My political career began on a cold evening in the dimly lit labor hall of Laborers Local 362 on Cabin Town Road, in Bloomington, IL.\u00a0 It was the monthly Democratic Party meeting and I had no intention of speaking. After representatives from other campaigns spoke, I felt the need to represent my 2004 presidential pick.\u00a0 The words fell out of my mouth with no cadence or inspiration and I\u2019m confident that nothing I said was remembered by the 20-25 attendees who were being pressured by party leaders to send Rod Blagojevich another $500 contribution. But there it was: the 12 words that have somehow come to define my political activism: \u201cThe task of my generation is the separation of corporation and state.\u201d<\/p>\n
Perhaps the biggest abuse of taxpayer money to bail out a gang of undeserving corporations was the bank bailout. Like many people, I was outraged and nearly driven to put my name back on the ballot when the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress passed a $700 billion bank bailout to help Bush put the finishing touches on his corporate-state presidency.\u00a0 But I sat back and waited, overlooking the first year of Obama\u2019s presidency that featured the more bailouts, more blank-check spending on Bush\u2019s wars for profit, a wholesale attack on public education, and now, a healthcare bill written by corporations for corporations.<\/p>\n
And so, I have come full circle as my next political steps take me back to the beginning and those first 12 words.\u00a0 This piece on healthcare aims to show how the will of the people was replaced by the will of America\u2019s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) while support for\u00a0Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America grows.\u00a0 Among those following the health care reform process, it is commonly known that AHIP, the voice of insurance companies on capital hill, has played\u00a0a significant role in drafting the bill.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I recently wrote a piece in the Beacon Newspaper that makes the argument that the recent passage of\u00a0 Romney-care is both bad policy and bad politics.<\/a>\u00a0 One great place to continue the debate this is right here at ProgressiveFox.com where I previously\u00a0pointed out that my union healthcare package has me paying more than\u00a017% of my paycheck <\/a>into healthcare, of which 8% (about $4 for every hour that I work) goes directly to shareholders and CEO salaries — not healthcare delivery.<\/p>\n What happened in Massachusetts will happen across the country<\/strong><\/p>\n I think it is important to begin by observing the fact that a Democratic Senate, House and President just passed a bill that is eerily similar to\u00a0Mitt Romney\u2019s healthcare plan for Massachusetts.\u00a0 The Massachusetts experiment has not worked as effective policy; leading to more expensive health care costs.<\/p>\n The spin machine is still selling the recent healthcare bill as a positive historic event. Very few are breaking from the celebratory mood to question the fact that this bill is strikingly similar to the plan written and pushed last October by AHIP.<\/p>\n I do see two good points in the health care bill<\/strong><\/p>\n The best part of the healthcare bill is the education component. It allows students to borrow Pell Grants directly from the federal government instead of going through a private bank that makes profits off of the loans.\u00a0 In the past system, the private banks made money while the taxpayers guaranteed the loans, assuming all of the risks.<\/p>\n The other good thing is that it allows the administration to move on.\u00a0 There is no doubt that the rest of Obama\u2019s agenda would have been stalled if this bill had not passed.\u00a0 And yet, even while I am writing this, I have to remain skeptical about that agenda.<\/p>\n Why are people calling this bill a \u201creform\u201d bill?<\/strong><\/p>\n The recently passed health insurance bailout bill, also known as HR 4872, mandates that we buy private health insurance but offers no cost controls.\u00a0 The individual mandates mean that individual citizens who do not buy private health insurance will pay a fine. Two years after implementation (2016) that fine would be more than $2,000 per year or 2.5% of your income, whichever is greater.<\/p>\n The bill does, at taxpayer expense, subsidize some of the healthcare costs for people who earn less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).\u00a0 If you are an individual, and earn less than $44,000 (400% FPL) per year, you will get a little help from the government on a sliding scale when it comes to buying private health insurance.\u00a0 But many people in this income bracket were already eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, or other healthcare assistance.\u00a0 The difference is that now you will also be subsidizing CEO salaries and it is likely that many people will see reduced care levels.\u00a0<\/p>\n Once again, middle-class workers will shoulder the burden of bailing out executives earning millions of dollars per year.\u00a0\u00a0 While I have no problem helping the sick who need it most, I oppose the use of my tax dollars to subsidize people like Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna, who made $38 million in salaries and bonuses in 2009.<\/p>\n Even with government assistance, millions of middle class families will now be forced to buy health insurance that could cost 9-10% of their income.\u00a0 That policy would only cover part of their medical expenses. It will probably be too expensive to use because of the high cost of co-pays and deductibles.<\/p>\n In short, insurance companies will be given over $400 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize ineffective insurance products; it is a multi-billion dollar bailout.<\/p>\n For those who already have insurance policies through work, many will be locked into their network of providers and doctors without the freedom of physician choice.\u00a0 These people will end up paying more for their premiums because their existing health care benefits will face steep taxes.\u00a0 When a company pays more for insurance coverage, the worker typically feels it through a reduced pay raise or, in today\u2019s economy, a pay cut.\u00a0 For union workers like myself, we will see premiums go up again, ultimately resulting in a lower pay increase.<\/p>\n This health care bill was touted as closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, regulating insurance companies and preventing cancellations based on pre-existing conditions. Some people may be reading this piece and thinking: “But at least people who have pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage.”<\/p>\n The talking point sounds like a highlight of the legislation, but there are still many loopholes that allow companies to exclude people who have pre-existing conditions.\u00a0 An AP story captures it here:<\/a><\/p>\n Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday. March 23, 2010.<\/p>\n \u00a0However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Other loopholes like this one will continue to leave patients vulnerable to insurance companies that seek to generate profits instead of providing healthcare, further evidence that AHIP more or less wrote the bill.<\/p>\n Gender discrimination and age discrimination are other key shortfalls.\u00a0 Older Americans can be charged up to three times more than their younger members of the insurance pool, and companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based premiums.\u00a0 Many women will now have to buy two insurance policies to have full medical insurance coverage and full reproductive rights.<\/p>\n Finally, it should be noted that the legislation does not \u201cclose the donut hole\u201d in Medicare Party D.\u00a0 In the first year, there is a $250 rebate (2.5%) for those people who fall into the coverage gap (when prescription drug costs exceed $2,830 individuals have to pay roughly $3,800 out of pocket for prescriptions at full price).\u00a0 Between now and 2020, that gap will be narrowed by 25%, but not closed entirely.\u00a0<\/p>\n How has Massachusetts plan failed?<\/strong><\/p>\n After four years of experimenting with mandates in Massachusetts, we can now confidently state that this approach has not worked.\u00a0 Since implementation, healthcare costs in Massachusetts have skyrocketed for both individuals and the state (taxpayers) because there are no cost controls.\u00a0<\/p>\n Mandates force added expenses, not better coverage.\u00a0 People in Massachusetts who do not have the money to buy health insurance are charged a $900+ fine (2008 numbers) and still do not have coverage.\u00a0 According to some blog comments and news stories, the fine is now over $1,000, but for the sake of the national healthcare argument, we need to make it clear that your penalty will be more than $2,000 per year or 2.5% of your income, whichever is greater.<\/p>\n In the federal bill, the only exceptions to this rule are people with religious objections, American Indians people in prison or undocumented immigrants.<\/p>\n For more on Massachusetts plan, read “Mass. Healthcare Reform is Failing Us<\/a>” by physician, Susanne King.<\/p>\n It didn\u2019t have to be like this<\/strong><\/p>\n Many Democrats make the argument that \u201cwe had to do something and this is the best we could do.\u201d\u00a0 This argument basically says we only have one choice, and that choice just happens to be AHIP\u2019s plan, not the people\u2019s plan.<\/p>\n While I completely agree that the clock has run out on the healthcare debate, I think this argument presents a set of false choices.\u00a0 It basically says that the Progressive Change Campaign Committee\u2019s <\/a>(PCCC) effort to get 51 votes for the public option in the U.S. Senate was meaningless.\u00a0 It says that the grassroots\/labor effort to pass a public option in the House was meaningless.\u00a0 It says that all of those contributions, phone calls, letters and other grassroots efforts were all meaningless.<\/p>\n I am not a strong proponent of the public option as I prefer to support the simplest concept \u2013 extending Medicare to all U.S. citizens, but this easy to understand, intelligent choice was never given to the American people or discussed before the U.S. Congress.\u00a0 When doctors and nurses pressed corporate Democrat Max Baucus to consider a single-payer, Medicare for all bill, they were forcibly removed and arrested – Watch the arrest videos here.<\/a><\/p>\n As the process continued, when push came to shove, even though the votes existed in the House and Senate to pass a public option through the reconciliation process, Rahm Emanuel didn\u2019t twist the arms of corporate Democrats to support a public option.\u00a0 Instead, he twisted the arms of progressives to back\u00a0the corporate insurance companies\u00a0bill.<\/p>\n We can look back at the strategy that was used to pass this bill and be critical of the decision to start the debate in\u00a0the house; ultimately losing control of the\u00a0messge by not using the town hall hearings across the country.\u00a0\u00a0I am most critical of the choice to negotiate from the middle (Public Option) instead of negotiating from a position of strength.\u00a0 We should have started the process pushing for single-payer and negotiating down to a public option.\u00a0 Lawmakers entered into negotiations pushing a mediocre bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n While discussing this very issue with a good friend of mine, Joe Stupec, he reminded me that Rosa Parks didn\u2019t choose to sit in the middle of the bus; she sat at the front of the bus.\u00a0 She didn\u2019t accept mediocrity and neither should we.<\/p>\n Really, is AHIP\u2019s plan the best we could do after a year of negotiating and fighting for reform?\u00a0 With several successful models for a workable healthcare plan available to draw on for reference, was this the best we can do?<\/p>\n If we don\u2019t speak up and state clearly our objections to this less than mediocre approach, we are in effect saying it is OK to pass something that will not work.\u00a0 If we the people lower the standard that we have for legislators, they will continue to live up to those sub-standard performance levels that have become all too common.<\/p>\n It seems that the only thing that mattered was what AHIP wanted because they had the money to make political contributions and hire an army of lobbyists.<\/p>\n Why did the people fail and the corporations win?<\/strong><\/p>\n The simple answer is that those who benefit most from legislation have the money to pay for lobbyists, pay for campaign commercials, and pay off politicians with contributions.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the fight to reform healthcare, the healthcare sector (this term lumps together insurance companies, HMO\u2019s and pharmaceutical companies) spent millions to get their way.\u00a0 According to Opensecrets.org<\/a>,\u00a0the healthcare sector spent $57 million on political contributions to both political parties in 2009 alone.\u00a0 To compliment that number, they spent over $576 million on lobbying expenses.\u00a0 These numbers do not include the last quarter\u2019s filings when the full-court press was on to pass something.<\/p>\n In addition to money, revolving-door relationships allow former congressional staffers, and even former Congresspersons, to take up jobs on K Street as lobbyists and maintain their list of connections just as if they were still working for an elected official.\u00a0 Perhaps the most prominent and powerful person in the healthcare discussion was AHIP CEO, Karen Ignagni.\u00a0<\/p>\n Karen Ignagni started her Washington career at the Social Security Administration working as a health policy analyst before working with the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.\u00a0 Later, Ignagni signed up with the AFL-CIO to find ways to improve employee healthcare benefit packages and most recently accepted a position with AHIP as their chief lobbyist.\u00a0 Last year she earned $1.9 million in total compensation<\/a>.\u00a0 She patiently used her union connections to push her agenda.\u00a0 It was a simple agenda really, killing the public option and securing more taxpayer money for her clients.\u00a0<\/p>\n At the end of this long, drawn-out fight, I kept asking myself why labor bought into something that will ultimately hurt our members.\u00a0 After researching Karen Ignagni\u2019s background, it became more and more clear that her experience with labor was probably critical to the bill’s passage.\u00a0<\/p>\n Will we lose or gain seats because this heath care bailout passed?<\/strong><\/p>\n On the political front, Democrats should have learned a lesson from Massachusetts.\u00a0 According to an article found in the Columbia Journal Review<\/a>, one woman who voted for Senator Brown in the recent election to replace Senator Kennedy said this about healthcare:<\/p>\n \u201cI know the plan is all wrong,\u201d she said. What exactly was wrong? It was just like the one in Massachusetts, which makes people buy unaffordable insurance, she explained. Her daughter makes $32,000 working two jobs and can\u2019t afford coverage; she pays the penalty for not having it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even though Republicans have no plan to fix the broken healthcare system, they will be able to successfully ignite their poorly-informed base through false claims of socialism.\u00a0 Democrats who wanted change and voted for change will be unmotivated to vote for the lackluster, corporate agenda that favors the wealthy, powerful corporations who continue to buy access to the decision makers.\u00a0<\/p>\n