Two interesting and potentially game-changing happenings went down yesterday, both of which would seem to be positives for the drive to see a full and robust public option (FRPO) included in any health care reform bill that passes Congress. Plus I've got news of a demonstration in Portland that goes even beyond that, and continues to press for action on a single-payer plan.
First, the President made front page news in The Oregonian this morning, by commenting at some length on the health care bill being carried by Senator Ron Wyden. Obama was as usual polite and mostly glancing in his criticisms, but he was indeed critical of the plan:
"There are a lot of good concepts to what Ron's proposing," Obama said. But despite his professed agreement with "90 percent" of Wyden's thinking, he said parts of the plan are too "radical" for the country.
Wyden argues that linking health care costs to individuals will promote competition and drive down costs. But Obama said that is too sharp a departure from what workers have known -- and become comfortable with -- for generations.
That fundamental shift, along with the major changes in the tax code that Wyden proposes, are too "radical," Obama said, when aligned with all the other changes that must take place to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans who don't have it.
The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system."
A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."
Oregon does have one Senator who's willing to come out and stake his claim for a full and robust public option (FRPO)--junior Senator Jeff Merkley. In this video recorded today at Pioneer Square outside KGW's new studios there, Merkley affirms his support for a public option, one that competes directly with private insurance and cuts costs using Medicare-style bargaining rules with providers. He also takes time to parry some of the built-in skepticism of his interviewer, who seems awfully concerned for the health of private insurers (as opposed to say, the insured or those who would like to be). Watch the video, below:
Two weeks ago today, we joined with Dr. Howard Dean in asking Oregonians to stand with him and petition their Senators for a full and robust public option (which I call FRPO for short). Oregon is one of the key states in building support for a FRPO, given Senator Ron Wyden's reticence to fully back a FRPO that would directly compete against his own health care bill, which does not include one.
A couple of days later Health Care for America Now began running ads asking constituents in a number of states contact their representatives asking for a FRPO as well. Wyden was unmoved, even a little hostile about it:
"I get an election certificate from the people of Oregon," said Wyden, whose bipartisan health bill picked up its 14th co-sponsor last week. "As far as these ads are concerned, I pay them no attention."
So we joined HCAN in their efforts as well, and encouraged readers to contact Senator Wyden in writing and ask these four questions:
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
(There's still time for you to ask, of course; here's some contact info):
We tried ourselves to ask the questions, contacting State Communications Director Tom Towslee by email and posing them on June 17th, and again on the 19th after no reply. The second time was the charm, sort of--Towslee's reply to the specific questions was to re-send quotes from Wyden denying he supported a trigger, claiming he wasn't "married" to his own plan, and would support a public option that was "responsibily and sustainably financed." Pressed twice more to reply to the specific questions posed--crucial to determining whether Wyden supports a FRPO or a watered down version like the non-robust state option he touts in his bill--no further reply has emerged over the following week-plus.
What to conclude? It's fairly simple, really--Senator Wyden apparently doesn't want you, his constituency, to know whether he supports a FRPO or not. He isn't willing to tell you whether he supports a national plan. He isn't willing to say whether he supports that national plan on day one, and whether he supports a national plan that could directly compete with private insurers.
There's certainly no political risk in declaring his support; overwhelming majorities of Americans have shown in repeated surveying that they definitely want some kind of FRPO in their health care reform. So why the reticence? Maybe that should become the fifth question you can ask...and maybe the sixth can be: "Whose interests are you representing by remaining coy on the issue?"
Here are updates on two stories that likely deserve their own post, but as we've covered both here before, and both are updates connected to the ongoing homeless struggle in Portland, we'll combine them. (Also in common is the strong coverage of the issue by the Street Roots newspaper and blog.)
Freshest news first: we've received our answer to the campaign seeking emergency funding for hundreds of Oregon Section 8 voucher-holders to stay in their homes--but who aren't scheduled to do so for much longer, due to overextended assistance budgets that threaten to almost literally toss them onto the streets. It was not a mild and insignificant campaign, either; a coalition of grass roots advocacy organizations pressed for relief, and much of the Democratic Congressional delegation was incited to make a plea to the federal bureau of Housing and Urban Development.
The answer was a written metaphor for turned out pockets and a fairly terse "Can'tdonuttinfoya, man:"
The [Northwest Oregon Housing Authority--NOHA] contract with the Department covers a total of 1077 vouchers. For the first three months of 2009, the NOHA assisted an average of 1129 households per month. Because funding eligibility is based on prior year costs, the NOHA is actually funded this year for a total of 1040 households per month. The NOHA must either find another source of funding for some of the households or terminate households from the program. The Department has no additional source of funds to provide.
What's the best word to describe the situation here? 'Sucks' might be a good one. Hundreds of billions of dollars for Citibank and Chrysler et al, but not enough to keep 1100 families from getting kicked back down the ladder. That's the state of social equity in 21st Century America. The SR article and a firewalled piece by the Astoria Times indicate that NOHA is trying to buy time for its families, but someone somewhere is going to have to step up.
Oregonians hit hard by the economic meltdown and foreclosure crisis may have been expecting help from the State. This past week, a very small number got that help. On June 25, the Oregon Legislature passed the revised bill HB3004. This bill helps a limited number of foreclosed former homeowners erase additional debt - the problem is that the scope of the bill is so small only a very limited number of people will be helped. To qualify for the benefit, a person would have had to purchase their home with an 80/20 mortgage* with only one lender providing both the 80 and the 20 mortgage. The other limitation is that the lender had never sold either of the mortgages. That is, the same lender who issued the mortgages was foreclosing on the property.
The bill provides no relief to homeowners who had their mortgages sold, and it provides no relief to those who took a home equity loan. You can be sure that every lender who never sold one of the mortgages in their 80/20 portfolio will be selling one of them this week.
Real assistance to distressed Oregon homeowners has languished at the Housing and Community Services Department for months. Late last year, Oregon Housing and Community Services received over $100,000 from the Federal National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program. This $100,000 is set aside specifically to provide free counseling and legal services to homeowners facing foreclosure, delinquency, or short sale.
In February, the HCS Department issued a contract Request for Proposals for attorneys to provide services funded with this grant. The contract was to have been awarded in April. It is almost July and this contract has yet to be awarded. There have been thousands of home foreclosures in Oregon this year and not a single Oregonian has been helped under the program the Federal Government funded. While Oregonians have lost their homes, and while other Oregonians have watched their home values plummet because of the foreclosures in their neighborhoods, Oregon's Housing and Community Services Department has sat and done nothing.
Oregonians deserve better service from their State Government than they have received from the Housing and Community Services Department.
All Oregonians, including those who aren't facing foreclosure, should contact their legislators and ask them why the HCS Director is not doing everything he can to help in the foreclosure crisis.
*HB3004 relief is really for a type of home purchase called "Trust Deed with Promissory Note."
As part of the Obama Administration's push on health care reform, they've launched a website called healthreform.gov, with video clips, newsy stories, and the like. It also features a state-by-state breakdown from a report called "The Hidden Costs of Health Care: Why Americans Are Paying MORE and Getting LESS."
The Oregon numbers include:
Roughly 2.2 million people in Oregon get health insurance on the job, where family premiums average $13,436, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job.
To sum up: If you have an extra person you can put to work full-time at minimum wage just to pay the rest of the family's premiums, you're good to go.
On the other hand, if you wanted to knock a little over 10% off that $13K figure, you could start here:
Oregon businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $1,400 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.
That $1,400 mainly goes toward people who get their primary care--their only care, actually--at emergency rooms. That's a double-whammy; it means they're not getting preventive care, and they're not getting any care until whatever's wrong has escalated to ER-levels.
It always amuses me that many defenders of the American health care status-quo do so in the name of the legendary efficiency of the free market--as if "efficiency" (or "free markets") had anything to do with a delivery system like this.
In fact, although Oregon's health care is rated "average" overall, preventive care--which drives down costs and keep us out of hospitals (or emergency rooms)--isn't much to brag about here:
10 percent of children in Oregon are obese.
19 percent of women over the age of 50 in Oregon have not received a mammogram in the past two years.
33 percent of men over the age of 50 in Oregon have never had a colorectal cancer screening.
73 percent of adults over the age of 65 in Oregon have received a flu vaccine in the past year.
More numbers:
17 percent of people in Oregon are uninsured, and 69 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.
The percent of Oregonians with employer coverage is declining: from 64 to 58 percent between 2000 and 2007.
While small businesses make up 79 percent of Oregon businesses,9 only 46 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006.
Choice of health insurance is limited in Oregon. Providence Health & Services alone constitutes 25 percent of the health insurance market share in Oregon, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 48 percent.
Compare how other states fare and you'll find the verses are different, but the chorus is the same: spiraling costs are driving Americans away from health care, and competition among providers is woefully slim.
Time to Span the State.
[More after the jump, including the return of StS True Animal Stories!]
Here are the favorability/unfavorability ratings among likely voters:
Peter DeFazio (D) 47/22
John Kitzhaber (D) 46/26 Gordon Smith (R) 39/48
Greg Walden (R) 36/25
Bill Bradbury (D) 33/15 Jason Atkinson (R) 29/19
Steve Novick (D) 16/5
The numbers clearly tilt Democratic--Gordon Smith (remember him?) has third-highest favorables, but absolutely the worst unfavorables.
In theoretical match-ups, Kitzhaber easily handles the top three Republicans: Smith (46-37), Walden (44-38), and Atkinson (48-35). Same with DeFazio: Smith (47-37), Walden (45-35), and Atkinson (48-34). Neither Kitz nor the Faz has announced his decision about entering the gubernatorial race.
Bradbury, who has declared his candidacy, also wins the theoretical match-ups, though by slimmer margins: Smith (42-38), Walden (40-39), and Atkinson (41-34).
LO favorite son Steve Novick is trailing the first tier of names, both in favorables (though his unfavorables are also small, suggesting name recognition is the issue). He trails all three GOP possibles: Smith (28-41), Walden (28-43), and Atkinson (29-34).
Join the Portland DL chapter for our next meeting--at the regular time, and with the regular line-up of the Finest Minds of Our Generation[TM]--but at a new location:
The Lucky Lab Brew Hall at 19th and NW Quimby (map), Thursday (tomorrow) night at 7pm. (DL meets the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of every month.)
As most of you know, Drinking Liberally (over 330 chapters in all 50 states plus DC) is one of several "Liberallys" operating under the umbrella organization Living Liberally. In addition, there's also Laughing Liberally (their motto: "Saving democracy one laugh at a time."). Laughing Liberally sponsors stand-up performances and tours, and has now branched out into the online video satire biz, starting with a series of videos about health care reform:
For bandwidth's sake, I'll let you link on your own to more Living Liberally video satire about the continuing adventures of health care industry lobbyists at H.A.A.R.M.(Healthy Americans Against Reforming Medicine) by going to haarm.org.
And if you appreciate Living Liberally promoting progressive action through social interaction--including keeping the whole Drinking Liberally network up and running--consider sending them a little love via Tipping Liberally.
Join the Drinking Liberally gang for drinks and political conversation. (And remember: DL encourages everyone to drink, and vote, responsibly.)
Gov. Ted Kulongoski followed through today on his threat to veto the $6 billion public school budget because it claims too much of a state reserve fund.
The Democratic governor also vetoed a line item in a related budget that took $200 million from the reserve fund and applied it to the schools budget.
The moves set up a showdown with the Democratically controlled legislature, which could try to override the veto this week as it tries to bring an end to the 2009 Legislature.
The O goes on to say that a veto is mathematically plausible given the high number of passing votes in both houses--but given the chance to look relevant, the Republicans may seize the moment and try to scuttle the override, and get another crack at the budget apple with the pressure on to pass SOMETHING so they can go home.
There's more subtext going on here however, I think. I wish I could hat tip the idea, but now I've forgotten where I saw this concept broached--the issue of the reserves is one with strong implications for the survival of the tax package the Legislature passed earlier in the session.
The theory goes that if there are significant reserves--such as the $400 million Kulongoski proposes maintaining--then those monies will become a football in any referral of the corporate/high income tax restructuring to the voters. In other words, why would you vote for a tax when the Leg is sitting on $400 million?
It's not a very sophisticated argument obviously, but as we saw in the 2007 session on Measure 61/57, the Democratic leadership tends to run preemptively scared of what might happen to their bills in the hands of the voters. (And we're paying for that trepidation on M57, this session).
Even the $200mil figure is a comeback from the original intent to leave NO reserves vulnerable, so that shows you how scared they are of having it become a bargaining chip. The GOP loves these dumbass kinds of attack, so I have to agree an override is by no means automatic here.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
Join the Portland DL chapter for our next meeting--at the regular time, and with the regular line-up of the Finest Minds of Our Generation[TM]--but at a new location:
