06.30.09
Posted in Around The State, Bad Government Republicans, Commentary, Privatization, Road Issues, Special Session, Transportation, Uncategorized at 12:22 pm by wcnews
In Kuff’s preview of the upcoming special session, Special session starts tomorrow, he links to this AAS article that points out the potential problem that corporate toll roads, aka CDA/PPP’s, may cause. Here’s the article by Ben Wear, Toll road item may threaten session. No matter who’s language is used the best thing for this state is for the authorization of CDA’s to expire.
The spoiler of Gov. Rick Perry’s midsummer’s dream of a three-day special session could be the “Nichols language.”
The consensus seems to be that few problems exist with the first two items on Perry’s session “call” — essentially the allowable agenda for the session — that would extend the life of five state agencies, including the Texas Department of Transportation, and allow TxDOT to issue $2 billion in debt.
But there could be trouble with the third and last item, legislation granting a reprieve to a statutory death sentence for private toll road leases.
During the regular session, state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, carried a bill that would have extended by six years the legal authority for TxDOT and regional mobility authorities to sign what have usually been 50-year contracts with private companies to build and operate (and profit from) tollways on public land. Authority for such leases expires Sept. 1.
To get a better grasp of what the “Nichols language” is check out the bill analysis for SB 17 and this from Texas TURF.
Let’s just keep in mind what our governor thinks an emergency is. Making sure corporations can still receive “50-year contracts…to build and operate (and profit from) tollways on public land“, is more of an emergency than children without health care. Or the huge business tax increase that’s coming since he refused the $555 million in unemployment insurance from the federal government.
The special session should not be about corporate welfare and allowing TxDOT to get into investment banking and using public pensions to finance toll raods. Obviously there are much more urgent issues facing this state.
Permalink
Posted in Around The Nation, Around The State, Commentary, Health Care at 10:47 am by wcnews
When GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz released his talking points on health care he specifically told the GOP to keep away from arguments about the “free market, tax incentives and competition” – (#4) on the memo. Now we know why, Health-Care Market Characterized By Consolidation, Not Competition. There is no competition, or a free market, in health care insurance as it stands now.
But the notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. And a study issued last month by a pro-reform group makes that strikingly clear.
The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country’s insurance markets are defined as “highly concentrated,” according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that’s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.
Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as “a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate.”
The Executive Summary [.pdf] of the report points out that the lack of competition hurts rural and lower population states more, is especially bad for small businesses, and the only thing rising faster that insurance premiums are insurance corporation profits and CEO pay. The numbers from the HCAN report on Texas are not good [.pdf]:
- According to a 2008 AMA report, Health Care Service Corp., the biggest Texas health insurer, controls 44 percent of the state market through its BlueCross BlueShield of Texas subsidiary. Together with UnitedHealth Group Inc., the second largest Texas health insurer,
they hold 68 percent of the market.
- Some local markets are even more concentrated. In Abilene, Health Care Service Corp. has an 85 percent market share.
- Health insurance premiums for Texas working families have skyrocketed, increasing 87 percent from 2000 to 2007.
- For family health coverage in Texas during that time, the average annual combined premium for employers and employees rose from $6,638 to $12,403.
- For family health coverage in Texas, the average employer’s portion of annual premiums rose 88 percent, while the average worker’s share grew by 83 percent.
- From 2000 to 2007, the median earnings of Texas workers increased 15 percent, from $23,032 to $26,484. During that time health insurance premiums for Texas working families rose 5.8 times faster than median earnings.
When a firm has more than a 42 percent share of a single market, the U.S. Justice Department considers that market to be “highly concentrated.” This means that an insurer could raise premiums and/or reduce the variety of plans or quality of services offered to customers with impunity.
The full report can be found here. Competition is why the public option is a must in any health insurance reform that passes. Because without it there is no competition, and prices will not go down.
What voters need to understand about a reform plan is that:
- They will not lose health care if the lose a job or get sick.
- The power will shift from the insurance corporations to the people.
- It will reduce costs for families, businesses, and the country.
It’s key to remember that Republicans don’t oppose a plan with a public option because they don’t think it will work. They oppose it because they’re pretty sure and afraid that it will. Because if it does work it would put them in the minority for a long time once again.
Permalink
Posted in Precinct 4, Take Action, Williamson County at 9:52 am by wcnews
Kurt Johnson, Sr., a former Williamson County resident has written a book about the recent state of the county government in Williamson County, it’s called Glass Walls. You can read excerpts and find links to purchase the book via Barnes & Noble and Amazon here. The excerpt below does a great job of putting in context why the current elected officials in Williamson County are able to continue to make decisions that many disagree with, and not suffer the consequences on election day.
The problem with this neoconservative approach at the local level is that it generated controversial policies and decisions opposed by the public, but even more problematical was the fact that it functioned [through the five-member (Williamson County) commissioners court] in an oligarchical manner.
Observers who watched the court—especially during the period 2000-2009—concluded that the confidence these elected officials had in the Republican Party’s ability to deliver votes provided election insulation against a grass-roots or populist uprising. If the party could deliver the votes, there really was no need worrying about the criticisms or objections of the average citizens. Straight-ticket voting alone could deliver the necessary numbers, especially in the fast-growing areas where bedroom suburbs of Republican enclaves were replacing rural settings.
The book goes into depth defining neoconservatism and how that all feeds into what’s been happening in Williamson County. Via a TDP article on the book, Book explores local neo-conservatism.
The first 100 pages of the book outline his definition of a neo-conservative. Using high-profile George W. Bush-era politicians like Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld as a springboard, Johnson said he irons down what is is to be a neo-conservative.
Initially, he said, a neo-conservative must be a strong believer in the sanctity of an unfettered free-market economy. Second, there is a tendency to identify with a strong militaristic culture. And third, those officials usually engage in public square theology, or, a willingness of politicians to publicly display their religion on their sleeve as a tool to promote an agenda.
“The best example is people that want to hang Ten Commandments in every courthouse,” Johnson said. “They believe that if you just did that you would cure all problems. If you just had enough God in the picture, it would straighten (everything) out.”
Examples are readily available in county government, he said.
“The fact that (commissioners) pray before each meeting,” Johnson said was one example of how neo-conservatism plays out in local government. Hutto and Taylor city councils have invocations prior to each meeting as well.
Johnson expects a lot of people to disagree with his viewpoints and arguments. But the main idea behind his book is to stimulate dialogue, not to proselytize.
Johnson began writing Glass Walls shortly before the presidential election. Though he lives in Austin, Johnson said he has a vested interest in shining light on the nature of politics of Williamson County.
It’s a discussion that’s definitely needed and anyone who’s frustrated with Williamson County’s government should read Glass Walls. It helps to understand why we have the government we have. Especially those who live in Precinct 4 need to understand how dismissive and unresponsive Commissioner Ron Morrison has been to many of his constituents.
It is the GOP machine in Williamson County and a cowed majority of voters that keeps electing a party, and not people, because of one or all of these reason – fear, greed, or ignorance. The question going forward is will the voters of Williamson County continue to elect members of one party that essentially gives them no say in their local government?
Permalink
06.29.09
Posted in Around The State, Commentary, Good Stuff, Money In Politics, Redistricting at 2:16 pm by wcnews
It just goes to show that there are issues that both sides can agree on. Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) has written a feature in The Texas Observer asking the question, Is it time for Texas to have a full-time Legislature?
Despite the various slowdowns and mad rushes in the Texas House this session, the Legislature managed to pass a number of key bills that will benefit Texans. But the fact that the system almost crashed, and the likelihood it will only get worse in the future, means that we must take a serious look at how our legislative process can be improved to meet the people’s needs in sessions to come.
Here’s the reality: By 2040, the state’s population will double to nearly 50 million. Our budget will likely be well over $500 billion. We’ll need hundreds of miles of new roads, 40,000 or more new teachers, more nurses, more schools, more hospitals.
[...]
We cannot continue to operate as we have, with 140-day sessions every other year, and serve the best interests of the people. The jobs of legislators will only grow more difficult as our population grows. Already, each state Senate district is larger than a congressional district in Texas. By 2040, each House member will have nearly 250,000 constituents.
What should we do? I have several ideas. The most controversial: Make legislating a full-time job. This is not just a matter of making the House and Senate work more smoothly. Today, the people who can afford to serve are mostly lawyers and wealthy businesspeople. There is nothing wrong with these folks, but we do not have a true cross-section of the people. The average person cannot work for $600 a month and take six months off every other year from their job. I believe Texas would be better served if more citizens could run and hold office. Full-time members would need to be paid a reasonable salary, but in a state our size, that would be a small cost to do the job as it needs to be done.
I know this: When constituents call or ask to meet with me, they expect me to be in my office. They don’t want to hear that I work part-time. The truth is that many of us work full-time now, serving our districts. But not everyone can do that.
Short of a full-time Legislature, we could also consider meeting 90 days every year, so we can address issues in a more timely manner. We could spend one session only on the budget and emergency items that need action. The following year, we could focus on all other issues, along with emergency items relating to the budget.
[...]
Ultimately, here is the question Texans must ponder: Do they feel their Legislature is doing the will of the people now? Can a state of 25 to 50 million people operate with a part-time team of leaders who show up every other year to vote on a budget of several hundred billion dollars and legislation that affects the lives of every Texan?
The answer is clearly no. This session, I filed a bill that would have simply formed a bipartisan committee of legislators and citizens to study how best the Legislature should prepare for 2040. The bill didn’t make it to the Senate floor, because certain committee members were afraid to even discuss the possibility of change.
I do not suggest that my ideas are the only ones, or even the right ones. We need discussion and debate. But one thing is clear: We cannot continue the way we now operate and serve the future needs of Texans in the manner that they demand and deserve. We must look forward and make sure that our Legislature is ready for the next exciting chapter in Texas history.
EOW wrote about this topic last year, A Texas Myth: The Citizen Legilsature, as did Half Empty in 2007, Why A Part-Time Texas Legislature is Out-Moded and Promotes Corruption. Kuff, had this to say on the subject in 2006, How they spend their campaign cash.
To me, the answer to all this is simple. Being a legislator is a fulltime job, even if we’re not having a zillion special sessions all the time. The job should be compensated as such. It doesn’t have to be a lavish salary – perhaps somewhere between $50 and 100K per year, with more for Senators and a reasonable allowance for housing, food, and transportation – but it should be enough that people can live on it without having to keep their regular jobs. In return for this, there should be much stricter controls over how campaign donations can be spent, how that spending gets reported, and – most importantly – there must be real penalties for breaking those rules, with a real enforcement mechanism in place.
[...]
Odds of any of this happening? Pretty darned close to zero. The public hates paying its public officials, and would rather it be outsourced to the big donors, where it reserves the right to get indignant about the occasional abuse that’s too big to ignore. Because of that, very few elected officials want to try to push a bill through to change things….Until these things change, we’re stuck with what we’ve got.
Kuff also had this back in May about how big house and senate districts are getting and increasing the membership in both chambers.
On a side note, one thought that struck me in thinking about this was that perhaps we ought to consider increasing the number of members in the House and the Senate. Assuming Burka’s population projection is accurate, each of the 150 State Rep districts will have about 168,000 people in it after the 2011 redraw. Now take a look at the 1990 Census figures. Just 20 years ago, each district had roughly 113,000 constituents. To keep that same ratio for the 2010 population you’d need 223 members. Maybe this is one reason why the cost of running for State Rep keeps going up – you have to reach more and more voters just to maintain position. And with four Congressional seats being added to bring the total to 36, the 31 Senate districts are going to become a lot more populous than Congressional ones soon. I say it’s worth considering the possibility of increasing the size of each chamber in order to keep a certain level of closeness to each elected official.
While no Texan wants to pay legislators more money for what they’re currently doing, or not doing, it’s becoming more obvious by the session that tax payers are getting what they’re pay for. With lobbyists and big money donors paying legislators now, they’re the ones getting the legislation they want and the tax payers are getting scraps. In this day and age we actually have to pay our legislators a decent wage to get some actual “citizen legislators” again.
Having legislators that devote their full energies to public policy – not necessarily being in session – but working with the public and in committees, should make for better policy and smoother legislative sessions.
Hopefully the inability of the legislature to get things done will help more citizens get past their reservations. Texans should finally push our elected officials to realize that it’s time for modern reforms to our state’s Legislative branch of government. Changing this will not be easy, the part-time legislature is a long entrenched Texas narrative/myth. Who knows, maybe with a far right Republican on board there can be enough political cover to get the needed reforms passed.
Permalink
Posted in 81st Legislature, Commentary, Criminal Justice, Had Enough Yet? at 12:10 pm by wcnews
In a Sunday Op-Ed in the FWST state Rep. Todd Smith (R-Euless) gives Perry his due for his veto of HB 3148, Gov. Perry’s veto of “teen lovers” bill was a missed opportunity to help Texas youth.
Gov. Rick Perry vetoed one of the most morally compelling bills I have ever filed in the Texas House.
[...]
Perry apparently believes that every teenager who has a consensual relationship with someone more than three years, but less than four years younger should be labeled for life as a sex offender.
The purpose of sex offender registration is to protect children from child molesters. The monitoring and supervision of nonthreatening people wastes law enforcement resources and detracts law enforcement from closer scrutiny of the sex offender for whom registration was intended — those who are dangerous to children.
HB 3148 was passed by a vote of 131-12 in the House and unanimously in the Senate. Sixteen witnesses testified in committee in favor of the bill. There was no opposition.
In his veto statement, Perry said that “sex offenders would be eligible to petition a court for an exemption from sex offender registration, regardless of the age of the victim.” That is simply not true.
The bill expressly stated that the victim must be at least 14 years old with the perpetrator less than four years older. He said he feared this bill would not protect young victims, but it only would allow a judge to grant an exemption when it is in the best interest of the victim. Some of these “victims” are now married to the “perpetrators.”
The bill wouldn’t change the criminality of the offense of statutory rape, which is a punishable crime. It only gave certain teens in consensual relationships an opportunity to ask a judge for an exemption from lifetime registration as a sex offender.
Every step was taken to ensure that no dangerous predator would be eligible to petition for exemption. Even if an offender met all the requirements set forth, (i.e., consensual relationship, victim at least 14, less than a four-year age difference) a judge would still have discretion — if circumstances warranted — to keep the offender on the list.
I believe teens involved in these relationships have committed a sin, but I don’t believe — in most cases — that that sin should put them on a list that will literally ruin the rest of their lives.
[...]
Perry has made it clear he wishes to protect the youth of Texas. He has missed a golden opportunity to do so. I will continue to fight for this important legislation that, simply put, delivers people who are of no threat to anyone from a living hell.
It’s hard not to agree with the conclusion that Perry didn’t know what the bill was about.
Perry said in his veto statement that he couldn’t sign the bill because “sex offenders would be eligible to petition a court for an exemption from sex offender registration, regardless of the age of the victim.” However, Smith’s bill only applied to cases where an offender was convicted of having consensual sex with someone who was at least 14 and not more than four years younger than the defendant.
“Perry apparently believes that every teenager who has a consensual relationship with someone more than three years, but less than four years younger should be labeled for life as a sex offender,” Smith wrote.
You can read EOW’s previous reporting on this bill, (A good bill passed the house yesterday and Perry’s vetoes and HB 3148). Rep. Smith deserves much credit for getting the bill passed and keeping the issue alive. For those living with this unwarranted punishment relief cannot come soon enough.
Permalink
Posted in Blogging, District 31, Good Stuff, Williamson County at 9:48 am by dembones
Over the past few months, JohnCarterWatch has been turning up the heat on our Congressional representative, John R. Carter (R-Round Rock). Jason Steed, the blogger behind JohnCarterWatch, recently announced that he would no longer write long-form posts on that blog due to time constraints.
Steed did promise to offer twitter updates (you do follow @profsteed, don’t you?), but this left us wanting more. The staff here at EyeOnWilliamson is sympathetic to the challenges of balancing personal and professional commitments with the demands of citizen journalism, so we asked if he would be interested in joining us here at Eye On Williamson. We’re pleased to announce that Steed agreed.
Our hope is that as a team, we can help Steed focus on what he does best — write pithy, scathing critiques of the hypocrisy and missteps of our feckless curmudgeon in the House — more efficiently. We’ll continue to report on the decline of the Williamson county Republican party and the corruption, cronyism and incompetence of their local elected officials.
Together, our shared goal is the replacement of our elected officials with politicians more responsive to the needs of working families. Please keep an eye out for future posts from Steed here and be sure to let him know in the comments how much you appreciate his voluntary efforts.
Permalink
Posted in Around The State, Commentary, Uncategorized at 7:59 am by wcnews
It’s Fourth of July week, and so it’s time for an extra-patriotic rendition of the Texas Progressive Alliance blog roundup.
Off the Kuff takes a look at the latest Lyceum poll on the Governor and Senate races in Texas.
Neil at Texas Liberal suggests that instead of blowing of your fingers lighting fireworks–during a drought in Harris County no less—that maybe you would be better off reading a book instead.
With 2010 spinning up, it’s funny to watch all the different players already on the field line up to take their first hits. McBlogger, of course, thinks they’re all deeply in need of a little advice which he graciously provides (with surprisingly sparse use of profanity)!
WCNews & Dembones at Eye On Williamson post on the latest controversy involving the Williamson County Commissioners Court, Budget officer not just a good idea, it’s the law.
John at Bay Area Houston says Turn out the lights, the family values party is over.
CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks online Texas Republican commentary on Mark Sanford is interesting.
The similarities between Mark Sanford and Ray Bolger (as the Scarecrow in “The Wizard of Oz”) are just too weird, notes PDidde at Brains and Eggs.
The wise men are willing to pay a tax on their favorite junk food to pay for health care reform.
WhosPlayin.com Video bring you EXTREME Congressional Town Hall – Special “Losing our freedoms” edition, sponsored by Prozac.
Over at TexasKaos, Libby Shaw calls our attention to Confessions of a Former Health Insurance Exec: “We Dump the Sick”. Who knew? All the posturing , hypocritical , offers of self-reform and insurance relief are just so much bogus cover up for an industry too greedy to ever be trusted to regulate themselves!
The Texas Cloverleaf discusses gay pride, bar raids, and millions of gays marching in DFW this past weekend during the 40th anniversary of Stonewall.
Burnt Orange Report covers TX-10 Congressional candidate Jack McDonald’s campaign expansion in the Austin area.
Permalink
06.28.09
Posted in Around The State, Commentary, Privatization, Road Issues, Special Session, Transportation, Uncategorized at 4:11 pm by wcnews
With the governor calling the shots in the special session nothing that needs to get done to help fix the transportation financing problems in Texas is likely to get done. But many bad things that we don’t need sure can. As evidence just look at what Sen. John Carona has said and done over the last few days.
He will not pursue the legislation that was deemed so important to North Texas during the regular session, the so-called “local option gas tax”. But he was all to willing to file the bill, (SB 1), that will create the Texas Transportation Revolving Fund (TTRF), aka the “transportation bank”. Essentially carrying Perry’s water while, the the legislation he’s repeatedly stated his constituents need so much, has no chance of passing.
Sen. Carona won’t seek local-option tax in special session.
Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, will not seek to win approval of a local-option transportation tax bill in the special session of the Legislature that begins Wednesday.
Carona files SB 1 for special.
Corona said he has filed Senate Bill 1 to address the bonding issue.
“One of those issues is ‘to consider legislation relating to the issuance by the Texas Transportation Commission … of general obligation bonds for highway improvement projects, and to the creation, administration, financing and use of a Texas Transportation Revolving Fund to provide financial assistance for transportation projects,” Corona said.
“SB 1 enables the issuance of the transportation bonds that voters approved in November of 2007 through Proposition 12, similar to Senate Bill 263 from the regular session, and creates a transportation revolving fund, similar to SB 1350.
“I think these concepts are well accepted and should move rapidly through the process.”
Geez I hope not. This goes back to the words spoken earlier in the week by Texas Democratic House leader Jim Dunnam. Essentially saying that it’s not good public policy to pass these kinds of changes in three days without proper vetting. Whether it’s CDA’s or a TxDOT getting into investment banking he’s right. The TTRF is just a disaster waiting to happen. Read EOW’s take, Texas Transportation Revolving Fund?, and McBlogger’s take, Using Lehman as a blueprint for TXDOT, on the transportation bank to get up to speed on it.
While Carona had little chance of getting the local option on the agenda for the special session it’s sad to see him shrinking from his tough stance a month ago, to now doing the governor’s bidding. As stated before the best thing we can hope for is that the lege will authorize the extension of the five agencies until 2011 and get out of town. The less work they do in this special session, the better off Texas will be in the long run.
Permalink
06.27.09
Posted in Road Issues, Take Action, Transportation, Williamson County at 12:29 pm by wcnews
Via the Williamson County road bond web site.
Williamson County will hold a public hearing on the draft plan of the County’s updated transportation master plan on Monday, June 29, at 6:30 p.m. at the County Courthouse, 710 S. Main Street, Georgetown, in the Commissioners Courtroom on the second floor. The June 4 public hearing date was cancelled due to a scheduling conflict. The County is seeking feedback on the draft plan that includes what roads should be built or improved over the next twenty-five years, as well as various transit options, to help address expected growth. Information will be available for viewing and asking questions from 6:30 to 7 p.m. A presentation on the draft plan will begin at 7 p.m. Citizens wishing to speak are required to sign in that evening and will be given five minutes to provide comments, which will be recorded for Information on the plan also is available on the road bond Web site at www.roadbond.org. Comments can be sent to roads@wilco.org or call 943-1195.
All draft plans by precinct can be found here down the left hand side of the page.
Permalink
06.26.09
Posted in Around The Nation, Commentary, Insurance Reform at 2:50 pm by wcnews
The health insurance debate in Congress has pretty much come down the point where the Democrats need to decide how they want to proceed. Are they going to do what they were elected to do, reform health insurance and bring coverage to all Americans, or do something the insurance corporations want instead?
Robert Reich lays out Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong.
Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America’s non-system of health care — private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers — have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.
Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won’t consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don’t want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That’s the whole point.
Ezra Klein reminds us of why we hate insurance corporations so much, The Truth About the Insurance Industry.
What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by “two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.”
Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it “loses” paying for health care.
The best way to drive down “medical-loss,” explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won’t, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person’s dollar on medical care because he or she won’t need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. “One is policy rescission,” says Potter. “They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment.”
And don’t be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. “No,” they each said.
[...]
The issue isn’t that insurance companies are evil. It’s that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he’s watched an insurer’s stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.
The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that’s not the case. We don’t allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don’t want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?
That, by and large, is what’s wrong with health insurance in America.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., lays the choice for Democrats in order to pass meaningful health insurance reform, Rockefeller wants to cut private health insurance influence, (tip to TPM).
On Thursday, Rockefeller admitted he expects little bipartisan support.
“There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid [created in the 1960s]. They voted against children’s health insurance.
“We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that,” Rockefeller added.
“But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice.”
It’s really not much of a choice. A much better system or what we have now. Democrats need to take to heart with what Sen. Rockefeller said. Forget the republicans, you dont’ need them. Do what you were elected to do. If Americans wanted GOP health care they would have elected John McCain and many more GOP members of Congress. They didn’t and they don’t.
Democrats must remember the reason they were elected is because they are not Republicans. The voters want Democratic solutions to our country’s problems, especially on health care, that’s why many more Democrats were voted in last November. Democrats need to get together and come up with a plan that includes a solid public option for health care insurance, and get it passed. The voters will reward Democrats for that. Especially when it brings better health insurance to your fellow citizens. It shouldn’t be a harddecision. And don’t forget the only thing that most Americans hate more than the government is insurance corporations. Take solice in that.
Permalink
� Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »