Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL, apologizes on the House floor...but not to Republicans for his remarks last night. Instead, he apologized for those who died because they didn't have health insurance.
Okay people, let’s take a deep breath real quick and listen to what I am about to say. First we heard about the death panels that many GOP and right wing supporters said the Democrats healthcare plan would lead to. Now we are hearing a Democrat say, “the GOP wants sick to just ‘die quickly’.” I don’t know about all of you but such rhetoric from both sides’ sounds like a political ploy rather than common sense rhetoric which is needed when having a dialogue about healthcare.
Still House Republicans say it's payback time for the recent reprimand of one of their own for heckling President Barack Obama. They want a Democratic lawmaker to apologize or face a reprimand for saying the GOP wants Americans to "die quickly" if they get sick. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla. — a first-term congressman known for a provocative style — refused to back down on Wednesday.
As Republicans threatened to introduce a resolution disapproving of his remarks, he returned to the House floor and mocked their outrage by citing research showing that nearly 45,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance. "I would like to apologize ... I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America," he said, citing a study being published in the American Journal of Public Health.
Grayson's initial remarks came Tuesday night as he criticized Republican health care proposals as a "blank piece of paper." "If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly," he said on the House floor. "That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."
The rhetoric wasn't spontaneous: He reinforced his point with signs saying the same thing. Republicans immediately called for an apology, likening the comments to Rep. Joe Wilson's widely criticized shout of "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's address to Congress earlier this month. Seeking payback from the Democratic-led scolding of Wilson earlier this month, they say Democrats should at least insist that Grayson apologize just as they insisted Wilson, R-S.C., should.
Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who heads the conservative Republican Study Committee, drafted a "resolution of disapproval" that mirrors the one Democrats approved against Wilson, saying Grayson's conduct was "a breach of decorum and degraded the integrity and proceedings of the House." Price said he was withholding resolution to give Grayson more time to consider an apology, but that the measure could be introduced later this week. "The American people want open and honest discussion," said Price, whose efforts had the backing of Republican leadership. "They want respectful discussion."
Democratic leaders have so far have been quiet. Grayson said he spoke with them about the incident and that none had asked him to apologize. Behind the scenes, Democratic aides point to comments that Republicans have made in recent weeks alleging that Democratic health care legislation would kill people. Some Republicans have accused Obama of pushing for "death panels" and held to that view even after the administration's strenuous objections and after the claims were widely discredited.
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley told a group of constituents in his home state of Iowa in August they have good reason to fear the Democrats' health care proposals. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma," Grassley said. Speaking to reporters, Grayson said his floor speech was "tongue-in-cheek," but he also said it was an accurate description of Republican health care proposals, which he said do nothing to help the uninsured.
Asserting that he violated no House rules, he predicted his bold statement would be received favorably in his district. "People like elected officials with guts who say what they mean," he said. Grayson, who represents a Republican-leaning district around Orlando, was already among the GOP's top targets for the 2010 elections.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called Grayson's comment a "smear" against the GOP. "If the Democrats are serious about the importance of civil debate on the floor of the House, then both (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and President Obama should condemn Alan Grayson's outrageous and completely inappropriate comments," he said.
Still the whole debate about healthcare right now has been getting way out of control and common sense needs to prevail. I refuse to believe that Democrats and Republicans want people to die but the reality is that if Grayson wants to apologize to the American people who have had family members die though to not having healthcare insurance than his rhetoric should be placed directed toward both Democratic and Republican politicians for not getting healthcare reform sooner for Americans. There have been many chances in the past to reform healthcare but many politicians on both sides of the aisle have blocked it because it either didn’t contain something they liked or it contained something they didn’t like. Therefore year after year, American Presidents and Congress have missed opportunity after opportunity to reform healthcare.
Therefore both Democrats and Republicans are not helping the healthcare debate right now with all the talk about who wants to kill Americans rather than save lives. When will a politician step forward and demand an end to the death panel talk and the blame of who is the reason why many Americans don’t healthcare insurance because both Democrats and Republicans are to blame and that is why we need to fix it now. When will Democrats and Republicans stop trying to score political points with their constituents or political bases and start speaking common sense in regards to why healthcare reform is needed now.
For example, Grayson and other politicians on both sides of the aisle should be throwing insults at the opposite political party but they should be talking about how healthcare for the poor has been strained by the recession according to a recent study. The U.S. recession has ramped up demand for Medicaid and states that manage the healthcare program for the poor are worried they may not be able to cover future costs, a study showed on Wednesday. U.S. states have had to rely on federal stimulus funding to cover growing Medicaid costs as their revenues tumbled during the worst U.S. recession in 70 years, the study by the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation found.
Budget constraints have forced many states to cut Medicaid benefits to patients and limit payments to healthcare providers, the study said. With federal stimulus funding set to expire at the end of next year, and healthcare reform plans proposing an expansion to the program, states say cutbacks will get worse and some expect to enter Medicaid budget deficits, the study found. "Many states believe they may be pressured to consider previously unthinkable eligibility and benefit reductions," the report said.
State spending on Medicaid, which is administered by the states with partial reimbursement from the federal government, rose at the fastest rate in six years during fiscal 2009. As people lost work, and their employer-sponsored health insurance, they had to turn to public assistance for their medical needs. Medicaid provides health coverage and care for 60 million low-income Americans, nearly half of whom are children. It also helps 8.8 million seniors enrolled in Medicare whose incomes are so low they need help paying premiums.
Total funding for the program grew on average by 7.9 percent across all states in the fiscal year which expired in summer in many states, the study found. That was the highest rate since 2003 and more than a third higher than the 5.8 percent growth originally projected at the start of the year. Spending growth is seen at 6.3 percent for fiscal 2010. The foundation said most states expect current appropriations to be insufficient, and a dozen see a Medicaid budget shortfall as almost certain.
According to the foundation, Medicaid accounts for about one-sixth of all healthcare spending in the United States. Still some ask if the federal government is a help or a potential hindrance. In February, the U.S. Congress passed a stimulus plan that increased the reimbursements states receive. That helped states manage swelling caseloads. Even with that help, virtually every state had to reduce its program, with 10 states restricting benefits people could receive in fiscal 2009 and 15 states considering benefit cuts in fiscal 2010.
Many states are cutting or freezing rates they pay healthcare providers, Kaiser said. There may be more cuts on the horizon, since the stimulus is a two-year program, and the states are not confident they will have enough revenues by 2011 to make up for the withdrawal of the extra reimbursements. Adding potential pressure is a healthcare reform plan passing through Congress that would mandate all Americans have health insurance and change requirements for Medicaid -- pushing more people into the program. "It is highly likely that federal healthcare reform, if successful will build on existing state Medicaid programs, potentially resulting in new fiscal and administrative challenges for states," the study said.
This is the type of things that need to be discussed instead of all this political death panel talk and talk that one political party healthcare plan is for the sick to die quickly. Common sense is needed now more than ever and it is clear that healthcare insurance for many Americans is needed because too many Americans either die without it or get sicker faster without it. Also those without healthcare insurance also are more faster to go bankrupt or go poor due to the fact they can’t afford to pay for the treatment they need to stay alive but that can happen to even those who only have the bare minimum in terms of healthcare insurance.
Now in other news this week as it relates to healthcare, a White House-backed overhaul of the nation's health care system weathered repeated challenges from Republican critics over taxes, abortion and more on Wednesday, and the bill's architect claimed enough votes to push it through the Senate Finance Committee as early as week's end. "We're coming to closure," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, as President Barack Obama lobbied at least one wavering Democrat by phone to swing behind the measure.
Baucus said, "It's clear to me we're going to get it passed," although he sidestepped a question about possible Republican support. Olympia Snowe of Maine is the only GOP senator whose vote is in doubt, and she has yet to tip her hand. While she has voted with Democrats on some key tests — to allow the government to dictate the types of coverage that must be included in insurance policies, for example — she has also sided with fellow Republicans on other contentious issues.
In a reflection of the intensity on both sides of the Capitol, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida was unrepentant after claiming the Republican plan for health care was for Americans to "die quickly." Refusing to apologize, he said, "People like elected officials with guts who say what they mean. ... I stand by what I said." That controversy aside, House Democratic leaders struggled to reduce their legislation to the $900 billion, 10-year cost that Obama has specified. Officials said numerous alternatives were under review to reduce subsidies that are designed to defray the cost of insurance for millions.
Passage in the Finance Committee would clear the way for debate on the Senate floor in mid-October on the bill, designed to accomplish Obama's aims of expanding access to insurance as well as slowing the rate of growth in health care spending overall. The bill includes numerous consumer protections, such as limits on copays and deductibles, and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Its cost is estimated at $900 billion over a decade. While the legislation would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, as Obama and numerous Democrats would like, the White House was working to make sure that some version cleared committee. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a Democrat who has been outspoken in his criticism of features of the bill, said Obama called him to seek support. "I was noncommittal," the senator said.
The committee met as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced the full Senate would begin debate on health care legislation the week of Oct. 12. Initial action is expected to be slow, consumed largely with parliamentary maneuvers in which Democrats try to set the stage for passage and Republicans erect a 60-vote hurdle as a test vote. The precise details of the bill brought to the Senate floor will be determined by Reid, in consultation from the White House and Democratic leaders of the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Democrats on the Finance Committee worked behind the scenes on possible last-minute changes to make insurance more affordable and accessible for lower-income families and individuals who now lack it.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., worked on a proposal modeled after a system in her home state that supporters say has realized significant savings. Federal subsidies ticketed for lower-income uninsured would flow to the states, which would negotiate with private insurers to provide coverage for the target population. Aides said the proposal would be designed to provide coverage for individuals and families between 133 percent of poverty, roughly $12,000 for individuals and $21,660 for a family of four, and 200 percent of poverty, or about $30,000 for individuals and $44,100 for a family of four. They said about three-quarters of the nation's uninsured have incomes in that range.
Inside the committee, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., won approval of a change to shield seniors from the impact of a tax increase in the bill for individuals and families seeking to exclude certain medical expenses from their income. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize their deductions are permitted to escape taxes on health costs that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Baucus' legislation would raise the threshold to 10 percent, but on a vote of 14-9, Nelson succeeded in returning it to 7.5 percent for taxpayers age 65 and over.
Moments later, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona sought to give younger taxpayers the same break, but his proposal failed, also on a vote of 14-9. It was one in a string of futile Republican attempts to reshape the legislation by inserting stronger anti-abortion provisions and require photo identification to prove eligibility for benefits under federal health programs for the poor. Attempts to kill fees on health industry providers also failed, along party lines, after Baucus said the result would be to wipe out a key source of funds for the expansion of insurance.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad. He said his goal was to incorporate the restrictions into law, "so we don't have to go through it every year." In recent years, Congress has prohibited federal funding for most abortions through annual spending bills, and Hatch's proposal would have eliminated the need for those yearly votes. But abortion rights supporters said the proposal would have expanded the current restrictions, and could deny coverage for abortions to working women signing up for coverage through private plans.
Its approval would be a "poison pill ... if it is hung on this legislation," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The committee also rejected a proposal from Hatch to strengthen existing legal protections for health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on grounds of moral or religious objections. Both failed on nearly party line votes of 13-10, with Snowe siding with most Democrats in opposition, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., voting with Hatch. Republicans also failed in attempts to require applicants for federal health programs to furnish photo identification as proof of eligibility, an issue that dealt with illegal immigrants. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the goal was to prevent fraud, but Bob Menendez, D-N.J., objected that the proposals went beyond a required birth certificate required as proof of citizenship.
Nonetheless, the healthcare debate needs common sense now more than ever. If healthcare is to pass this year than both Democrats and Republicans need to compromise on some things but what neither side should compromise on is the issue of keeping the cost of healthcare low and the burden of paying for it off of majority of Americans who can’t afford it now. I have said it for months and I am sticking to it, while I would love for a public option to pass in this healthcare reform debate, I have to acknowledge that no one has presented a clear cut vision for how it will be paid for without increasing the nation’s national debate. Nonetheless if healthcare reform is to pass than it needs to have CPR-- Coverage, Prevention, Reform—in it for to support it which is what President Obama and some congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have been preaching for months. However when it comes to reform, I want to see health insurance stability, affordability, quality, and patient choice. This is what healthcare reform is all about.
That is why common sense needs to prevail and politicians on both sides of the aisle need to stop playing us the American people and trying to put us against each other. Instead we the American people need to use common sense to debate healthcare and we need to urge our congressional leaders to use common sense. Healthcare reform is about improving healthcare for many Americans who already have access to it but not to the preventive measures that could save some years on their lives. Also healthcare reform is about giving healthcare insurance to many Americans who can’t afford it or can afford it but it would change their spending habits dramatically which is why insurance reform and stability is critical to saving us, the American people, from giving more money to insurance companies than needed. Healthcare reform is about giving insurance back to many Americans who lose it due to pre-conditions that they already have and insurance companies threw them off once they find out about the condition or deny them access to insurance because the condition is too expensive to cover.
This is the type of common sense that is needed when discussing healthcare but the most important common sense issue that our politicians in Congress and we the American people need to talk about is the fact that how will we pay for healthcare reform with or without a public option. That is the reality that no one has decided to speak about and even President Obama has struggled with this very issue. Therefore the healthcare debate lacks common sense in all areas right now and anyone who wants to speak about healthcare reform right now needs to talk about it by presenting these issues and speaking about how to pay for it. We the American people need common sense debate from our nation’s leaders rather than political ploys and jostling that only pits the left vs. the right while the center looks on in disguise at both sides make yet another mockery out of issues that are too important to us the American people to allow to be made a mockery of.
No one can deny that healthcare reform is needed and is essential but at the same time, no one can tell me how we pay for healthcare reform with or without a public option which is the only thing that is missing in this equation in my eyes. Therefore let’s stop the nonsense people and let’s use common sense to debate healthcare once and for all before another year passes and we don’t get any type of reform.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment