California Nurses Association: "To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill"

[ProSense]

Statement by CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro on the House bill on healthcare

Of all the torrent of words that followed House passage of its version of healthcare reform legislation in early November, perhaps the most misleading were those comparing it to enactment of Social Security and Medicare.

Sadly no. Social Security and Medicare were both federal programs guaranteeing respectively pensions and health care for our nation's seniors, paid for and administered by the federal government with public oversight and public accountability.

While the House bill, and its Senate counterpart, do have several important reform components, along with many weaknesses, neither one comes close to the guarantees and the expansion of health and income security provided by Social Security or Medicare.

<...>

Why then so much cheerleading by many progressive and liberal legislators, columnists, and activists?

1- Passage of the bill was a clear defeat for the Republican opposition and those on the right who have so mischaracterized what boils down to modest reform that looks more like a "robust" version of the Medicare prescription drug benefit or the state children's health initiative.

2- Proponents of the bill, starting in the White House and running through the Democratic leadership in Congress, with the assistance and support of many in labor and liberal and progressive constituency groups, have so lowered expectations on healthcare reform that with eyes wide shut they can call this a sweeping victory.

To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill that bear note. Among the most important are:

• Expansion of Medicaid to millions of low income adults.
  
• Reduction of the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug coverage law making drug costs more affordable for many seniors.
  
• Increased federal funding for community health programs, such as home visits for nurses and social workers to low income families.
  
• Additional regulation of the insurance industry, mostly targeted to people who are presently without coverage rather than those with existing health plans. Those include limits on insurers ability to drop sick enrollees or refuse to sell policies to people with prior health problems, extending the age that dependent children can be on their parents' plan, and repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurers.
  
• Extending the same health benefit tax benefits available to married couples to domestic partners.
  
• A progressive tax to help pay the bill through a surcharge on wealthy earners and required contributions from large employers, in sharp contrast with the Senate proposal to tax health benefits on misnamed "Cadillac" plans, comprehensive coverage available to many union members, for example.

more

Even a constant critic of the bills in Congress can acknowledge that they include important reforms.

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[NYC_SKP]

8. Lately, there seem to be more contentious and fewer positive posts. Reccing this. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

2. The section you did not post, from that same document:

"... the main provision of the bills in Congress is a mandate requiring most Americans without health coverage to buy private insurance.

In other words, the principle beneficiary is not Americans' health, but the bottom line of the insurance industry which stands to harvest tens of billions of dollars in additional profits ordered by the federal government. Or as Rep. Eric Massa of New York put it on the eve of the House vote, "at the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period."

Further, while Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important reforms in American history, were both significant expansions of public protection, the House bill actually reduces public protection for a substantial segment of the population, women, with its unconscionable rollback of reproductive rights in the anti-abortion amendment."



So there you go. Context for your spin.

[ProSense]

3. "Context for your spin." It isn't spin if the statement is posted verbatim.

No one said they haven't been/aren't critical of the bill. But you cannot deny that this, verbatim, is in the statement:

To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill that bear note. Among the most important are:

edited missing word.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. But it also says:

"the House bill actually reduces public protection for a substantial segment of the population, women, with its unconscionable rollback of reproductive rights in the anti-abortion amendment."

Also verbatim. Unconscionable is a word I would apply to editing the intention out of the words of another person.

[ProSense]

7. That amendment can be stripped

and when it is, the important things will still be in the bill.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Like you stripped the actual meaning of the CNA.NNOC?

I'm talking about this dishonest tactic of yours, not the amendment. Your OP is not about the amendment, now is it?
Here are some more verbatim quotes from the same document you shred in your OP. Note who they quote with pride.
"Don't be misled by the howling from insurance industry which has been spending some $1.4 million a day to steer the direction of legislation. They would have preferred the status quo, but will be more than happy to count the increased revenues coming their way.

As Rep. Dennis Kucinich said on the House floor, "we cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."

While some people will have improved access, the final accounting will be an even firmer private insurance grip on our healthcare system, with the U.S. remaining the only industrialized nation which barters our health for private profit.

Months ago, the Obama administration pre-determined this outcome by ruling out the most comprehensive, most cost effective, most humane reform, single payer, or an expanded and improved Medicare for all."


They are making the opposite point you wish to make it seem they are making. That is simply dishonest and wrong. I've posted this so all can read what you left out, and decide if your post was the work of an honest broker.

[ProSense]

12. Are you saying the didn't mean this: "To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill"

They said it, not me.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Called daming with faint praise. Because they also said:

"Ultimately, the combination of the mandate to buy insurance, federal subsidies to low income families to purchase private plans, failure to adequately control insurance prices or crack down on the abuse of insurance denials make the House bill -- and its Senate counterpart -- look a lot like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry. "

And I'll repeat my point that you are cherry picking in a way beyond reason, and utterly twisting the intent of the writer of the words. It is all here, and anyone with eyes can read it. She says it looks like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry. A massive bailout, which is a failure in terms of price controls. A failure on cracking down on denials. A failure and a bail out.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Here is more from just before the "To be sure" line:

"many in labor and liberal and progressive constituency groups, have so lowered expectations on healthcare reform that with eyes wide shut they can call this a sweeping victory."

Eyes wide shut. They said it, not me. Intentionally twisting the words of an author you are quoting is a rotten thing to do, no matter the cause one is pursuing. It is just wrong.

[ProSense]

20. "Intentionally twisting the words of an author " What the hell are you talking about?

The snip in the OP is directly from the statement, as is the title of the OP: "To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill"

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

24. What is with the deal with lame arguments that result in this "NonSense" as a rebuttal

If you can't make an argument without going there, give it the hell up. It's stupid.

And for your information, this is why a link was provided: "Anyone with eyes can see what you left out"

Your claim that the CNA words were twisted is stupid.

[MNDemNY]

22. If it is not, will you still support it ?

Why can you not answer that?

[boppers]

26. "principle beneficiary"?

When people can't spell any better than a third grader, it tends to reduce the credibility of their press releases.

[ClarkUSA]

4. The Bitter Unrec'cers Against Truth Club members have been out in force, I see. nt

[Cha]

5. Someone must be

afraid of it if they unrec.

We know the bill isn't perfect but like Dean said .."it's a very good start."

[depakid]

9. It's funny how when half measures get cut in half- then in half again

some still think that they're making progress toward the goal.

[ProSense]

11. Mischaracterization.

A lot of people are using the bogus claim that a public option in the Congressional bills started out covering more people than they actually did. The first public option scored was the HELP bill, and it covers the same number of people now as it did when originally scored.

The House Public Plan: Yes, It's Worth It

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Did you say 'mischaracterization' with a straight face?

More of what you edited out of the CNA/NNOC statement:
"But the acclaim now flowing from some quarters would have been better deserved had these provisions been enacted on their own -- not accompanied by the many shortcomings of the legislation. To cite a few:

* Healthcare will remain unaffordable for many Americans. The bill does not do nearly enough to control skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital costs. Indeed, by various estimates, with no effective limits on the insurance industry's price gouging, out-of-pocket costs for premiums, deductibles and other fees by some estimates with eat up from 15 to 19 percent of family incomes by several accounts.
* No meaningful reform of the rampant insurance denials of medical treatment the insurers don't want to pay for.
* Little assistance for individuals and families who presently have employer-sponsored health plans and face frequent erosion of their coverage and health security. No help for the healthcare cost-shifting from employers to employees.
* Minimal expansion of consumer choice. The much debated public plan option will be available only to about 2 percent of people under age 65, mostly those now not covered who buy insurance on their own (it may or may not be expanded in 2015). Further, no additional plan options for those in the many markets dominated by one or two private plans, and no additional choice of doctor or hospital within existing plans.
* The new limits on abortion extended to poor women.

Ultimately, the combination of the mandate to buy insurance, federal subsidies to low income families to purchase private plans, failure to adequately control insurance prices or crack down on the abuse of insurance denials make the House bill -- and its Senate counterpart -- look a lot like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry. "

[ProSense]

15. Yes. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Just for fun,

"Ultimately, the combination of the mandate to buy insurance, federal subsidies to low income families to purchase private plans, failure to adequately control insurance prices or crack down on the abuse of insurance denials make the House bill -- and its Senate counterpart -- look a lot like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry. "

That is how the CNA/NNOC statement concludes. A massive bailout for the private insurance industry.

[depakid]

18. I stand corrected

Congress is even more impotent and enfeebled than I thought.

Just as an aside, it supports the theory that irrespective of overwhelming public support and obvious economic concerns, the system of governance in the United States is becoming ever more incapable of producing efficient and effective solutions in a timely manner to the problems that beset the nation in the 21st Century.

Not confirmation bias, btw: just another observation that fits a pattern that's being replayed over and over. Any objective observer can see it.

At some point there'll be an issue- or crisis that breaks the pattern. America and it's leaders just haven't gotten there yet.

[jenmito]

14. K&R. n/t

[MNDemNY]

21. Is the Stupak amendment one of those "commendable provisions"??

And, ProSense, Will you support the bill if the Stupak amendment language remains??

[ThomCat]

25. It's a good article, and it rips this bill apart.

We need better. It really is a shame that our party is too corrupted by corporate money to give us better. :(

The good parts in the bill are going to be outweighed for most people. Very Few will get a purely good or even mostly good outcome from this bill.

[ProSense]

27. It actually doesn't rip the bill apart, it criticizes it. Given the CNA, as single-payer advocates,

have been critical of the bill, it's significant that even they can't deny the bill has many important reforms.