Reporting on the United Nations for CBS Radio November 13, 1951 (Photo courtesy of CBS News)CBS Special Report | Katie Couric Reporting
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Walter Cronkite Dies At 92
Reporting on the United Nations for CBS Radio November 13, 1951 (Photo courtesy of CBS News)CBS Special Report | Katie Couric Reporting
Thursday, July 16, 2009
From Truthout
The House: Tax the Wealthy to Keep Everyone Healthy
Wednesday 15 July 2009
by: Robert Reich | Visit article original @ Robert Reich's Blog
(Photo: vgm / flickr)
It's the most blatant form of Robin-Hood economics ever proposed. The universal health care bill reported by the House yesterday pays for the health insurance of the 20 percent of Americans who need help affording it with a surtax on the richest 1 percent.
I don't recall the last time Congress came up with such a direct redistribution. Occasionally Congress closes a few tax loopholes at the top and offers a refundable tax credit to workers at the bottom, or it creates a poor people's program like Medicaid, paid for out of general revenues from a progressive income tax. But to say out loud, as the House has just done, that those in our society who can most readily afford it should pay for the health insurance of those who cannot is, well, audacious.
There's another word for it: fair. According to the most recent data (for 2007), the best-off 1 percent of American households take home about 20 percent of total income - the highest percentage since 1928. Yes, I know: Critics will charge that these are the very people who invest, innovate, and hire, and thereby keep the economy going. So raising their taxes will burden the economy and thereby hurt everyone, including those who are supposed to be helped.
But there's no reason to suppose that taking a tiny sliver of the incomes of the top 1 percent will reduce all that much of their ardor to invest, innovate, and hire in the future. Yet if this tiny sliver means affordable health care for a far larger number of Americans, who will be able to get regular checkups and thereby stay healthy and productive, the positive effect on the American economy is likely to be far greater.
Don't believe critics who say the surtax will harm small business. According to the Center for Tax Justice, it would hit only five percent of small business owners - realistically defined as taxpayers for whom small business income makes up at least half of their adjusted gross income (from schedule C businesses, partnerships, family farms, and Subchapter S corporations).
Besides, only the profits of a small business would be taxed. The owner of a small business deducts money paid to employees as compensation, as well as operating costs. So, for example, a couple whose income comes entirely from a small business would have to earn more than $350,000 in business profits - after paying all their expenses, including salaries - before the surcharge would affect them at all. And if they earned more, the surcharge wouldn't reduce their incentive to hire more employees because they pay employees with pre-tax income. And not even purchases of equipment to expand business operations would be affected because most small business owners can write off up to $250,000 of the costs of such equipment immediately.
A surtax is easy to administer. And the whole idea is easy to understand. Tax the wealthy to keep everyone healthy. Not even a bad bumper sticker.
Health Care for Us All
by Dee Newman
As I have reported numerous times on this Blog, polls consistently indicate that though most Americans are relatively satisfied with the quality of their health care, they are extremely unhappy with the cost and the coverage their insurance companies provide.
Accordingly, though the United States spends more per capita on health care than any other major industrialized nation, the for-profit insurance industry is not well liked. In poll after poll the confidence the American people have in their medical safety net ranks near the bottom of those countries with universal health care.
Though Americans are divided along political lines, most Americans no longer believe that the United States health care system is the best in the world. They now recognize the sad and disturbing truth – that the U.S. health care system is both outrageously expensive and inadequate and that the United States must bring its health care costs under control and make it possible for every person in the country to have access to affordable health care.
However, as I have noted before, the for-profit insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical supply coalition stands to lose big time if a single payer, universal health care payment system or even a public option is passed by Congress. This powerful coalition will do whatever it takes to protect their profits for they know that as my daddy use to sarcastically say and as I have stated before here in this Blog, “a pound of cure is far more profitable than an ounce of prevention.”
Unfortunately, Republicans and many Blue-dog Democrats continue to be persuaded by this powerful coalition to believe that the United States’ for-profit health care system is viable, democratic, and efficient despite the fact that in comparative study after study, report after report, the statistics show that the United States ranks at or near the bottom of all the major industrialized nations in the delivery of health care to its citizens; despite the fact that the United States spend more on health care per person, per year than any other nation in the world and continues to lag far behind other industrialized nations on many major health care statistics – such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and immunization rates; and despite the fact that other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves nearly 50 million Americans completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
As I have stated before, contrary to what opponents fear and believe, single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is a health care payment system. It is not a health care delivery system and is no more socialized medicine than the public funding of the defense department is socialized defense.
Unlike the current managed care system here in the U.S. which mandates pre-approval of the insurer for services and which takes health care decisions away from the doctor and patient and gives it to a for-profit corporate bureaucrat, a single payer, universal health care system would not.
Financing a single-payer system would be done by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste.
A small increase in taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business.
Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, mass purchasing, and universal budgeting.
In closing, over 40 years ago, the so-called socialized health care system for the elderly, Medicare, was created by Congress. It was very controversial. Many of the same arguments and deceptive tactics used by opponents of single-payer, universal care today were utilized back then to try to prevent the passing of the Medicare legislation.
At that time, the poorest of the poor here in the United States of America were, more often than not, the oldest Americans. More than half of them had no health care coverage at all.
Today, the Medicare system has been universally accepted. In fact, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find any politician who advocates getting rid of it.
The time has come – not just for the elderly, the young, and members of Congress – but for all Americans to have universal health care. And, health care that no longer waste billions of health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: underwriting, billing, sales and marketing, as well as, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.
As I have reported numerous times on this Blog, polls consistently indicate that though most Americans are relatively satisfied with the quality of their health care, they are extremely unhappy with the cost and the coverage their insurance companies provide.
Accordingly, though the United States spends more per capita on health care than any other major industrialized nation, the for-profit insurance industry is not well liked. In poll after poll the confidence the American people have in their medical safety net ranks near the bottom of those countries with universal health care.
Though Americans are divided along political lines, most Americans no longer believe that the United States health care system is the best in the world. They now recognize the sad and disturbing truth – that the U.S. health care system is both outrageously expensive and inadequate and that the United States must bring its health care costs under control and make it possible for every person in the country to have access to affordable health care.
However, as I have noted before, the for-profit insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical supply coalition stands to lose big time if a single payer, universal health care payment system or even a public option is passed by Congress. This powerful coalition will do whatever it takes to protect their profits for they know that as my daddy use to sarcastically say and as I have stated before here in this Blog, “a pound of cure is far more profitable than an ounce of prevention.”
Unfortunately, Republicans and many Blue-dog Democrats continue to be persuaded by this powerful coalition to believe that the United States’ for-profit health care system is viable, democratic, and efficient despite the fact that in comparative study after study, report after report, the statistics show that the United States ranks at or near the bottom of all the major industrialized nations in the delivery of health care to its citizens; despite the fact that the United States spend more on health care per person, per year than any other nation in the world and continues to lag far behind other industrialized nations on many major health care statistics – such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and immunization rates; and despite the fact that other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves nearly 50 million Americans completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.
As I have stated before, contrary to what opponents fear and believe, single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is a health care payment system. It is not a health care delivery system and is no more socialized medicine than the public funding of the defense department is socialized defense.
Unlike the current managed care system here in the U.S. which mandates pre-approval of the insurer for services and which takes health care decisions away from the doctor and patient and gives it to a for-profit corporate bureaucrat, a single payer, universal health care system would not.
Financing a single-payer system would be done by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste.
A small increase in taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business.
Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, mass purchasing, and universal budgeting.
In closing, over 40 years ago, the so-called socialized health care system for the elderly, Medicare, was created by Congress. It was very controversial. Many of the same arguments and deceptive tactics used by opponents of single-payer, universal care today were utilized back then to try to prevent the passing of the Medicare legislation.
At that time, the poorest of the poor here in the United States of America were, more often than not, the oldest Americans. More than half of them had no health care coverage at all.
Today, the Medicare system has been universally accepted. In fact, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find any politician who advocates getting rid of it.
The time has come – not just for the elderly, the young, and members of Congress – but for all Americans to have universal health care. And, health care that no longer waste billions of health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: underwriting, billing, sales and marketing, as well as, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.
3 Days of the Sotomayor
DAY 1
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PATRICK LEAHY: Judge Sotomayor, welcome to you and your large and lovely family, including your mother, who I believe saved up to buy your first encyclopedia when she was a hard-working widow. Let me begin the opening statements by noting that you have more federal court judicial experience than any nominee to the United States Supreme Court in nearly a hundred years. And the Constitution — is that a great document or what? And now, the ranking Republican from Alabama.
SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: Thank you, Chairman. Judge Sotomayor, let’s talk about empathy. I find it shocking that President Obama said that judges should have empathy. I hate empathy. My Republican colleagues hate empathy. In fact, I am proud to say that we’ve reached an all-time low in the “understands the problems of ordinary people” category.
SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD: Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, you will join the Supreme Court with more federal judicial experience than any justice in the past 100 years. And, therefore, I will devote my time to complaining about the way the Bush administration pummeled our civil liberties.
SENATOR ORRIN HATCH: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to point out that we once had a Hispanic nominee for something, and the Democrats filibustered him.
SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND: Mr. Chairman, as the newly appointed junior senator from New York, I want to thank you for the opportunity to introduce Judge Sotomayor. Normally I speak really, really fast, but due to the importance of this occasion I am going to go really, really slow. Which will mean that my five minutes will be over before I get anywhere near ...
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, committee members. In recent weeks, I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting with 89 senators. Thank God Senator Inhofe said he didn’t need to talk to me because he’d already made up his mind to vote No.
DAY 2
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: We’re now going to start with the question period. I would like to begin by asking how it feels to have more federal court judicial experience than any nominee to the United States Supreme Court in nearly a hundred years.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you for that interesting question. What my 17-year record on two courts has taught me is the importance of keeping an open mind. And following precedent. And not answering any hypothetical questions about abortion or gun control.
SENATOR SESSIONS: Judge, to get back to that “wise Latina” speech, I want to know if you think judges should allow their prejudices to impact decision-making. For instance, if I were a plaintiff before your court, would you be less inclined to rule in my favor because my middle name is Beauregard?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Senator, I do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases. But thank you for sharing.
SENATOR HERB KOHL: I believe I heard somewhere that you would join the Supreme Court with more federal judicial experience than any justice in the past 100 years. Doesn’t your very, very low reversal rate show how exceptionally well you have performed?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Senator, thank you for that softball question. Which reminds me to point out that in 1995 I ended the baseball strike.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Judge, before I read a string of anonymous comments about your temperament problem, I’d like to make you repeat that wise Latina remark again just for the heck of it.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to revisit that matter. I appreciate that the man who once said he’d drown himself if North Carolina went for Obama has a special contribution to make when it comes to the importance of thinking before you speak.
DAY 3
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: Before we get to my questions, I would like to tell you several anecdotes about my own interesting history. Did I mention that I used to be chairman of this committee?
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: I have here a newspaper story quoting a corporate lawyer who worked with you 17 years ago as saying that you would vote for abortion rights. What does he know that we don’t?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: That was sometime between my graduating summa cum laude from Princeton and the year I ended the baseball strike. While I can’t answer your question, perhaps it would help if I said that I am bound by precedent and my mind is always open.
SENATOR TOM COBURN: Judge, I’d like to ask you a number of hypothetical questions about abortion and gun control. A lot of Americans are watching these hearings.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Hardly likely at this point, Senator.Daily Kos: CPC's Whip Count on Public Option
bymcjoan
Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:56:04 PM PDT
I've seen the Congressional Progressive Caucus's most recent whip list for healthcare reform, and it's--to say the least--very encouraging. It's also a testament to the longterm efforts of nyceve and the netroots community to keep healthcare reform alive as an issue for the past several years. As of last week, a total of 50 CPC members vow to vote against any bill that did not meet their criteria for a public option.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must:
- Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.
- Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.
- Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation
- Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.
- Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.
- Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.
- Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.
- Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.
- Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.
In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.
Let me reiterate--50 members have said they will not vote for a bill that does not meet these criteria. Those 50, who are most deserving of our thanks, particularly those like Eric Massa who are in districts that aren't deep blue:
The following 11 are leaning "yes" ("yes" meaning voting only for the CPC criteria). If one of the following is your representative, call them:
Michael Capuano
Steve Cohen
Marcia Fudge
Dave Loebsack
Carolyn Maloney
Jim Moran
Ed Pastor
Laura Richardson
Bobby Rush
John Tierney
Peter Welch
The remaining 12 are either leaning no or undecided, and could use some friendly persuasion from constituents:
Neil Abercrombie
Earl Blumenauer
Robert Brady
Rosa Delauro
Chaka Fattah
Alan Grayson
Ed Markey*
George Miller*
Jared Polis
Jose Serrano
Nydia Velazquez
Mel Watt
*Miller as committee chair involved, and Markey as a prominent subcommittee chair on one of the committees involved, as well as a number of other actors prominent in the debate (Rangel, Stark) are either saying they're undecided or didn't respond in the whip count.
It certainly doesn't hurt for their constituents to contact them, but their being uncommitted at this point shouldn't be read as lack of commitment to a strong public option. Also important to note is that this is just the CPC list, there are other members who belong to affiliated caucuses--CBC, CHC, CAPAC, Populists, New Dems, and unaffiliated--were not whipped in this list, so 50 is just the minimum number in the voting bloc for a strong public option.
Again, the longterm grassroots and netroots activism on this issue has helped keep the issue alive, but more importantly has helped provide a solid backstop for these members. So pat yourselves on the back, but do that after you contact the folks above and thank them for their standing up for their constituents.
Update: Meant to include FDL's Whip Count tool above. It's a fantastic resource for contacting your member and important tool for the grassroots and netroots to keep up the pressure. Use it, and use it frequently.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The House Unveils Health Care Reform Legislation
by Dee Newman
Today, the House of Representatives unveiled its version of health care reform.
Some of the more controversial reform measures are contained in the House bill, including a mandate for all Americans to acquire health insurance. It also contains a government-run health insurance option and a provision prohibiting private insurers from raising rates or denying coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions.
Except for small businesses, employers would have to offer workers insurance or pay a fee of 8 percent of a worker's wages.
The legislation comes at a price of over $1 trillion over 10 years to be pay for in part by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans who make more than $1 million a year and by recovering revenue from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending.
President Obama praised the House for its "unprecedented cooperation to produce a health care reform proposal that will lower costs, provide better care for patients and ensure fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry."
He went on to say, "I look forward to continuing to work with all House members in ensuring this legislation helps all Americans and plays an essential role in reducing deficits and bringing fiscal sustainability to our nation.”
Now, it is time for the Senate to cooperate and produce a health care reform proposal that will, at the least, do the same.
Today, the House of Representatives unveiled its version of health care reform.
Some of the more controversial reform measures are contained in the House bill, including a mandate for all Americans to acquire health insurance. It also contains a government-run health insurance option and a provision prohibiting private insurers from raising rates or denying coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions.Except for small businesses, employers would have to offer workers insurance or pay a fee of 8 percent of a worker's wages.
The legislation comes at a price of over $1 trillion over 10 years to be pay for in part by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans who make more than $1 million a year and by recovering revenue from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending.
President Obama praised the House for its "unprecedented cooperation to produce a health care reform proposal that will lower costs, provide better care for patients and ensure fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry."
He went on to say, "I look forward to continuing to work with all House members in ensuring this legislation helps all Americans and plays an essential role in reducing deficits and bringing fiscal sustainability to our nation.”
Now, it is time for the Senate to cooperate and produce a health care reform proposal that will, at the least, do the same.
Supreme Court Nominee
I received the following e-letter from the President today:
| | Good Morning, Yesterday, Judge Sonia Sotomayor made her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and moved another step closer to taking a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In case you missed it, watch the video of her opening statement here: As President, there are few responsibilities more serious or consequential than the naming of a Supreme Court Justice, so I want to take this opportunity to tell you about the qualifications and character that informed my decision to nominate Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor's brilliant legal mind is complemented by the practical lessons that can only be learned by applying the law to real world situations. In the coming days, the hearings will cover an incredible body of work from a judge who has more experience on the federal bench than any incoming Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. Judge Sotomayor's professional background spans our judicial system — from her time as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, to her work as a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And then there is Judge Sotomayor's incredible personal story. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx — her parents coming to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. At the age of nine, she lost her father, and her mother worked six days a week just to put food on the table. It takes a certain resilience and determination to rise up out of such circumstances, focus, work hard and achieve the American dream. This character shined through in yesterday's opening statement: Watch the video. In Judge Sotomayor, our nation will have a Justice who will never forget her humble beginnings, will always apply the rule of law, and will be a protector of the Constitution that made her American dream and the dreams of millions of others possible. As she said so clearly yesterday, Judge Sotomayor's decisions on the bench "have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice." In anticipation of today's first round of questioning, I hope you'll share this email widely, because Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is something that affects every American. It's important for these hearings to be about Judge Sotomayor's own record and her capacity for the job — not any political back and forth that some in Washington may use to distract you. What members of the Judiciary Committee, and the American people, will see today is a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into breaking from the rule of law. Thank you, Barack Obama | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
