more efficient and cost-effective practices. Health reform should encourage public and private insurers to replace fee-for-service payment systems with innovative methods – including performance-based payments, bundled payments, and capitated payments – that promote more efficient use of resources. In addition, new approaches to health care delivery, such as accountable care organizations, should be developed as a way of improving the efficiency and quality of care provided to patients. Research into the comparative effectiveness of treatments also could help link payment systems to performance. Health IT bonuses for “meaningful use” should be linked to achieving better results as part of systems of quality measurement, quality improvement and care coordination.
- Medical malpractice reform. None of the bills in Congress confronts the urgent need for a more reliable and less costly system of medical justice. Yet CBO recently estimated that enacting a “typical” package of tort reform proposals would reduce U.S. health care spending by roughly $54 billion over 10 years.
I applaud bipartisan efforts like this one, because we see far too few of them both inside and outside government. As tight as the margins are in the Senate, I don’t know if adding any of these options would change the vote balance in a way that would put the bill in further jeopardy or not. My belief is that these kinds of cost cutting measures will have to happen, whether or not they happen with this particular bill, and now is the time for that to be made plain.
I particularly like the group’s suggestion of developing an overarching budget for healthcare and entitlement programs in general. That is a mechanism that is badly needed and I hope to see a serious push from Congress to enact such a proposal.
A huge thank you to this group of analysts for their work in trying to find common ground on such an important issue. Keep up the good work.
Your comments are welcome below.
By TWAY Kris
I received the following from my state representative, Greg Wren, yesterday:
Dear Constituents,
The United States Senate is preparing for a vote on the latest version of a massive government funded intrusion into the health care system. Senator Harry Reid (Democratic Majority Leader) will force a vote on President Obama’s health care plan which will cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars, increase taxes on the middle class in America, provide health care to millions of illegals (as the Democrats move forward on their agenda to grant citizenship), reduce access to Medicare patients, increase taxes on small business owners and millions of their employees, and establish a federal government-run bureaucracy to dismantle private health insurance competition.
Other than these highlights, the Obama-Reid Plan is simple to understand. Government run, taxpayer financed, reduced coverage for Americans except illegals. Simple. Sad. Shameful but expected.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have iced down the champagne, set up the ticker tape route down Pennsylvania Avenue, and have lined up America’s media to blow the trumpets announcing their political victory. Hopefully, prayerfully, their hammering through of such a massive government run health care system will awaken millions of Americans who didn’t think they were voting for THIS type of ‘change.’ Only time and trillions of dollars out of American’s pockets will tell.
Well, that’s all I can say about this power grab by the Democrats to begin the dismantling of our health care system. It makes me ill. I should call my doctor to get an appointment soon—before I have to call some federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
Below are several key points of the the Obama-Reid plan provided by the Alabama Policy Institute. I hope you find these insightful.
Let’s all stay tuned. First, say a prayer.
Representative Greg Wren
Alabama House of Representatives
He the proceeded to attach a “Legislative Update” from the Alabama Policy Institute that admitted it was a repeat of information put out by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the US Senate. I found the e-mail and attachment to be highly misleading and did not feel it was appropriate to let them stand unanswered. This was my response:
Representative Wren,
This is a deeply misleading analysis of the bill. I like Michael and we have had online discussions about issues in the past, but API is passing along unfiltered opposition spin, not objective analysis. I have found the Kaiser Family Foundation, amongst others, to be an extremely valuable resource during the health reform debate in obtaining facts and understanding the provisions of the different bills http://healthreform.kff.org/
The analysis you forwarded leaves out a great deal, but the biggest piece is the cost of doing nothing. Saying this bill bends the cost curve upward is simply ridiculous. The cost curve if we do nothing is astronomical. Saying that this bill cuts Medicare, when what it’s doing is slowing down the unsustainable increase in spending (which IS bending the cost curve downward) amounts to talking out of both sides of their mouths.
I have no problem with honest debate, but cherry-picking the spending/taxes from the bill and leaving out the savings (or calling it CUTS in Medicare, when it’s attempting to slow the unsustainable growth in healthcare spending) is disingenous and unfair. The fact is that the CBO says this bill will be a net cost-savings to the federal budget and the national debt over the next ten years, and ensure access to healthcare coverage for tens of millions who are unable to obtain it today.
In addition, to state that this bill dismantles our existing healthcare system shows an extreme lack of interest in understanding what the provisions of the bill really are. I have no problem with arguing that what the bill does is the wrong approach, but I would hope you would present the truth about what the bill does honestly instead of passing along one-sided spin.
Your comments and thoughts are appreciated below.
|
Media/Consulting Inquiries All inquiries regarding interviews with media or policy analysis and consulting should go through the Contact page above.
|
Loading ...
Popular Posts