Inspiration by Aspiration Will Turn Out the Vote

­From time to time I hear critiques of Bernie Sanders and some of the policies that he and Elizabeth Warren have espoused like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal as being unattainable and therefore bad politics. I disagree, in fact lofty goals are inspirational, look at John Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the moon within a decade. That feat was thought unattainable by many and NASA scrambled to make it happen but we did it.

When we elected President Obama with promises to fix our broken health care system many thought he would fail since Bill and Hillary Clinton had failed to do it more than a decade earlier. My friends and I quickly learned that his proposal was a stretch as far as congress was concerned. We worked hard to convince Congressman Henry Cuellar, who represented Guadalupe County at that time, to support the bill which he finally did though he threw his share of monkey wrenches into the mix. Democratic Senators like Max Baucus from Montana held up the bill for months while stripping it of some of the best parts. We didn’t get everything we wanted but the Affordable Care Act was an improvement over what had existed before. Had our Republican governor not failed to take advantage of the tens of millions of dollars available to expand Medicaid, tens of thousands of Texans could be healthier and happier today.

During Obama’s presidency we learned that pre-emptive compromise intended to get the support of Republicans early in the process was a failure because they just moved the goalpost further off center. Now that many of us have turned our attention to electing a president to replace the ignoramus currently in office some folks seem to believe that the only important issue is winning the election and therefore we should choose a candidate that at least some who voted for Trump will vote for. Oddly they seem to think that those are folks who are somewhere in the middle on most policy issues. The reality is that those voters who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 then voted for Trump in 2016 wanted to “shake things up”, they didn’t vote for Trump as much as they voted against Hillary Clinton whom they viewed as an establishment candidate.

Pre-emptively compromising on a centrist/establishment candidate like Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg, etc. isn’t going to win over those voters, they’ll just go for another four years of Trump trashing our democracy, violating the constitution, and lining his own pockets with public funds. Instead we need an inspirational candidate who talks about the possibilities that can be achieved. Joe Biden has essentially campaigned on bringing another four years of the Obama presidency. First Biden no Barack Obama and second at least the people I talk to think it’s time to move forward not have more of the same.

Voters who switched to Trump after voting for Obama wanted to shake things up because they felt that our federal government was more responsive to big business than working class people and they’re absolutely right even if their prescription for fixing it was totally wrong. Giving them a candidate that doesn’t offer a big change in how our government works isn’t going to bring them back.

Early voting started yesterday, vote for the candidate whose message inspires you and your family because that is the candidate who will inspire others. For me that’s Bernie Sanders.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - February 19, 2020

Medicare For All Tough To Beat

Every now and again I run into a Democrat who says they support healthcare reform but not the Medicare for All plans promoted by Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. When asked why, they say they have a good plan through their employer and don’t want to give it up, that they support a “public option” where everyone has the choice to buy into Medicare. What those folks fail to realize is that while the plan they have now may be very good, Medicare for All is also much more that traditional Medicare and is actually better than most commercial plans.

How many commercial plans out there have a total annual out of pocket of $200 and that is limited to prescription drugs? No co-pay or deductible to go to the doctor with a sore throat and fever. No co-pay or deductible to take your child to the doctor for a broken arm. No co-pay or deductible for an emergency room visit for a heart attack or the intensive care unit, or surgery, or later rehabilitation. How many commercial plans cover the entire bill for all that? I know mine sure doesn’t. My colonoscopy last month was $1400 out of pocket. I haven’t gotten the bill from the anesthesiologist or the pathology lab where the biopsies were done yet. Hopefully I won’t meet my $6000 deductible for the year.

Just like current Medicare any doctor or service provider, like physical therapists, licensed or certified in Texas can apply and be accepted. Unlike traditional Medicare, the Medicare for All plan proposed by Bernie Sanders also includes dental care, hearing aids and exams, as well as vision benefits. Bernie’s plan also pays for home and community based long-term care and services, think home health aide visits to the elderly at home, or nursing homes for those in need of constant monitoring.

Just as important, while the plan people have through their employer might be just as good as Medicare for All, what happens when that employer moves to another city or state like AT&T did when it moved its headquarters from San Antonio to Dallas some years ago forcing people to find another job if they didn’t want to move? What happens if the industry they’re in or the overall economy turns down and the employer lays them off? What happens if they become too sick to work, perhaps due to cancer or other debilitating illness? The answer is that formerly great insurance is no longer available, they might have access via COBRA for a while but the premium will be sky high and if they’re not working how will they pay that outrageous premium?

45 percent of Americans are worried a major illness could leave them bankrupt, 1 out of 4 Americans skipped needed medical care because they could not afford it, and 77 percent are concerned rising health costs will cause significant and lasting damage to our economy. With these awful statistics it’s laughable that Medicare for All skeptics most common complaint is “how will we pay for it?” First let’s recognize that we’re paying more now for less. Elizabeth Warren pays for her plan by raising taxes on billionaires by adding a tax of 6 percent on net wealth above $1 billion, repealing Trump's tax give away to the rich, and treating long-term capital gains like regular income. In addition her plan calls for restoring funding for the Internal Revenue Service so it can go back to auditing the rich they way it did 20 years ago which is expected to recover $230 billion a year.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - December 4, 2019

Health Care Promises versus Real Proposals

When running for president, Trump claimed he already had plans in the works for fixing the healthcare mess this country has suffered for 70 years.  Candidate Trump promised “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” in an interview with The Washington Post. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us” he continued. On another occasion he claimed "​I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not, the government's gonna pay for it." Not only have those promises not been kept; there has been no actual plan proposed by the Trump administration that would even attempt to fulfill them.

Democrats in congress have already filed legislation that would address all those issues, it’s called Medicare for All and our congressman, Vicente Gonzalez, is a sponsor of the bill. There’s a reason that the “market” can’t provide health care for all at reasonable costs. Health care isn’t like a commodity or even most services.

When you need it you don’t have time to shop around, sometimes you need it regardless of the cost so rising prices don’t substantially affect demand as they would for most commodities and for the most part there is no substitute or alternative. If the price of potatoes goes up people eat more rice or bread. As the price of beef has risen people switch to chicken. When you’ve got an infection that’s gone septic your alternatives are strong antibiotics with hospital care or surgery to remove the affected limb or death. I know because my wife spent three months in the hospital and various rehabilitation facilities after coming close to death.

Another claim was “I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we’re going through.” I got a raise in February and in March my insurance premium went up almost exactly the same amount. While not every reader may have experienced it I’ll bet most of you have found that your insurance premiums have risen yet again.

A recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University projects that if Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill were to pass overall health costs would go down, and wages would go up. Had the study been done by some group at the University of California at Berkeley I’d expect a lot of complaints of liberal bias, in this case the Mercatus Center is backed by wealthy Libertarian Koch brothers. So if even the far right can see the benefits of the Democrats bill we should all be confident it’s the real deal.

Early in his campaign, candidate Trump claimed on Twitter, “I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid”. In October 2015, he tweeted, "I am going to save Medicare and Medicaid, …”. So far there’s  been no indication that he’s actually working to avoid cuts to Medicare and Medicaid and since the Republican controlled congress is working on legislation to slash both programs in the name of deficit reduction he’d better get a move on or he’ll fail to fulfill yet another campaign promise.

In November if we elect a Democratic governor, state senate and state house they could then pass the  Healthy Texas Act which would provide similar coverage to Medicare for All but just in Texas. If you believe that everyone deserves health care get out and vote for Democrats in November.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - August 3, 2018

Congressman Ryan wants to do for Medicare what W failed to do, PRIVATIZE it

Congressman Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee, has put forth a budget plan that seeks to privatize Medicare which is the most efficient provider of medical insurance coverage in the country. Medicare spends 98% of its budget on health care while the typical private insurance company spends less than 80% of its budget on health care. Ryan’s plan would offer tax credits and vouchers with the amount indexed for inflation. Some would say that it sounds pretty good even though coverage under private insurance would cost substantially more than comparable coverage under Medicare due to the significantly lower efficiency of private insurance.

So let’s say that Congressman Ryan’s bill was accepted as the law of the land, last year inflation was so low that Social Security didn’t even increase payments under what is known as Cost of Living Adjustments, so we would expect that there would be no increase in the tax credits or vouchers. But what would stop insurance companies from raising rates just like Anthem Blue Cross just announced. In California they are hiking insurance rates as much as an astounding 39% and where in the past they’ve only raised rates once a year, they’ve warned that future rate hikes could come at any time.

So the Republican plan for health care reform consists of giving away tax dollars to private companies who can still charge Americans as much as they want and jack up rates as often as they want.

Letter to Congressman Cuellar in light of the Massachusetts special election

Dear Congressman Cuellar,

Immediately after the Massachusetts Senate special election a Research 2000 poll of Brown voters in shows 82% of Obama voters who went for Brown support the public option and by a 3:2 margin think that the current bill doesn't go far enough. The Obama voters who stayed home think the bill doesn't go far enough by a 6:1 margin.

The Democratic Party has less than 10 months to start governing as a people-powered party, or we will lose both the House and the Senate. With the election of Scott Brown to fill Sen. Kennedy’s unexpired term the damage is done. Unless the Democrats move aggressively to correct the perception that we are the party of backroom deals and massive corporate bailouts, 2010 will be more of the same. Given that the Cook Political Report rates TX 28 as even between the Democrats and Republican you’re on the bubble and are likely to be one of the losers if the party fails to pass populist legislation.

So if you want to activate base voters you need to get behind a big jobs bill to put the nearly 10% of Texans who are unemployed back to work. You need to pass a strong health care reform bill with the Public Option. Surveys show that likely 2010 voters "oppose a mandate to purchase private insurance by 64% to 34% but support a mandate with a choice of private or public insurance by 60% to 37%."

You and the party need to pass green energy legislation and come to grips with the fact that global climate change will happen within the lifetime of many of today’s voters if you don’t do something now. Finally it’s time to stop pouring blood and treasure into Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home so we can spend the money here on infrastructure, health care and education. Those are winning issues in the upcoming election.

I like a quote I read recently, "… a Democratic Party that would abandon their central initiative this quickly isn't a Democratic Party that deserves to hold power." I would add that if the party doesn't stick to the principles it professes to hold and stand up to the lobbyists you’ve kowtowed to from the start, "holding power" won't be anything you have to worry about because the Tea Party is gunning for you. In order to be re-elected you’re going to need the party base proud of what you’ve done and actively campaigning for you and not sitting on their hands at home like the folks in Massachusetts.

Sincerely,

When will Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison stop lying to her constituents?

In today’s constituent email she claims: “The President and the Democratic leadership have pursued a radical approach to health care reform that will not only result in higher taxes and penalties, but will also increase premiums and reduce patient choices.” The fact is that nothing in the legislation will reduce patient choice, in fact it will expand the choices of many of the six million Texans who now must rely on emergency rooms for treatment.

In her next sentence she claims: “In fact, under the bill, Americans will be taxed for four years before they will see any benefit of insurance reform.” But it’s not a fact the reality is that according to CNN “some benefits would start immediately, including provisions that would require private insurers to provide a minimum level of coverage, Medicare improvements, provisions to decrease administrative costs and targeted assistance for certain people ages 55-64.” In addition wholesale reform of something as large and complex as health care can not logistically occur overnight, after all Medicare Part B took two years to fully implement and this is even bigger.

A few paragraphs later she claims: “The bill passed by the Senate, with only Democrat support, represents a massive government expansion and federal takeover of our health care system.” That’s a lie, there is no takeover, as outlined in the Senate bill there is no government run health insurance program nor is there an expansion of Medicare.

Response to Senator Cornyn's latest scary email about health care reform legislation

A few days ago Senator Cornyn sent out a scary email making a series of spurious claims about the health care reform bill now being debated in the Senate. Refuting it point by point here is useless but I would ask a few questions about what he and the rest of the Republican Party are doing to improve the bill.

Senator, why haven’t you worked to make certain that the reform bill requires insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibit rescission for any reason? Since you’re so certain that competition is the best solution, why haven’t you demanded that insurers loose their anti-trust exemption? Since competition is so useful, why haven’t you demanded that Americans be allowed the opportunity to purchase lower priced imported medications?

Since you are so concerned about the millions of Texans without insurance coverage why don’t you demand that employers either be required to offer insurance coverage to their employees or expand Medicaid to allow low income folks working for companies that don’t offer insurance plans to have medical coverage and at the same time also feed, clothe and house their families? The point of health insurance is to spread the risk so that no one looses their home or life over huge medical bills because we all share in the cost, why haven’t you worked to force insurers to use community rating rather than allowing them to rate individuals so that people with medical problems can find affordable insurance?

Cal Thomas and a classic case of projection

In Thursday’s Op-Ed Cal Thomas provides a terrific example of the psychological term projection. He claims that the liberals are taking the country down the path to Socialism when in fact the conservatives have already taken us down the fascist path and all we’re trying to do is get back to where we were when Bill Clinton was in office.

Referring to the emasculated health care reform bill being debated in the Senate he claims, “This is about liberal Democrats realizing their decades-old dream of complete control of our lives.” It’s the conservatives that have a need to control everyone in every aspect of their lives, conservatives are the ones withholding civil rights from gay couples who want to share their lives together as married couples. It’s conservatives who want to maintain the outlaw status of marijuana regardless of what the science says about it’s use or what many Americans do anyway.

Later Mr. Thomas alludes to rationing being part of the health care reform bill and states, “The unwanted, the inconvenient and the ‘burdensome’ could soon be dispatched with a pill, or through neglect.” Apparently he’s unfamiliar with the tens of thousands who die every year due to lack of affordable health care insurance. Mr. Thomas thinks it’s OK for insurance companies to ration care in order to maximize profits but it’s not OK for the government to ensure as the constitution clearly states the “general welfare” of all Americans

Congressman Cuellar - thanks but...

Today members of the Dem's Café and allied groups visited with Congressman Cuellar's aide to thank the Congressman for his support of the health care reform bill HR 3962, we also let him know that we weren't happy with his vote in favor of the Stupak amendment eliminating insurance coverage for abortions. We also delivered the visual aid and following letter.

Dem’s Café activists and allies

November 17, 2009

The Honorable Henry Cuellar
100 S. Austin Street, Suite 1
Seguin, Texas 78155

Subject: HR 3962

Dear Congressman Cuellar,

Thank you for standing with your constituents and the American people in voting for HR 3962. There is still a long way to go and we urge you to continue to work for a robust public option, one that allows everyone to participate and starts right away. The bigger the pool of participants the more efficient the system will be and the greater the savings your constituents will enjoy, as well as, according to the CBO, the greater the impact it will have on lowering the federal deficit.

While we appreciate your support for this historic legislation our happiness is tempered by your vote in favor of the Stupak anti-choice amendment and we will be working with our friends in the choice community to ensure that this dangerous measure is stricken from the final bill. President Obama has said that the Stupak Coat Hanger amendment goes too far and doesn’t maintain the compromise of the Hyde amendment. We’re counting on you to recognize that the Hyde amendment already is highly restrictive and including the Stupak amendment in the final bill is unnecessary and unjust as it would effectively eliminate abortion services from any insurance plan whether or not it is paid for with federal funds.

We understand that Catholic bishops put a lot of pressure on members of Congress to support the Stupak amendment. We ask you to realize that many of your supporters are not Catholic nor are they religious and our form of government exists because of the separation of church and state. We therefore urge you to step back from the Stupak amendment and allow it to die in conference.

If you’re going to support the Stupak Coat Hanger amendment then to be consistent you should work to eliminate coverage in Medicare and the Exchange for Cialis, Levitra, Viagra and penile implants.

Legalized abortion is now clearly understood to be largely responsible for the decrease in violent crime over the last 15 or so years by minimizing the number of unwanted children born to women too young or otherwise unable to care for them*. It has also reduced the number of battered children reducing the need for programs like Child Protective Services and Head Start. By eliminating women’s options you are guaranteeing the need for more police, SCHIP, Medicaid and CPS funding as well as the untold misery caused by the adolescents and adults those unwanted children turn into.

The Stupak amendment does not literally say that plans on the exchange can’t include abortion coverage, it just makes it completely impossible that a plan could for several reasons. To pretend that a reading of the Stupak amendment could not easily be used to stop the sale of plans covering abortion on the exchange is absurd. That is like claiming a law making it illegal to sell tubes capable of having a bullet pass through at high speeds would not be a ban on firearms.

If women and families are forced to have children that are unplanned and unwanted, then the government and society that imposes that burden on women and families must offset the burden with all of the necessary societal programs that are needed to sustain and enhance the child and the family. If you take away choice, then you must replace it with social and economic programs to help the families be responsible, productive tax paying citizens. When your fiscally responsible views collide with your anti-abortion stance you have to choose and fully support one or the other, which will it be?

Redistricting will soon be here and as I understand it Texas stands to pick up two new House seats. Your district may not remain the same so unless you are prepared for a primary challenge from the left you should remember that “Hell hath no fury like a woman disenfranchised”. If you plan to stay in office much longer you should remember that women support Democrats more often than men and women are more likely to be Pro-Choice than men so you’re throwing away the Democrat’s slim edge in the district. Virginia Governor candidate Creigh Deeds ran away from the Democratic Party’s principles and party stalwarts stayed home in droves on election day. The day that Democrats in your district don’t bother to vote because you don’t inspire us to come out is the day that the Republican challenger will beat you.

For the good of the country, the Democratic Party and most of all for the good of women we urge you to work to eliminate the Stupak amendment from health care reform legislation.

Sincerely,

Dem’s Café progressive activists, Members of American’s United and allies


* "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" by John Donohue and Steven Levitt published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001

Where's the concern for the 123 people who died today due to lack of medical insurance?

In a study released by Harvard Medical School September 18, 2009 researchers found that 45,000 people die in the United States each year in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care.

