The health insurance industry is doing another one of those “online forums” in Minneapolis on Thursday. It’s got the same problems as their last online forum they did last week in Denver:

On Monday, America’s Health Insurance Plans held an online forum as part of their sham “listening tour.” They asked for questions to be submitted to them via email, easily allowing them to pick and choose what they answered. They controlled the medium - with a moderator choosing questions for CEO Karen Ignagni to answer - and that allowed them to control the message. Judging from what actually went on during the forum, with softball questions and no followups, the insurance industry was allowed to spin their position on health care. You can watch the forum here.

As you may remember, we asked Health Care for America Now members to submit questions to AHIP’s “listening tour” last week, and we received over 1,700 questions, copies of which were forwarded to AHIP. I’ve read through every question submitted, and to the best of my knowledge, AHIP didn’t answer a single one.

So, since they’re doing another online forum on Thursday, we thought we’d give them another shot. Here’s the email I just sent to info@americanhealthsolution.org, the email address they are using to collect questions: (Feel free to use it to send your own questions, and go ahead and leave us a comment here with what you sent so we have a public record. Or you can use our email tool to email some questions to AHIP.)

Dear America’s Health Insurance Plans:

Last week, when you held an online forum in Denver, Colorado, we asked our members - people from all over the United States - for questions they would like to ask the insurance industry, represented by America’s Health Insurance Plans. Due to your releasing of your public schedule on a Friday before your Monday forum, there wasn’t a lot of time to plan. Nevertheless, even though our email went out to our members on Monday morning at 10 am EST, leaving only a few hours before the online event, we received over 1,700 questions. A copy of those questions were emailed to you, as well.

I attended your online forum that day, and to the best of my knowledge, none of the 1,700 questions asked by real people all across this country were answered. The Campaign for an American Solution bills itself as a “candid and transparent conversation with Americans from all walks of life.” In that spirit, we hope that this time, when you hold your online forum again on Thursday, you will answer some of the 1,700 questions you received last week. Every letter we (and you) received is available at http://healthcareforamericanow.org/page/content/ahip/

Everyone in this country deserves straight answers as to the insurance industry’s role in health care reform. I and 1,700 other real Americans hope you will take the time to candidly, transparently, and fully answer some of the questions that have been posed to you. We also hope that going forward, you will release the times, dates, and locations of the rest of your listening tour well in advance so the public can make sure it is truly heard by the insurance industry.

Sincerely,

Jason Rosenbaum

We’ll see if AHIP answers your questions this time around. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if we put enough pressure on them this time for them to answer a few. Still, given that questions are pre-screened and there is no opportunities for follow-ups, even if they do answer a few real questions, they will pick questions they can easily spin, leaving no room to pin them down on their bad practices.

Without real public forums in unmoderated locations (virtual or physical), the health insurance industry’s listening tour is nothing but a sham, a piece of propaganda used to convince America it’s happy with the current state of health care in this country.

Don’t buy it. No matter what they say, they’re not really listening.

(also posted on the NOW! blog)

At the Democratic National Convention last week, Senator and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made an eloquent case for quality, affordable health care for all:

And she’s right. Everyone who believes in health care for all needs to be on the same page for the coming legislative battle. Unity is strength. But more needs to be done. Earlier at a different event, Richard Kirsch, our National Campaign Director, laid out the obstacles to health care reform:

To win health care reform in 2009, we’re going to need to win over a broad swath of Americans, liberal and conservative alike.

This weekend, I was in Chicago visiting friends. I had a few long conversations with a good friend of mine who’s views are significantly more conservative than my own. Surprisingly, one of his foremost concerns was the prospect of health care for all, which he was against.

Over the course of these discussions, I realized that there are a few key facts that once agreed on open the door to convincing the more conservative among us to support health care reform, or at least not be as afraid of it.

A little entertainment for your afternoon, courtesy of SEIU and live from the RNC. Here’s the lineup:

Atmosphere
Steve Earle
Billy Bragg
Mos Def
Tom Morello from Rage Against the Machine
The Pharcyde

Enjoy!

Here we go again.  It’s Labor Day Weekend, and a major hurricane is taking aim on the Gulf Coast.  Gustav is lining up to make a direct hit on Louisiana just as Katrina did three years ago.  The forecast is so grim, the Republicans are considering postponing their convention .  Apparently, they don’t want to share media coverage with disaster victims, and they don’t want to appear insensitive and uncaring to their suffering yet again.

No matter what happens, a major hurricane making landfall just two months before the election would thrust a number of issues to the forefront - most notably climate change, oil dependence, and the need to reform government bureaucracies.  Each party would put some heavy spin on these issues in an effort to blame the other party for the costs and the destruction that are incurred.

But there is one crucial topic concerning natural disasters that no politician will touch with a ten-foot pole, especially presidential candidates that want to win Florida or any other coastal state.  This topic is the absurd fact that our government continually spends billions of billions of dollars to help rebuild areas that are almost certain to get wiped out again.

Let’s start with Florida.  In 2004, the Sunshine State endured four direct hits from hurricanes, prompting Congress to appropriate $13 billion in taxpayer money to help residents rebuild.  And it’s not like those four storms were aberrations.  In the past eight years alone, Florida has been hit by more than 50 tropical storms and hurricanes that have caused $64 billion worth of damage.  People in Florida don’t talk about “if” another hurricane is going to hit.  They talk about “when.”  And they seem stubbornly eager to pick up the pieces and rebuild time and time again - on the government’s dollar.

And then there’s New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.  I spent the summer of 2000 in the Crescent City.  Back then, residents knew that a category 4 or 5 hurricane would fill up the city like a bathtub.  And when that happened, instead of saying, “Forget this, I’m going to move somewhere safer,” they summoned their pride and their courage, and they went back and they rebuilt - with the help of $116 billion from Uncle Sam.  One can only wonder what they are thinking as they watch Gustav threatening to knock them right back to 2005, and if they’ll show the same resolve to come back and rebuild should they be wiped out again.

It’s time for the American people to ask itself some tough questions.   Should taxpayers be asked to pay for rebuilding in areas that are likely to get hit again?  Should we tell people that if you choose to live there, you do so at your own risk?  Especially in this era when the climate is changing and tropical weather is getting more intense, it’s time for us to get over the hubris that tells us that we don’t have to listen to mother nature. 

After all, with the sea level rising, we’re going to have to vacate our coastal cities anyway.

Given the weak field of Republican vice presidential candidates, it was inevitable that McCain’s final decision would raise some eyebrows. The selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did not disappoint. It did, however, add its own twist; instead of skepticism, the brows bear the mark of confusion. The befuddlement is almost palpable.

Still, no matter how unlikely it seems at first glance, further examination clarifies, and more than redeems, the choice. This is not to say that McCain’s found a gem, or that Dems rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a Biden/Palin debate are jumping the gun. It simply means that, unsatisfied with the contestants in its tallest midget contest, McCain & Co. went out and found a taller midget.

Before I present my case for Palin as the right choice, I suggest you read Alex Thurston’s concise and crippling look at the Mav’s other options. If you already know how poor the crop was this year, continue apace.

• The Maverick and his Wing-Woman

An effective critique against McCain this election cycle has been that he is McSame, simply a continuation of the last 8 years of failed policy. It’s effective cause it’s true, but Palin as VP somewhat mitigates the force of the argument. She is a face that is ”both fresh and fierce.” In a sense (the geographical kind) she is the ultimate Washington outsider (unless, of course, Hawaii is further — I haven’t run the numbers). She gives pundits the opportunity to paint Biden’s ample DC experience as a liability, to paint him as the insider. Sure, it’s a weak counter-attack, but Republicans have effectively used weaker material in the past.

• Got Change?

Perhaps more importantly, and more obviously, Sarah Palin breaks up Obama’s monopoly on change in this election. Whichever side gets elected, we can claim a significant step forward as a nation. Also, as Ian pointed out, Palin may shore up some of those HRC supporters who lusted after a female in the White House.

• Grounding the McCain Campaign

The McCain campaign has reveled in its down-to-earth appeal, knowing the middle-class is key to any general election. It paints Obama as the out-of-touch celebrity, McCain as the humble war hero. But, with the recent attention given to McCain’s definition of rich, his ignorance of the palaces he keeps, and the transformation of his Straight-Talk Express to the No-Talk Jet, the appeal’s been tarnished. Palin’s the perfect spit-shine; She fishes. She hunts. She started her career as a sportswriter. Her eldest son Track enlisted in the army on September 11, 2007, and, in a perfect media moment, will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008. Her husband is a champion snowmobile racer, and is often referred to in Alaska as First Dude. Lastly, as an added bonus for those who are worried that McCain would lose the evangelical flock, Palin is a conservative Christian who opposes abortion.

In short, for all her inexperience, Palin brings some formidable qualities to the table. Her selection is a nod to the reality of the American electorate in some key states and, once the dust clears, I think it’ll be apparent that McCain made the best of his limited options.

The story broken by Dallas Morning News has gotten a lot of attention today. Here’s what others have been saying.

CNN:

A health care policy adviser for the McCain campaign told a newspaper reporter that nobody in the United States is technically uninsured, because everyone has access to hospital emergency rooms.

Think Progress:

Goodman’s analysis reflects a radical view of the state of health care in this country. Uninsured Americans are less likely to seek health care and more likely to die because of a lack of insurance. A 2002 Institute of Medicine Report estimated 18,000 unnecessary adult deaths because of a lack of insurance. The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 died in 2006 for the same reason. Goodman apparently thinks they were “effectively insured.”

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

Voila indeed. And why stop with health care? Imagine how easily we could solve poverty if we simply stopped measuring income and wealth. And global warming? Pshaw. Just stop measuring atmospheric pollutants and temperature. Really, the possibilities are endless.

and more from Cohn:

Remember, the McCain campaign would offer tax incentives that favor bare-bones coverage; it would also gut state regulations that mandate all insurers cover certain benefits. Most important, perhaps, it’s likely that the McCain health plan would lead many people with employer-sponsored insurance to give up or lose that coverage. While many people would also get new coverage on their own, through the individual market, the benefits would be skimpier–and they would be available only to relatively healthy people, since insurers screen for pre-existing medical conditions when they sell policies individually.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly:

This nonsense is surprisingly common in Republican circles. Last year, Tom DeLay argued, “[N]o American is denied health care in America,” because everyone can go to the emergency room. Around the same time, George W. Bush said the same thing: “[P]eople have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” In 2004, then-HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said our healthcare system “could be defined as universal coverage,” because of emergency rooms.

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

This is, obviously, idiotic — though in an almost charming, movement conservative Tourette’s sort of way — but one wonders who Goodman thinks is going to be the payer of last resort for non-emergency care? Santa Claus?

Ezra Klein:

This is what we call a Kinsleyan gaffe: A mistake that reveals the truth. John McCain’s health care plan is, by the admission of his own advisers, not particularly interested in the problem of the uninsured. It doesn’t try and cover them or address their plight, and for a very simple reason: Conservatives in general are not interested in the problem of the uninsured. And why should they be? Health care is a market good, and not everyone can afford every market good, and if you distort the market thus to ensure universal access, you’ll probably do more harm than good. There’s even an “Anti-Universal Coverage Club” over at Cato for conservative brave enough to admit this truth. “To achieve ‘universal coverage,’” they say, “would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it. Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.

Greg Sargent at Talking Points Memo:

The problem with this analysis, according to an expert quoted in the article, is that people without insurance are less likely to seek non-emergency-room care, which ultimately drives up the cost to the health care system.

Chris Bowers at Open Left:

Even though tonight is Obama’s big speech, it is time for progressives to ramp up another media narrative on John McCain. Check out his health care plan.

Diane Sweet at the Michigan Messenger:

Aside from trying to hide the plight of the uninsured from public view, Mr. Goodman’s stroke of genius is based on — apparently — not fully understanding federal emergency room regulations. The federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit ‘patient dumping’ gives everyone the right to emergency care, regardless of ability to pay. However, if you are not having an ‘emergency,’ they do not have to treat you. They may well refer you to a family doctor (something the uninsured often don’t have) or a community health care clinic or ‘urgent’ care center.

Once again, why would anyone actually listen to John Goodman’s advice on health care?

UPDATE:

Joe Klein at Time, too:

One of John McCain’s health care advisers has proposed a novel solution to the nation’s health insurance problems: stop counting those who don’t have health insurance, since anyone can get health care if they go to an emergency room. Therefore…everybody’s covered. To which one can only say: huh?

and the AFL-CIO:

Indeed, emergency rooms might see a lot more traffic under McCain’s health care proposal, as millions could be pushed out of employer-provided care and left at the mercy of the private market with high co-pays and a shameful lack of consumer protections. McCain’s plan would also tax the health care benefits workers get on the job. This all might be great for the insurance industry and its lobbyists, but it’s a terrible deal for working families.

(also on the NOW! blog)

Today, the Dallas Morning News again pointed out how far behind Texas is from the rest of the country when it comes to health care. As I’ve argued before, this is because of the extensive privatization of health care in Texas which throws people out to fend for themselves in the “free market,” resulting in more uninsured than the rest of the nation.

John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, thinks the numbers put out by the Census highlighting Texas’ plight are “misleading:”

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain’s health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

“So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime,” Mr. Goodman said. “The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

“So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved.”

That’s right. John Goodman’s solution to the health care crisis in America is to change the definition of “uninsured” so that magically, everyone is insured.

On Monday, America’s Health Insurance Plans held an online forum as part of their sham “listening tour.” They asked for questions to be submitted to them via email, easily allowing them to pick and choose what they answered. They controlled the medium - with a moderator choosing questions for CEO Karen Ignagni to answer - and that allowed them to control the message. Judging from what actually went on during the forum, with softball questions and no followups, the insurance industry was allowed to spin their position on health care. You can watch the forum here.

Of course, if AHIP had really wanted to talk with the public, they would have been faced with a very different situation. A full 82% of America believes we need a big change in our health care system, with large margins supporting the kinds of health care plans - with quality, affordable health care for all - that the industry opposes. (Karen Ignagni makes clear the industry’s position on “reform,” a pitiful tax credit that even if it would cover the full cost of health care, would still leave working families paying out of pocket costs for a year until the IRS sent them their end-of-the-year check.)

But it’s clear AHIP doesn’t actually want to listen to the public, even though they claim they want input. Because if they really wanted to listen to the public, they would have been asked real questions.

On Monday, we asked our members to write America’s Health Insurance Plans with questions. The response was overwhelming. In under three hours, over 1,700 questions were sent to AHIP. The full list is here, but I’ve pulled out some of the best ones - ones AHIP would have had to answer if it were really listening.

When comparisons are made between American private-insurance health plans and the national health care plans provided in all other western democracies (e.g. Canada, Europe), one of the glaring differences is the hugely larger percent of healthcare dollars spent on administrative costs in the US. Would the US healthcare industry ever commit to making the radical changes necessary to get administrative costs more in line with what such costs amount to (percentage wise) in the rest of the western world?

–John Valiulis

Would you consider changing your business model to put people’s health decisions back in the hands of their doctors rather than an insurance clerk?

–Ann Barnes

A buddy of mine, Jay sent this along. I figured some of you folks might be wondering the same thing

AB:

I noticed this article on Commonwealth Fund talking about the 41% percent of working Americans who struggle with medical debt. As one those people struggling (I have special needs daughter), I can see that the current system is screwed up. Why can’t we fix it?

Jay:

The fix is insanely easy. Heck, we have two choices: Medicare for all and private insurance for all.

The first solution, medicare for all, isn’t the be all, but it is universal and it would work well enough. If you combine it with a federal mandate requiring all doctors to take Medicare without any exceptions, you have national health care built on an established framework

The reasons we don’t do it are simple, too:

1. Campaign Contributions from private industry who like the system as it is. In a nutshell, legal bribery.
2. Conservatives who against all reason fear it, or think somehow our national health would decline.
3. It’s expensive and we don’t think we afford it and our empire a the same time.

I figure it would likely cost another two trillion we don’t have and can’t tax.

Also if we tried to negotiate drug prices down for the program, it would be such a threat to the profit margins of the drug companies, they would do anything to stop it. Nothing scares drug companies more than the kind of price controls and negotiations that other nations take for granted.

Congress, of course, being on the take getting campaign contributions galore, doesn’t want to lose the lobbying money.

Also in the Conservative mindset, if lots of Americans die or go broke or die early, so what? There are always high birth-rate third world nations much worse off than us to import people from.

Now of course there is another option too. Managed care, a PPO, preferred provider organization for all. It’s very cheap - only about $450-$600 billion to cover everyone - and we could wrap Medicare and maybe the VA system into the program. It would actually save us money in the long run.

However it would mean a lot less government jobs and more oversight, something Congress doesn’t want. Those government employees all vote, after all.

And either way, if we did manage care, there would be a big fight over reproductive medicine. I can tell you that Fundamentalists in every state will howl if birth control or, heaven forbid, abortion coverage is included. The “Congress without a Spine” is in no mood for such a fight.

So instead, we get coercive half measures like Massachusetts’ buy private coverage or go to jail fascism or just nothing at all.

It’s too bad, really, but the US government is both dumb and broken on this issue.

Fixing it is doable, but we have to get new people in office. I’ll grant you, that’s not an easy task, but it is very possible, if and only if we stay on it.

Adam Benjamin Prosper was born in Colorado and now lives in Southern California. He is a blue collar guy, freelancer writer and occasional trouble maker. A. B. believes in honor, freedom, truth, justice, the environment and all that jazz. Most importantly, he believes in us the American People and our limitless capacity to make America great if we try. He blogs at http://www.abprosper.com

Health Care for America Now sent a bunch of staff members out to Denver for this week’s Democratic National Convention. They’ll be walking around, meeting folks, and spreading the message that health care needs to be the top issue in 2009. So, if you see folks wearing Health Care for America Now buttons, stop and say hi!

Richard Kirsch, our National Campaign Director, is in Denver as well, addressing various groups of folks throught the convention. Today, he addressed the Seachange Ideas Forum. You can take a look at the video here.

Watching the convention yesterday from the office here in D.C. (the online team got to stay at home and mind the tubes), Levana and I were struck by something pretty signifigant: In every major speech, health care was featured prominantly. Here’s a sampling:

Nancy Pelosi:

On health care for 10 million American children and on protecting Medicare—a bill so crucial that Senator Ted Kennedy left his own medical treatment to cast the decisive vote—Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong.

Caroline Kennedy:

If your children are receiving health care thanks to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, if you see a nurse at a community health center or if you’re benefiting from the Medicare program that he fought to create, and that just last month he returned to the Senate to save, Teddy is your senator too.

Michelle Obama:

It’s what he’s done in the United States Senate, fighting to ensure the men and women who serve this country are welcomed home not just with medals and parades, but with good jobs and benefits and health care - including mental health care.

That’s why he’s running - to end the war in Iraq responsibly, to build an economy that lifts every family, to make health care available for every American, and to make sure every child in this nation gets a world class education all the way from preschool to college.

We’re glad that health care is at the top of the agenda in Denver. We think it should be at the top of everyone’s agenda, no matter which party you’re part of. We’re looking forward to seeing if health care is at the top of the agenda next week at the Republican National Convention.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)