Hate Crime Legislation Vote Later This Week

I don't keep up with gay rights as much as I should, so I was surprised to read that Deb Price now writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. Good for her. I only know her work in the Detroit News. (Does anyone else find it ironic that she writes for them?)

Anyway, outside of reading quite a bit about gay marriage in recent months, I didn't realize the Obama administration has been reaching out to the gay community in so many ways. Here are some highlights from Price's recent column, including a mention about the hate crimes legislation that lawmakers will be voting on later this week.

The Obama White House invited gay leaders to the health care and fiscal responsibility summits, the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, and an online town hall. Gay parents were encouraged to bring their kids to the Easter egg roll. [...]

The White House outreach has included Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality and Rebecca Fox of the National Coalition for LGBT Health. [...]

And Obama is salting gay talent through his administration. Most noteworthy is John Berry, confirmed by the Senate as director of the Office of Personnel Management. That puts a gay man in charge of the 1.9 million federal employees, including overseeing their benefits.

Other appointees include Emily Hewitt, an ordained Episcopal priest, as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. A peek at Hewitt's biography on her official court site shows the comfort Obama's gay choices feel: "Chief Judge Hewitt is married to Eleanor Dean Acheson."

Obama tapped Fred Hochberg to chair the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Harry Knox to serve on the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Nancy Sutley to chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Price also reports that Obama told two leaders of the Human Rights Campaign that he intends to sign the hates crimes legislation when it reaches his desk, and he supports the need for a federal ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Hate Crime Legislation (H.R. 1913) was introduced by John Conyers and has 42 sponsors. The House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the bill this Wednesday. Language in the bill includes “sexual orientation," which has some "family groups" going bonkers. The Traditional Values Coalition released this statement:

“The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.”

Not surprisingly, their position is inaccurate and irrational. The bill does not restrict free speech. In fact, the ACLU's support for this bill was contingent upon a provision that is the strongest protection for free speech in the entire federal criminal code.

It'll be interesting to see how Republicans vote. Will they pander to extremists or vote to send the message that violent hate crimes have no place in our country?

Americans want inquiry into "war on terror" tactics

Our attention may be focused on the economic meltdown swirling around us, but we aren't suffering from amnesia and we're not ready to let the Bush administration off the hook. A new USA TODAY - Gallup Poll finds most of us favor investigating whether the Bush administration broke the law in its tactics in the "war on terror."

Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.

Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, three in 10 an independent panel, and 25% neither.

Groups like the ACLU are pressing for inquires into whether the Bush administration violated U.S. and international bans on torture and the constitutional rights to privacy, and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has called for a panel to gather facts and make recommendations, which could possibly lead to prosecutions.

Senator Patrick Leahy has also proposed a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate abuses, including the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive overrides. According to Leahy...

Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth, finding out what happened, so we can make sure it does not happen again.

Thousands of Americans lives were lost in Iraq, along with billions of dollars and our country's moral authority. We can't turn our back on that page in history as though it never happened. We deserve answers.

Click here to sign Leahy's online petition urging Congress to consider establishing a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's abuses.

Gallup says, "At this point, it is unclear whether investigations into possible Bush-era wrongdoing will in fact take place," but when asked about Leahy's plan, President Obama said he would look at it.

Sign the petition and send the message that letting the Bush administration off the hook is wrong.


(Cross posted at Blogging for MI.)

Government can be a force for good

As we consider the fruits of our labor this weekend, most of us will be discussing the growing number of working people without health care. By and large, Americans feel insurance companies are the problem, and a majority of us think the government should provide health insurance for all of us - even if it means raising our taxes.

Canada's health system is often used as an example of the kind of plan we should emulate. Is this a good idea? One Canadian businessman thinks so.

Canadian care costs less, insures all citizens and could help cut U.S. poverty, crime rates

By David Karwacki
The Salt Lake Tribune
08/10/2007

(Editor, Salt Lake Tribune: The writer is addressing the question, “Should the U.S. use Canada as its model for health-care reform?”)

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan - Americans set their sights admirably high by seeking a Jeffersonian guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Advances in medical science and technology, especially diagnostics and pharmaceuticals, can certainly help them achieve those goals - if they can afford them. Many millions, unfortunately, find their life, liberty and happiness threatened because of illness and a lack of access to even basic, let alone advanced, medical care.

Access to universal medical coverage was introduced in my province of Saskatchewan in 1962 and was adopted by the federal government to apply to all Canadians in 1964.

Instead of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Canada’s constitution stresses “peace, order and good government.” We believe that government can be a force for good and in some areas - public health care being one - and can actually do a better job than private corporate interests.

For more than 40 years Canada’s Medicare has improved the quality of life for tens of millions of people, liberated them from the threat of unaffordable medical bills and made it easier for them to pursue their own definition of happiness.

Our Medicare system isn’t perfect, but then neither is democracy. We don’t think that’s reason enough to get rid of them. Besides, there’s more than just a political “feel-good” reason for embracing universal health care. It’s good for business.

I’m the owner of a company in Canada and another in the United States that distribute fresh produce around the globe. My Canadian company has three corporate advantages over my U.S. company and our U.S. competitors: healthy workers, lower operating costs and better worker safety through social cohesion.

In my experience, healthy workers are more productive because they take less sick time than those who don’t, or can’t afford, to take care of their health. Lack of health-care access is a barrier to preventive care. Those who ignore early symptoms of an illness because their credit cards are maxed-out end up being less productive and may have to leave the work force. Then the employer faces the expense of training replacement workers.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that total health expenditures in Canada amounted to 9.9 percent of GDP in 2004. In the United States it was 15.3 percent. And even though Americans spend more on health care, their life expectancy is, on average, two years less than Canadians.

Many U.S. companies enjoy a competitive edge in technology because of the R&D of the military industrial complex. In Canada it’s our single-insurer health-care system that provides us with a competitive advantage.

My U.S. company pays, on average, a premium of $9,300 per year for each employee to provide just basic medical insurance. My Canadian firm pays no premium. The costs are paid out of taxes and from resource royalties.

High health-care costs in the United States have been cited as one very big reason for what some people are calling “the outsourcing of America.” Witness the steady decline of the domestic auto-manufacturing sector.

Finally, I would argue that universal health care provides a social cohesion and increases our general security by helping to lift people out of poverty. A healthy population with access to health care is more likely to be productive and beneficial to the community. The rates of violent crime in Canada have yet to reach even a shadow of what is happening in America.

The economic reasons for universal medical coverage are clear. Just as important, however, is what Medicare says about our country and its people. We believe in the principle that everyone should have access to reasonable health care. That way life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is for all of us - not just those who can afford it [all emphasis added].

Most Americans believe that everyone should have access to health care too, but it won't happen unless we vote for the candidates that see eye-to-eye with us instead of the insurance companies and lobbyists.

Labor unions are on our side. So are Physicians for a National Health Plan, Rep. John Conyers and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. They all sponsor HR 676, which would expand Medicare to everyone. Medicare is a government success. It's provides accessible health care to millions of senior and disabled Americans, and about 98% of the money that goes into the Medicare program comes back out as medical services. I call that a good government program, and we all deserve to have that same level of care.

A question for Rep. Vern Ehlers

Lew Scannon wrote his representative, Vern Ehlers (R) MI, and asked him to get behind Rep. Kucinich's call for impeachment. In his letter, Lew asks Ehlers a question that deserves serious consideration.

Our political system has a series of checks and balances to prevent the types of abuses that the current administration is involved in. So I ask of you: Which is more important, the constitution and the country it protects, or the party for which you belong?
If you say the former, than I urge you to contact Rep Conyers and agree to start impeachment proceedings. Then, if there is just cause for impeachment, I ask you to vote for it, just as I would expect you to vote against it if there is no cause.
If you say the latter, then I hope you remember this missive when in the future, another president continues the arrogant abuses first conceived by the current administration, and your children, or perhaps your grandchildren ask you why our country has strayed so far from it's original intentions, that you had an oppurtunity to stop this now, but chose instead to be loyal to your party moreso than to the constitution you swore to uphold. Thank you. [emphasis added]

I hope Lew shares Ehler's response, although I'm not optimistic that Ehlers will do what's right for the country and our constitution. Can you say rubber-stamp?

2008 Democratic candidates on health care

I know where the 2008 Republican presidential candidates stand on the issue of health care (they put it at the bottom of the list), but what about the Democrats? Do they concur with voters who see it as our number one domestic issue? After checking their various campaign websites, I can say they've definitely put a lot of thought into the issue and given it priority status.

First up is Bill Richardson and his plan as described at a recent health care forum:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said the "cornerstone" of his plan is to allow all Americans and business to be able to purchase the same coverage that members of Congress have, while offering "help" for those will low incomes. He also argued for an expansion of Medicare to cover those 55 and older, and a "cooperative relationship" between individuals, businesses and states "catalyzed by the government." Without naming Edwards, he argued that additional sources of revenue are not necessary, saying increased efficiency, preventative care and an exit from Iraq will provide enough revenue to expand coverage. But it wasn't clear if Richardson was pledging to achieve universal coverage.

Additionally, from Joseph Paduda's blog, "Richardson appears to be pushing for the elimination of Medicare Advantage and other private-insurer based Medicare programs." That's a plus since these plans cost on average 19% more than traditional Medicare, but he's also promoting tax breaks for lower-income Americans to help them buy health insurance. Several Republican candidates mentioned tax breaks too, but I don't see how that will help poor people buy health coverage unless the government advances them the money up front.

Mike Gravel solves that problem with vouchers.

Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel proposed a single-payer system of sorts, but under his system each American would get a health care voucher that they would use to purchase their choice of five or six private insurance plans. “Everyone gets the same product. If you want more than the product you’ve got, you pay for it,” he said. Gravel said he would not expand Medicare or Medicaid unless “we don’t see the private insurance companies shape up.”

Gravel's voucher idea is interesting, but I don't see the private insurance companies shaping up, and I don't see Gravel winning the primary either.

On to the next candidate, Hillary Clinton, best remembered for championing universal health care long before anyone else would even touch the subject. Here's a brief description of her plan from a recent speech:

There are three parts to my approach. First, lowering costs for everyone. Second, improving quality for everyone. Third, insuring everyone. [...]

My plan will offer individuals and small businesses market access to larger insurance pools that will lower costs and end insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. As part of a plan for universal coverage, which I will discuss in detail in the coming months, we would create large insurance pools that lower administrative costs for small businesses and individuals by spreading the risk. In a system of universal coverage insurance companies cannot as easily shift costs through cherry picking and other means.

Clinton would also push legislation to provide respite care for caregivers of elderly and disabled Americans, something I approve of and believe is desperately needed. However, from a recent health care debate, she said "it would take her two terms to get a universal health care system in place." That's unacceptable to me. The number of uninsured is at crisis levels and Americans can't wait that long.

I'm not totally sold on her plan to create large insurance pools either. I no longer trust corporate America to put people before profits, and the fact that Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from insurance companies for her 2006 re-election in the Senate disturbs me too.

John Edwards has also been pushing universal coverage for sometime now, and he has the most comprehensive and detailed position on health care to date. Here's a brief description from The Nation:

Edwards' plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does, mandates individuals to buy insurance and offers government subsidies for families with incomes of up to $80k who can't afford it.

He also has plans [pdf] to expand the infrastructure for long-term care, offer respite care and support to families caring for loved ones, and improve the wages, training and working conditions for aides, which definitely scores brownie points with me.

Edwards also gets more points for his honesty and candidness. When asked at a recent health care debate about the transitional costs to a new system, he said "it would cost $90 to $120 billion a year, which he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000." This honesty won't hurt Edwards since polling shows that voters are willing to pay higher taxes in order to solve our health care crisis.

Moving along to Barack Obama, you can read about his plan on his website, but here's a short synopsis from CommonSense:

If you don't have health insurance through your employer, you will be enrolled into a new, comprehensive public health insurance plan that emphasizes prevention, chronic care management and quality care. The benefits will be similar to those available today to every federal employee.

This plan will enjoy the great efficiencies we see in public plans like Medicare but, if you still cannot afford it, you will receive a subsidy to pay for it. Of course, you can choose private insurance if you prefer but the private plans will have to compete on a level playing field with the public plan—without the extra payments that tip the scales in favor of private Medicare Advantage plans today.

Employers who do not offer meaningful coverage or a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to pay a percentage of payroll to the plan and their employees will be enrolled. Any employer can decide it no longer wishes to administer insurance and can offer insurance through the exchange. Self-employed Americans will find it easy to enroll as well at no disadvantage. Children will be covered and no one can be denied health insurance because of a preexisting condition or illness. [...]

Much of that tracks what Edwards has offered, and in fact, Obama offered that Edwards' plan is "very credible."When asked if additional tax revenue is needed, Obama did not dismiss the possibility, saying we need to "do whatever it takes" but noted there is much savings to be reaped with a more efficient system. He also said he would need to "put some money on the front end in creating a new system" and then "get those savings on the back end," emphasizing that "those savings [should] go into the pockets of families, and not just insurance companies or drug companies."

Obama only recently posted his plan on his website and it does sound very similar to Edwards'. He does get points from me though for mentioning there would be no extra payments to private Medicare Advantage type plans. (Taxpayers have been fleeced enough by the private sector under the Bush administration.)

Chris Dodd also has a plan to fix health care on his campaign website, although it doesn't appear as though he'll be a contender. Here's a brief synopsis of his plan from CommonSense:

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd said his plan was based on four principles: universality (“everyone participates, everyone benefits,” prevention, extend Medicaid to more families, and improving the use of technology. He referenced his leadership in getting the Family Medical Leave Act written into the law as proof of his commitment to working families and to the health care issue. [...]

As did some of the other candidates, Dodd said that all Americans should be able to get the same type of health care plan as members of Congress.

That type of plan has already been introduced. The Kennedy-Dingell Medicare-For-All plan offers the uninsured a choice to use Medicare or the federal employees health plan, the same plan members of Congress and the president currently enjoy, but I agree with Dodd that all Americans should be able to get it.

That brings me to Dennis Kucinich. He's the only presidential candidate with a plan for a universal single payer, not for profit health care system. The National Health Insurance Bill (HR 676) is being sponsored by Congressman John Conyers and Kucinich, along with the backing of Physician's for a National Health Program. Click the links to read more, but here's a brief description from CommonSense:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich used the forum to continue his vigorous pitch for a single-payer health care system, arguing that the plans of the other major candidates were too dependent on insurance companies and others with a profit motive that was antithetical to the notion of universal, nondiscriminatory care. To critics who raise the fear that a totally government-run system would end up rationing care to control costs, Kucinich said that insurance companies already ration care. He also scoffed at the argument that private-sector competition would reduce costs, saying that the opposite has been the case in health care.

I like HR 676 (and the Medicare-For-All plan) and I agree with all of Kucinich's points, but I don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination either, so that leaves me undecided about who I'm backing in the primary. I want to vote for the person I think has the best chance of winning the White House AND delivering on health care, but I also want that person to be someone who is interested in delivering every dime possible toward providing care, not delivering for the investors. Who would you vote for?

Conyers' plan to cover the uninsured

In keeping with Cover the Uninsured week, here's information about John Conyers' Congressional Forum - Universal Health Care with Single Payer Financing - held in Washington today to educate and enlighten his Congressional colleagues about HR 676.

And here's some background to explain details of the single-payer plan from The Nation:

More than 47 million Americans are now living without health coverage. Representative John Conyers's United States National Health Insurance Act (HR 676) would create a single-payer healthcare system by expanding Medicare to every resident. All necessary medical care would be covered--from prescription drugs to hospital services to long-term care. There would be no deductibles or co-payments. Funding would come from sources including savings from negotiated bulk procurement of medications; a tax on the top 5 percent of income earners; and a phased-in payroll tax that is lower than what employers currently pay for less comprehensive employee health coverage. [...] To get involved, check out www.Healthcare-Now.org.

There are currently 62 co-sponsors of HR 676, including Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Michigan, and almost 260 union endorsements in 40 states. Some of Michigan's unions throwing their support behind the bill include:

Local 6000, United Auto Workers (UAW), Michigan State Employees, Lansing, MI
Branch 3126, National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), Royal Oak, MI.
Local Lodge 141, International Association of Machinists (IAM), representing airline workers at Northwest, United, Southwest, and Alaska. Detroit, MI
Local 547, International Union of Operating Engineers, Detroit, MI
Jackson/Hillsdale Counties Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Jackson, MI

Five Michigan steelworker locals endorse HR 676 too. The growing union support isn't surprising. Unions have traditionally bargained for and delivered good health insurance for their workers and families, but downsizing and off-shoring in manufacturing industries has resulted in workers losing their insurance altogether or being forced to pay more for less.

It's not just union workers facing health insurance insecurity though. From TPM Cafe:

26% of Americans say there has been a time in the last 12 months when they have been unable to afford necessary health care for themselves or a family member. Support for extending health care to all Americans trumps any tax-phobia: 66% of Americans favor "the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."

There's still a lot of doubt a single payer system could surmount the special interest group lobbyists, but Congressman Dennis Kucinich thinks it has a good chance:

It is true that large corporations, who are currently making millions every year off the backs of every American who pays for health care, will fight hard to protect the unsustainable status quo as long as they possibly can.

But with health care costs rising faster than inflation with no end in sight; and with the abject failure of managed care to contain those costs; and with the number of uninsured growing steadily; and with American companies losing their competitive edge because they are paying so much more for health care than other developed countries; the opposition will not be able to hold justice at bay for much longer. So when people tell me that national health insurance is the right answer but is not politically feasible, I tell them that the opposite is true. Passage is inevitable - it is only a matter of time.

Another argument against public programs like Medicare is that private insurers are just more efficient, but that's simply propaganda according to Jonathan Cohn at TPM Cafe:

It works as propaganda because it’s consistent with the public’s deeply held skepticism of government. But it’s just not true. And this week Wall Street gave us yet more proof of that.

It happened yesterday after Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, released its first-quarter earnings report. Earnings were up more than 3 percent – the kind of news that, one might suppose, Wall Street would greet with glee. Not so. Shares actually plummeted...by more than 20 percent.

Reason: Aenta’s medical loss ratio was going up – i.e., that it was spending more money on its patients – provoked a sharp rebuke from Wall Street.

The amount Aetna paid for covered services divided by the amount of premiums collected was 79.4%, up from 74.6%, but as Cohn points out:

"About 98% of the money that goes into the Medicare program comes back out as medical services - in good part because the program doesn't siphon money for marketing and profits. But, then, Medicare doesn’t have to satisfy investors. It has to satisfy voters. Big difference."

Absolutely, but I have a feeling when it comes to people's health that voters want every dime possible directed toward providing care, not delivering for the investors, which probably explains why 66% of Americans favor the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes. People know that Medicare has been a government success.

If you like Conyers' plan and believe that establishing a universal health care system is essential to resolving our nation's health care crisis, click here to sign his petition and support the passage of H.R. 676.

UPDATE: Click here to get more information about the Executive Summary of The United States National Health Insurance Act (HR676).