If terrorists managed to pull off a September 11 scale attack every month for a year they wouldn’t kill as many people as lack of medical insurance does in that same year. Why are we as a nation willing to go to war and spend what is now projected to be $2-3 trillion over 3,000 deaths but not willing to do what’s necessary to make sure every American receives adequate health care. More than 3,000 of our soldiers’ have given their lives not to mention thousands more accepting devastating injuries in a ill conceived effort to prevent 3,000 more deaths by terrorists but John Cornyn wouldn’t even support the watered down version of health care reform legislation proposed by the Senate Finance Committee. Tens of thousands of civilian lives in Iraq and Afghanistan have been sacrificed over those terrorist caused deaths and yet we’re willing to let 15 times as many Americans die every year so some insurance company can turn a profit?

I don’t hear a lot of concern for the 123 people who died today or the 123 more who will die every tomorrow until we have universal coverage, because they lacked medical insurance. What is wrong with this picture?

Lamar Smith's Pants are on Fire

In Lamar Smith’s article in Wednesday's San Antonio Express-News he offers tort reform as the solution to the high cost of medicine. Tort reform is a red herring. Only from 4 to 7 % of those injured by malpractice even bring suit due to the high cost of litigation. Medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, we have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. Even if we eliminated malpractice insurance costs entirely it won’t substantially reduce the cost of health care in America.

Despite Congressman Smith's contention that Texas Tort Reform has brought back doctors and reduced costs; insurance companies did not drop their rates because of tort reform, instead the state’s insurance commissioner forced them to drop their rates. Shortly after the passage of the Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act of 2003, two major Texas insurance carriers requested increases in malpractice insurance rates. One, the Joint Underwriting Association, filed for a rate increase of 35 % for doctors and 68% for hospitals. Malpractice insurance rates did not increase only because the state insurance commissioner denied the request.

Contrary to the claims that defensive medicine drives up costs and tort reform would reduce the practice the CBO found that on the basis of existing studies as well as its own research, savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.

Fehrenbach repeats teabagger and secessionist rants as analysis

In T.R. Fehrenbach’s Sunday article, “The core questions might make you sick”, he cites three core questions and claims to answer them. Unfortunately Mr. Fehrenbach, who claims to be a historian, seems to be using teabagger propaganda as source material.

On the question of cost he states that any extension of benefits will be enormously expensive. If we assumed that those not presently covered by insurance were also getting absolutely no unpaid care he would be correct, but that’s not the case. Hospitals and doctors frequently provide services for which they aren’t compensated and therefore charge everyone else more to make up the shortfall.

On the question of benefits Mr. Fehrenbach states “Every country with cradle to grave coverage dilutes or rations care” and then goes on to say that “In Sweden, top specialists are usually available only to the political class or famous people.” How is that different than in the U.S. except you should add “the wealthy” to those who have the luxury to seek out the finest care?

Finally like the teabaggers and secessionists I’ve met at demonstrations Mr. Fehrenbach claims “Government can’t manage Medicare now – why trust it with greater responsibility?” What other entity in the U.S. spends health care dollars more efficiently than Medicare which achieves 95% while private insurance companies do no better than 70 – 80 %?

If Mr. Fehrenbach wants to lay claim to being a historian he’d do well to choose his sources more carefully.

Letter to Congressman Cuellar urging support for strong public option in health care reform legislation

August 30, 2009

The Honorable Henry Cuellar
336 Cannon H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
phone: 202-225-1640
fax: 202-225-1641

Dear Congressman Cuellar,

Thank you for speaking out in support of HR 3200, I urge you to take the position that you’ll only vote for a reform bill that includes a strong public option right away. It should include the following concepts:
Everyone is eligible.
Pre-existing conditions won’t disqualify anyone.
It must also be transparent and accountable to Congress and taxpayers.
It has to be nationwide to pool risk most efficiently.
It has to be nationwide so it has the clout to negotiate with all forms of health care providers.
It has to be nationwide so that it is portable when a citizen moves.

Your constituents have far more to gain than they stand to lose by such reform. HR 3200 would:
Prevent 620 health care-related bankruptcies in the district
Properly compensate health care providers in the district who currently provide $47 million worth of uncompensated care
Cover 244,000 of the 267,000 people in the district who are currently uninsured
Be deficit neutral through increased efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and a surtax on one half of one percent of the population in the district.

Sincerely,

Signs for Teabaggers

We support the Sarah Palin Freedom from Information Act

End Medicare and Social Security Now

If you have a pre-existing condition here’s a cup for donations

Health care is only for the wealthy, the poor don’t deserve it

Shut up, we don’t want to discuss health care reform at all

Facts don’t matter, only how loud we scream matters

Freedom means we never have to give you what you paid for

Don’t get between me and my insurance company until after they screw me

Republicans were for killing grandma before they were against it – see John Kerry