Hillarysworld

Sanders · Diamond

"This Is Only The Beginning" (Sen.Kirsten Gillibrand, DailyKos, 3/31/10)

Sanders · Diamond

So far I could not find that clip from Morning Joe... If I find it somewhere, I will post.

In searching though, I found the following two clips of Sen.Gillibrand
- October 2009 - when she spoke generally in favor of HCR as being highly favorable to women.
- December 2009 - urging her colleagues to oppose Stupak amendment.

What Health Care Reform Means for Women

KirstenEGillibrand — October 08, 2009 — Senator Gillibrand Joins Women Senators Calling for Meaningful Health Care Reform on Behalf of All Women

Gillibrand: Misinformation Driving Stupak Measure

KirstenEGillibrand — December 07, 2009 — Senator Gillibrand urges her colleagues to oppose the anti-choice Stupak measure that would go beyond current federal law and strip access to reproductive care for women across America.

As you know, Stupak amendment did not become part of the final bill.

Only an affirmation of existing Hyde Act by way of EO signed by the President is what we have now.

Since the Stupak amendment is NOT part of the final bill, I believe the insurance plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchanges CAN offer abortion either as part of the plan or as riders. The plans themselves are not subsidized. The individuals buying plans get money to buy insurance coverage, a part of the coverage can still provide coverage for abortion.

--------------
And this one on DADT which I had not seen before.

Senator Gillibrand Makes The Case For Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Gillibrand2010 — February 03, 2010 — On February 2, 2010, Senator Gillibrand went on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer to make the case for repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

Listen to her respond to Wolf Blitzer. She is so articulate and has all her facts ready in her supportive argument. Reminds me of Hillary as our Senator.

-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 3rd of April 2010 09:41:00 PM

typo corrected

-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 4th of April 2010 12:08:37 AM

Hillarysmygirl16 · Administrator

I am hoping the GOP runs someone for both seats. I will work hard for her GOP competition. She is a traitor to women and she doesn't listen to the people who elected her. She is another lying snake in a grass who betrayed the people she represents. Its time for Kristen to go bye bye.
I am real sorry I asked Patterson to appoint this fool. I'll work hard to get Schumer out of there. People in NY do not want HCR. I want NY to be red as a tomato for both seats. Boxer also has to go.
Its time the Hillary supporters learn that will support you only so far. This bill is disgraceful and she sold out women so its time for her to go bye bye.

Hillarysmygirl16 · Administrator

The article about health care and women made me want to slap some sense into this silly idiot. She is really an idiot if she thinks this law is good for women. She IS NO ****ING HILLARY CLINTON HILLARY DIDN'T THROW WOMEN UNDER THE BUS BUT THIS FOOL DID. I am so fed up with these stupid women like Boxer and Gillibrand spouting democratic lies. Gillibrand better hope she doesn't get cancer before age 50 because she won't be able to get a mamagram but she is rich so she will get one but poor women are sentenced to die. Forget this stupid fool. I despise women who betray other women then claim to be for women.
Now if I cussed out Clinton for this and I love her what makes anyone think I am going to forgive or support this woman or Babs Boxer. Nope and why they are begging women to help them.

Sanders · Diamond

HMG,

Mammograms and pap test are covered in the preventive care provisions of HCR.

Effective September of THIS year, there will be zero (0) co-pay for preventive care on all new plans. By 2018, this will extend to all plans.

Source link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Excerpts:

Effective September 23, 2010

Dependent children will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.^[31]
Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments or deductibles for preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.^[32]

and this:

Effective by 2018

All existing health insurance plans must cover approved preventive care and checkups without co-payment.^[25]

The full section on PROVISIONS is worth reading at that source link.

========================================

Also, I found this tool helpful. Link to this was in a footnote of the able in the above source.
Subsidy Calculator for specific dollar amount of Income - select "Final Legislation"

-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 4th of April 2010 12:06:33 AM

freespirit · Moderator

I like the fact that people with pre-existing conditions can't be denied insurance. However, this measure could have been taken without the other more questionable parts of the bill. Other obvious and inexpensive measures which would have had a huge and positive impact were notably not enacted - tort reform and drug costs. Of course, Obama had cut a deal with Big Pharma - so prices will remain exorbitant.

I don't doubt there are beneficial components of this bill. However, I do not agree with Gillenbrand and the others who supported the "pass it now - fix it later" approach. What in the hell was the rush? Why not a slower, more deliberate approach? Had there been more public deliberation from the beginning and more transparency people would not be as distrustful of the bill. Had the Dems not just passed the mega-expensive stimulus bill, people would not have been so concerned about the ability of this country to pay for HCR. Had the Dems acted with integrity, people would have had more confidence in their ability and desire to do the right thing. Had they not thrown women under the bus, some of us would have had less resentment of them and of their bill.

But, they, as usual, assumed that Americans were too stupid to know what was best for them and the country. They assumed that they - the Dems - being such highly educated champions of underprivileged and oppressed groups all across the country (except WOMEN), were justified in refusing to listen to the public.

Sanders · Diamond

As in 1994 when Hillary faced opposition from the insurance industry, the medical industry and the big pharma to Clinton Administration's proposed Health Care reform, the same sectors by and large opposed current HCR.

Nowhere was it clearer to me than in reading articles that were extremely well written but with an small print advertisement that had "sponsored by" somewhere around it.

Last week, I read two articles opposing HCR sponsored by "Northwest Mutual" - and I realized that I had seen that picture before. It was a real aha moment.

As I peel the current law, the people with the biggest real pressure are those who have to sell their insurance through the SHOPs - the state level health insurance exchanges. And, also on advertisers and marketers whose income will be cut as a result of these insurances not having to be direct marketed to small companies - a cost advantage to the insurance companies which will be required to be transferred as the insurance companies are now - with the current HCR law - MUST utilize 85% of their income for healthcare delivery. So, yes, the insurance sector will feel the pressure the most. No matter which way they turn, the 85% is something they will not be able to get away from. Their industry got regulated.

I have always wondered why I had not seen many positive articles on the HCR. Now, in retrospect, I understand it. There were few to no specifics with which to analyze the reform "to come."

Just because McCain campaigned on health care reform to counter Obama, does not mean that Republicans had any commitment to doing any reform. Dems on the other hand had BOTH Obama supporters and Hillary supporters who all (by and large) wanted health care reform - so much so, McCain's camp greatly focused on Hillary supporters in marketing their healthcare proposal. Afterall, for Hillary, Health care reform was her top agenda item.

But Republicans were not committed to health care reform AT ALL. It was only an election ploy.

Between industry push-back and Republican party pushback, as well as advertising industry (almost all of media) pushing back, AND the fact that there were really not enough pegs on the coat hanger to analyze this thing before it got finalized, it was a field day for the critics.

With sponsored articles doing excellent communication feeding a skeptic audience on the one side, and a poor communicator in the President providing insufficient to no communication on the 'projected' health insurance reform on the other side, the amorphous health care reform got lambasted. Even to this day, we see articles that are basing their analysis on the House bill that did not pass than the Senate (Finance Committee) bill + Reconciliation bill that did pass.

A 60-major in the Senate passed the Senate (finance committee) bill on the eve of Christmas. After January, it could not happen. And in fact, it was Massachusetts that sealed the deal on the U.S. on which version of health care reform we would get. There was only one option left, which was the pass the Senate version in the House of Reps, and they did. Without that, it was not possible to make this into law. They actually passed the Senate version (rather than 'deem and pass') and THEN pass the reconciliation bill which in turn got passed [with parliamentarian modifications] in the Senate (with simple majority which is what is needed for reconciliation bill and more was not possible with election of Sen.Brown) and that bill reverted to the House and got passed in the House.

It is rare to have a Senate with 60 people (of one or both parties) that will sign up for any controversial bill, let alone health care reform that has so many special interests.

Yes, health care reform was never popular in this country - we have insurance industry to thank for that. They would rather pour their money advertising and teaching us why it is so bad for us to regulate them, than lower our insurance premiums.

Without that popularity, we are quite unlikely to get a 60-majority that is bipartisan passing a HCR bill in the Senate. I do not think that would have ever happened in a truly bipartisan manner. I was though still hopeful to see more cooperation. When the Republican side pulled 29 or was it 39 'amendments' to derail the Reconciliation bill, it was clear that all they cared about was stopping the bill and making the Democrats look bad in front of their respective constituencies.

The current mess is the result of not pre-selling to the country as the legislation neared especially as there was a lot of negative coverage. Election was a year ago. A year in 2009 in the information age where there is massive information inflow every day is very different from a year in 2000 or even 2004. The President needed to stay engaged on the topic of health care reform after the election to keep the momentum that was built up during the primaries and the general election.

Rep.Murtha was correct. Every President fumbles in their first 6 months to a year. It was a real bad policy item on which to fumble. We needed to elect Hillary; she would have known how to handle the situation a lot better.

Now, the job of the President is to give clarity on what the reform is and what it is not. So far, he is talking in generalities and that is not flying. People want to, need to and deserve to know EXACTLY how it will impact them individually.

As we look at the HCR, let us not forget that the economy we are in is one where jobs continue to erode and the job growth will come in the health care sector with this reform. That businesses will continue to have topline and bottomline growth contributing to increasing GDP and rich will continue to get richer. The advantages already gained is well cemented in this economy. A better appreciation of that factor helps understand the sources and targets of cash flow in this Health Care reform. It also helps understand why we are seeing articles critical of health care reform written by owners of capital management companies like this one.

Meanwhile, we continue to be upset that the legislation does not include tort reform, and it does not include public option. Tort reform can still happen (but I am afraid the impetus for public option is no longer there - it really requires a Dem majority of well over 60 in Senate to pass that). Now, will a tort reform get a bipartisan 60-majority in the Senate for a tort reform? That is the big question. There are many consumer protection forces at play in this. Let them keep harping on it in the context of health care reform and soon we can hold both parties to pass tort reform. Let us keep calling asking for tort reform and I am sure we can get that passed.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 5th of April 2010 03:11:57 PM

freespirit · Moderator

I can't recall the source, nor can I confirm its accuracy, but I read an article some weeks ago which claimed that Obama had agreed not to pursue the importation of drugs in order to ensure more reasonable cost- in return for the support of Big Pharma. The article further claimed that the pharmaceutical industry underwrote a massive and hugely expensive campaign encouraging support of the HCR bill.

If it's true that our government bargained away the ability to ensure that more affordable, quality pharmaceuticals were made available to the citizens of this country, I would love to hear the justification. The Dems are full of rhetoric about concern for the health of Americans. Medications are a key and integral component of health care. There are documented cases of people who have perished because they simply could not pay for the medications needed to support health and/or save life. To undermine any effort which would help people gain access to the medications they need is criminal, IMO.

Sanders · Diamond

I am reading articles that dissect what transpired in 2009-10 in regard to HCR and I posted one just a short while ago.

I will be actively on the look out for meaty articles with the topic of pharma and meds and see where it landed in the end.

Even pharma will feel the big squeeze from the insurance industry to lower costs. The insurance industry will be under scrutiny on rates, will be forced to compete DIRECTLY with each other when small businesses and individuals can approach them at once at the SHOPs (Health Insurance Exchanges) to shop for their insurance, and will be held accountable on their P&L on how much of their revenues are actually spent towards health CARE! They will not be able to spend any less than 85% for actual care and that would include medicine. (Of course, if they want to spend more, they can, but knowing insurance companies, they will want every bit of that 15% to go towards what can be bottomline profits). So, we know that administrative costs will have to go down drastically... as also the cost of medicines.

All aspects of the health care service delivery models will feel the squeeze including pharma.

BUT the entire industry will feel topline growth in their P&L (topline growth = 32 million more covered). Their profits (in dollar terms) will actually grow, but in percent terms their profits are likely to shrink.

With the topline growth (32 million more covered) the entire health care sector will experience a HUGE expansion. This means a LOT more jobs directly in the sector and indirectly to service the sector.

And every time something like this happens, there is more money movement in the economy and M3 expands - this is a good thing... especially given that there is no "manufacturing" sector being developed in the country.. Nonetheless, the health care sector as a private industry (which it will continue to remain) is still a competitive advantage for the country. So, the economic model of the country continues with major restraints on insurance, and through them, also on pharma.

Hillarysworld

"

This Is Only The Beginning [UPDATED]

by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:38:11 AM PDT

"

What Health Care Reform Means for Women

Gillibrand: Misinformation Driving Stupak Measure

Senator Gillibrand Makes The Case For Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Effective September 23, 2010

Effective by 2018