Visiting seniors at the Kit Clark Senior Service Center in Boston today, Martha Coakley outlined her commitment to protect Social Security and Medicare, according to a campaign press release. Coakley also highlighted the differences between "her commitment to Massachusetts seniors and Republican Scott Brown’s adherence to Bush-Cheney policies that would cost seniors money and undermine Medicare and Social Security."
“I will make an iron-clad commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare, and I’ll fight to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs," Coakley said. "My opponent won’t even tell you where he stands. So I will. In the Massachusetts Senate, Scott Brown filed a bill that could allow insurance companies to deny coverage for hospice care. Scott Brown is against the health care bill which would extend prescription drug coverage to seniors. He would also consider cuts to Social Security. I won’t let that happen. I’ll always stand up for you.”
The press release states that, in the Senate, Martha Coakley will fight for seniors. She will protect Social Security and support seniors’ long term care. And she will work to reduce prescription drug costs by closing the so-called Medicare Part D “doughnut hole,” which forces seniors, many on fixed incomes, who are on Medicare to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs once those costs exceed $2,700 per year.
The Coakley campaign also claims that Scott Brown voted against funding for MassHealth Senior Care in 2003, and would consider cuts to Social Security.
Update:
The Brown campaign responded to Coakley's claims in a statement. “It’s disappointing that Martha Coakley is attempting to deceive voters with her demonstrably false statements on my health care record. We have sharply different views on the health care bill in Washington,” Brown said. “Time and again, Martha has said she would be the 60th vote for a health care bill that will slash Medicare by a half-trillion dollars, raise taxes and increase spending. As the 41st Republican Senator, I would insist we start over on health care and craft a bipartisan bill that will lead to meaningful reform.”
Showing newest posts with label Health care. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Health care. Show older posts
Scott Brown visits medical company to highlight negative impact of health care bill.
With the fate of national health care reform hanging on the outcome of Tuesday's election, Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown (a vehement opponent of the bill) visited ZOLL Medical Corporation to highlight the "impact that higher taxes in the health care bill will have on Massachusetts." ZOLL, located in Chelmsford, makes medical devices that help clinicians, EMS professionals, and lay rescuers treat victims needing resuscitation and critical care.
According to a campaign press release, Brown visited ZOLL to call attention to elements within the national health care bills that would force the company and others like it in the medical device sector to pay dramatically higher taxes. Both the House and the Senate health bills propose $20 billion in new taxes on medical device manufacturers over the coming decade. Brown called the proposals “unacceptable” and said Massachusetts’ 225 medical device companies, which account for 22,000 jobs in the state, should not be made to pay these new costs.
“ZOLL Medical has a strong business and provides excellent benefits to its employees, but national proposals to change our health care system will alter the landscape for this company and many others like it,” said Brown. “Companies like this are critical to the Massachusetts economy and provide good jobs and excellent benefits. It is wrong to force them to shoulder a new tax burden that will destroy their ability to compete and maintain jobs.”
Depending on the final language of a health care reform bill, ZOLL’s share of the proposed new tax on medical devices could be in the $5 million to $10 million range, according to the Brown campaign. An additional tax in this amount would equal nearly 100 percent of the company’s entire net income and would seriously threaten ZOLL’s ability to ability grow and compete.
“We’re big supporters of health care reform but the current proposals would mean a reduction in our Massachusetts-based manufacturing and engineering workforce, along with much greater healthcare cost sharing by all our employees,” said Richard Packer, ZOLL Medical chief executive officer. “The $20 billion in extra taxes on device manufacturers like us would have a devastating effect on our business.”
According to a campaign press release, Brown visited ZOLL to call attention to elements within the national health care bills that would force the company and others like it in the medical device sector to pay dramatically higher taxes. Both the House and the Senate health bills propose $20 billion in new taxes on medical device manufacturers over the coming decade. Brown called the proposals “unacceptable” and said Massachusetts’ 225 medical device companies, which account for 22,000 jobs in the state, should not be made to pay these new costs.
“ZOLL Medical has a strong business and provides excellent benefits to its employees, but national proposals to change our health care system will alter the landscape for this company and many others like it,” said Brown. “Companies like this are critical to the Massachusetts economy and provide good jobs and excellent benefits. It is wrong to force them to shoulder a new tax burden that will destroy their ability to compete and maintain jobs.”
Depending on the final language of a health care reform bill, ZOLL’s share of the proposed new tax on medical devices could be in the $5 million to $10 million range, according to the Brown campaign. An additional tax in this amount would equal nearly 100 percent of the company’s entire net income and would seriously threaten ZOLL’s ability to ability grow and compete.
“We’re big supporters of health care reform but the current proposals would mean a reduction in our Massachusetts-based manufacturing and engineering workforce, along with much greater healthcare cost sharing by all our employees,” said Richard Packer, ZOLL Medical chief executive officer. “The $20 billion in extra taxes on device manufacturers like us would have a devastating effect on our business.”
Scott Brown resumes kitchen table conversations on the Cape.
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Scott Brown continued his series of kitchen table conversations with Massachusetts families today, visiting the Austin family of East Sandwich.
According to a Brown campaign press release, Doreen and Steven Austin are frustrated that Congress is moving forward with a costly national health care bill that increases spending and raises taxes. Doreen is a stay-at-home mother and former hairdresser. Her husband, Steven, is a small business owner of a local printing and embroidery company. The Austins have two teenagers living at home and two grown children.
“We have elderly parents and a small business. Our family and our business cannot afford a health care experiment that would slow our economic recovery even more,” said Doreen Austin, who is an unenrolled voter. “I like my doctor and want to keep my doctor. I think a public option will only expand the government’s involvement in our lives and raise taxes.”
The release notes Scott Brown's belief that everyone should have access to some form of health coverage, but says Brown opposes the current national health care proposals since Massachusetts already has 97 percent of its residents covered. Under these national proposals, Massachusetts taxpayers would be forced to subsidize coverage expansions in other states through higher taxes and fees. Brown said this will cost Massachusetts jobs and make it harder on small businesses struggling to get by.
“Steven and Doreen have watched in anger as Washington politicians rush through an unpopular health care bill,” said Brown. “If I’m elected on January 19th, I’ll work with both sides to come up with a plan that is good for Massachusetts and doesn’t break the bank. We can do better and the voters of Massachusetts are ready to send a message that will be heard from Beacon Hill to the halls of Congress.”
According to a Brown campaign press release, Doreen and Steven Austin are frustrated that Congress is moving forward with a costly national health care bill that increases spending and raises taxes. Doreen is a stay-at-home mother and former hairdresser. Her husband, Steven, is a small business owner of a local printing and embroidery company. The Austins have two teenagers living at home and two grown children.
“We have elderly parents and a small business. Our family and our business cannot afford a health care experiment that would slow our economic recovery even more,” said Doreen Austin, who is an unenrolled voter. “I like my doctor and want to keep my doctor. I think a public option will only expand the government’s involvement in our lives and raise taxes.”
The release notes Scott Brown's belief that everyone should have access to some form of health coverage, but says Brown opposes the current national health care proposals since Massachusetts already has 97 percent of its residents covered. Under these national proposals, Massachusetts taxpayers would be forced to subsidize coverage expansions in other states through higher taxes and fees. Brown said this will cost Massachusetts jobs and make it harder on small businesses struggling to get by.
“Steven and Doreen have watched in anger as Washington politicians rush through an unpopular health care bill,” said Brown. “If I’m elected on January 19th, I’ll work with both sides to come up with a plan that is good for Massachusetts and doesn’t break the bank. We can do better and the voters of Massachusetts are ready to send a message that will be heard from Beacon Hill to the halls of Congress.”
Coakley says Brown denying negative impact of his health care legislation.
In yesterday’s candidates’ debate in Springfield, Scott Brown continued to deny the basic impact of his regressive health care legislation that would allow the reduction of coverage for women and seniors, according to the Martha Coakley campaign. During the debate, Coakley said that Brown's legislation would place decisions about coverage in the hands of insurance companies instead of protecting the interests of consumers of health care.
In December, Brown filed state health care legislation that would allow the elimination of mandated coverage for critical health services for women and seniors. Among the care that Brown’s legislation would allow the removal of coverage for includes mammograms, minimum maternity stays for new mothers, hospice care for seniors, and cancer screenings.
“Scott Brown continues to deny the impact of his regressive health care legislation which would allow the removal of basic health coverage for women and seniors,” Coakley Campaign Manager Kevin Conroy said. “As Martha said in yesterday’s debate, Scott Brown’s plan would put the decisions on whether to cover basic care such as mammograms and hospice care for seniors in the hands of insurance companies instead of protecting patients.”
The Coakley campaign says that when challenged yesterday by Coakley on his legislation and the health services, including mammograms, that would no longer be required to be covered, Brown attempted to backtrack.
Coakley later pointed out that Brown’s plan would place decisions about whether to cover these basic health services in the hands of health insurance companies instead of standing up for patients such as women and seniors.
“The reason it was mandated in the original bill (is) because insurance companies will skimp on it,” Coakley said in the debate. “Consumers lose and it will be to the benefit of insurance companies and not to consumers of health care.”
In addition to the removal of basic coverage, Brown’s legislation would also have minimal impact on the cost of health insurance premiums. A study conducted in 2008 by the Commonwealth’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy reported that removing such mandated coverage across the board, including these women’s health services, would result in a net cost reduction of only 3-4% in health premiums for Massachusetts residents.
In December, Brown filed state health care legislation that would allow the elimination of mandated coverage for critical health services for women and seniors. Among the care that Brown’s legislation would allow the removal of coverage for includes mammograms, minimum maternity stays for new mothers, hospice care for seniors, and cancer screenings.
“Scott Brown continues to deny the impact of his regressive health care legislation which would allow the removal of basic health coverage for women and seniors,” Coakley Campaign Manager Kevin Conroy said. “As Martha said in yesterday’s debate, Scott Brown’s plan would put the decisions on whether to cover basic care such as mammograms and hospice care for seniors in the hands of insurance companies instead of protecting patients.”
The Coakley campaign says that when challenged yesterday by Coakley on his legislation and the health services, including mammograms, that would no longer be required to be covered, Brown attempted to backtrack.
Coakley: “But that’s the reason (those coverages) were mandated. You’re saying we’re going to remove the mandate.”
Brown: “No, I never said we were going to remove the mandate.”In the press release, the Coakley campaign says that a review of Brown’s legislation reveals that his statement was inaccurate. The language in his bill would give the state's Connector Authority the power elminate benefits that were previously mandated, including mammograms, minimum maternity stays for new mothers, hospice care for seniors, and screenings (pap smears) to detect, among other possible conditions, cervical cancer at an early, treatable stage.
Coakley later pointed out that Brown’s plan would place decisions about whether to cover these basic health services in the hands of health insurance companies instead of standing up for patients such as women and seniors.
“The reason it was mandated in the original bill (is) because insurance companies will skimp on it,” Coakley said in the debate. “Consumers lose and it will be to the benefit of insurance companies and not to consumers of health care.”
In addition to the removal of basic coverage, Brown’s legislation would also have minimal impact on the cost of health insurance premiums. A study conducted in 2008 by the Commonwealth’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy reported that removing such mandated coverage across the board, including these women’s health services, would result in a net cost reduction of only 3-4% in health premiums for Massachusetts residents.
The health care debate continues...
Hello readers (assuming I still have any after taking nearly a week off).
I hope everyone had a great holiday and you are all gearing up for a 2010 Special Election blitz starting on Saturday.
Not sure how much I missed over the weekend (other than some nut job trying to blow up a plane), but since it's Tuesday I figure you are all probably more caught up than me and I am going to skip a roundup. Starting tomorrow the site should be back to normal, but for now I am just going to update you on developments from yesterday and today.
Let's start with health care.
Massachusetts
Yesterday, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Scott Brown filed legislation "imposing a moratorium on mandated health insurance coverages and shifting from the Legislature to the Massachusetts Connector Authority the power to reduce the number of mandated coverages that must be included in private health care plans." Catchy.
I think what Brown did was late-file a bill that would eliminate so-called "minimum creditable coverage" rules from the state's health care requirements, and allow the Connector Board to remove some coverage options if they so choose (and if I am wrong about what his bill does, please email me or comment).
Right now everyone in Massachusetts is required to have health insurance coverage (which you all know), but the definition of what constitutes "coverage" varies with pretty much anyone you talk to. Does "coverage" mean having just basic coverage for hospital visits? Or does it cover mental health services, surgery, etc.? That has been an ongoing debate in the legislature and medical circles since health care reform passed.
According to a Brown campaign press release, Massachusetts law currently mandates that 37 different coverages be included in every health care plan offered in the state.
Brown also used the release to reiterate his opposition to the national health care bill in Congress, saying it raises taxes, increases spending and expands government too much. He pledged to vote to stop it from becoming law.
“In 2006, we were the first in the nation to tackle the issue of getting all of our citizens insured. We have achieved 97 percent coverage. It makes no sense for us through higher taxes and fees to subsidize coverage expansions in other states,” said Brown. “Our focus should be on containing costs in our current state health insurance program. One way to tackle that issue is by removing burdensome insurance regulations that drive up the cost of private policies.”
He also sent an email this afternoon including a link to a New York Times op-ed column by Bob Herbert, in which he writes about the "middle class tax time bomb" ticking in the Senate's health care plan.
Coakley, on the other hand, used her release to reinforce her support for the Senate's health care bill.
The release notes that "Coakley supports the Senate Health Care Reform bill that would make health care coverage more affordable, reduce our nation’s long-term deficit, and provide specific additional benefits to Massachusetts including:
I hope everyone had a great holiday and you are all gearing up for a 2010 Special Election blitz starting on Saturday.
Not sure how much I missed over the weekend (other than some nut job trying to blow up a plane), but since it's Tuesday I figure you are all probably more caught up than me and I am going to skip a roundup. Starting tomorrow the site should be back to normal, but for now I am just going to update you on developments from yesterday and today.
Let's start with health care.
Massachusetts
Yesterday, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Scott Brown filed legislation "imposing a moratorium on mandated health insurance coverages and shifting from the Legislature to the Massachusetts Connector Authority the power to reduce the number of mandated coverages that must be included in private health care plans." Catchy.
I think what Brown did was late-file a bill that would eliminate so-called "minimum creditable coverage" rules from the state's health care requirements, and allow the Connector Board to remove some coverage options if they so choose (and if I am wrong about what his bill does, please email me or comment).
Right now everyone in Massachusetts is required to have health insurance coverage (which you all know), but the definition of what constitutes "coverage" varies with pretty much anyone you talk to. Does "coverage" mean having just basic coverage for hospital visits? Or does it cover mental health services, surgery, etc.? That has been an ongoing debate in the legislature and medical circles since health care reform passed.
According to a Brown campaign press release, Massachusetts law currently mandates that 37 different coverages be included in every health care plan offered in the state.
"Setting such a high number of mandated coverages means that health care consumers are paying for coverage they do not necessarily need. Examples of mandated coverages include chiropractic services and in vitro fertilization – expensive therapies that are not used by the average health care consumer but that are factored into the monthly premium."Brown said insurers should be free to put together policies that are tailored for the needs of their customers: "If someone wants chiropractic care, they should purchase a policy that includes it, but no one should be required to buy it if they don’t want or need it."
The release notes that Brown’s bill also requires the Connector Authority to annually review the cost, utilization, and effectiveness of state mandated coverages– an assessment that is not currently undertaken. It also places a moratorium on any new mandated benefit legislation, an important cost control move.
Martha Coakley's campaign was quick to fire back. In a press release of their own last night, the Coakley team noted that Brown's legislation "would allow the removal of coverage for critical health services for women, children, and seniors...such as mammograms, minimum maternity stays for new mothers, hospice care for seniors, and bone marrow transplants for breast cancers patients."
Team Coakley says that, according to a 2008 report by the Commonwealth’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, Brown's plan for removing mandated coverage across the board would only result in a net cost reduction of approximately 3-4% in health premiums.
“Scott Brown’s apparent solution to controlling health care costs is to cut coverage for consumers and raise profits for insurers,” Coakley Campaign Manager Kevin Conroy said. “If this bill becomes law, it would allow the removal of coverage for services such as hospice care for seniors, minimum maternity stays for mothers, mammograms, and bone marrow transplants. Martha Coakley understands that the solution to health care is expanding coverage, increasing transparency, and reducing health care costs for all.”
The Coakley press release notes that Brown's plan would eliminate coverage for:
- Bone marrow transplants for breast cancer patients;
- Mammograms;
- Minimum maternity stays;
- Hospice care for seniors;
- In-vitro fertilization;
- Diabetes-related services; and
- Lead poisoning screening.
Wonder what voter bloc the AG is appealing to...
Washington, DC
Brown also used the release to reiterate his opposition to the national health care bill in Congress, saying it raises taxes, increases spending and expands government too much. He pledged to vote to stop it from becoming law.
“In 2006, we were the first in the nation to tackle the issue of getting all of our citizens insured. We have achieved 97 percent coverage. It makes no sense for us through higher taxes and fees to subsidize coverage expansions in other states,” said Brown. “Our focus should be on containing costs in our current state health insurance program. One way to tackle that issue is by removing burdensome insurance regulations that drive up the cost of private policies.”
He also sent an email this afternoon including a link to a New York Times op-ed column by Bob Herbert, in which he writes about the "middle class tax time bomb" ticking in the Senate's health care plan.
Coakley, on the other hand, used her release to reinforce her support for the Senate's health care bill.
The release notes that "Coakley supports the Senate Health Care Reform bill that would make health care coverage more affordable, reduce our nation’s long-term deficit, and provide specific additional benefits to Massachusetts including:
- Providing an additional $500 million for Medicaid and Medicare.
- Extending tax credits to small businesses, including nonprofits, that have less than 25 employees and which offer health insurance.
- Reducing drug prices for seniors caught in the Medicare Part D doughnut hole.
- Helping small businesses pay for their retirees’ health care coverage.
On Christmas Eve, following the Senate vote, Coakley had said that the bill, "offers a real solution to reduce these skyrocketing health care costs while reducing our long-term deficit. For Scott Brown to suggest that we should do nothing and continue with the status quo is simply not acceptable.”
Anyone else starting to get tired of reading/writing/talking about health care?
Pagliuca says Coakley and Capuano continue to waver on health care.
In a press release issued Tuesday afternoon, Democratic candidate for Senate Steve Pagliuca said last night's debate on WGBH demonstrated "that he will stand strong for healthcare reform while his opponents continue to waver in their support."
The release quotes Coakley's response to a question about her health care position from Emily Rooney last night: “I think there are issues with what’s in the Senate bill, and that’s what’s going to be compromise. And I think we need to make it as strong as possible, but going back to an earlier bill, I was asked how I would vote, I said I wouldn’t do it. ”
Pagliuca responded, “Attorney General Coakley’s position means that, if elected, she could be the vote that kills our best chance for national health care reform. As we saw in the Senate, one vote could make the difference between fulfilling Senator Kennedy’s dream of national health care reform or killing it for another generation of Americans. I have never waivered in my support of universal healthcare. I am the only candidate who has consistently said I would vote for either the House or Senate versions of the bill.”
The Pags campaign also took a shot at Congressman Mike Capuano.
Said Pagliuca spokesperson Victoria Bonney, “Congressman Capuano accused Steve of misrepresenting his position on healthcare which is baffling given that it is so difficult to understand what Congressman Capuano’s position actually is. Steve has simply said that the Congressman does not represent a reliable 60th vote on healthcare. If anything, Congressman Capuano’s comments last night further demonstrate that Steve Pagliuca is right.”
The release goes on to quote Capuano's lengthy response to the health care question, before Bonney continued her attack: “It takes one word to say ‘yes,’ but apparently takes 260 words to say ‘I don’t know.’ 'I will make my decision then’ and ‘the bill doesn’t work’ are hardly strong statements of support for healthcare reform. This is not nearly the level of support and reliability that the voters deserve and have a right to expect from someone running for Ted Kennedy’s seat.”
“It should be clear to all who care deeply about the need to pass fundamental healthcare reform that only one candidate in this race is committed to casting an unequivocal 60th vote for healthcare in the Senate,” said Pagliuca.
Pagliuca responded, “Attorney General Coakley’s position means that, if elected, she could be the vote that kills our best chance for national health care reform. As we saw in the Senate, one vote could make the difference between fulfilling Senator Kennedy’s dream of national health care reform or killing it for another generation of Americans. I have never waivered in my support of universal healthcare. I am the only candidate who has consistently said I would vote for either the House or Senate versions of the bill.”
The Pags campaign also took a shot at Congressman Mike Capuano.
Said Pagliuca spokesperson Victoria Bonney, “Congressman Capuano accused Steve of misrepresenting his position on healthcare which is baffling given that it is so difficult to understand what Congressman Capuano’s position actually is. Steve has simply said that the Congressman does not represent a reliable 60th vote on healthcare. If anything, Congressman Capuano’s comments last night further demonstrate that Steve Pagliuca is right.”
The release goes on to quote Capuano's lengthy response to the health care question, before Bonney continued her attack: “It takes one word to say ‘yes,’ but apparently takes 260 words to say ‘I don’t know.’ 'I will make my decision then’ and ‘the bill doesn’t work’ are hardly strong statements of support for healthcare reform. This is not nearly the level of support and reliability that the voters deserve and have a right to expect from someone running for Ted Kennedy’s seat.”
“It should be clear to all who care deeply about the need to pass fundamental healthcare reform that only one candidate in this race is committed to casting an unequivocal 60th vote for healthcare in the Senate,” said Pagliuca.
Random "attack" video about Coakley sent my way.
Early this morning I was emailed a link to this random YouTube video arguing that a) Martha Coakley would have "voted to kill health care for 36 million Americans" and b) that Coakley is unfit to carry on the Kennedy legacy.
It's not an especially strong attack (and clearly did not originate with another campaign, but obviously was created by a supporter of one of her opponents), and Obama is actually featured more than Coakley. But since I shared the video that the Women for Coakley did on Capuano, I felt obligated to pass this one along:
It's not an especially strong attack (and clearly did not originate with another campaign, but obviously was created by a supporter of one of her opponents), and Obama is actually featured more than Coakley. But since I shared the video that the Women for Coakley did on Capuano, I felt obligated to pass this one along:
Martha Coakley releases statement on advancement of Senate health care bill.
Attorney General Martha Coakley on Sunday released the following statement on the Senate health care bill, which was advanced to the floor by a 60-39 vote on Saturday night:
"I applaud the Senate for bringing the health care bill to the floor for a full debate. As I have said, the Senate proposal represents great progress toward our goal of assuring quality, affordable health care coverage for all Americans. It incorporates the fundamental tenets that we can and must include in any meaningful health care reform, including a public option, preventing insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and reducing health care costs for all Americans.
“As Senator, I would vote for this bill and I am confident that we will reach our goal of passing landmark health care reform that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.”
Steve Pagliuca releases statement on Senate health care vote.
The U.S. Senate voted earlier tonight to advance health care reform and open debate on the Senate floor.
Democratic Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca, who has made health care his signature issue over the past week, just released the following statement on the Senate vote:
Democratic Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca, who has made health care his signature issue over the past week, just released the following statement on the Senate vote:
"I want to congratulate the 60 members of the Senate who voted in favor of bringing the health care bill to the floor. This bill is a good step forward towards passing comprehensive reform that will provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans who lack it and bring down exorbitant costs for millions more. I believe the time to pass this measure is now. As Senator Paul Kirk said, 'we can not let the great be the enemy of the good.'
"I am the only Democrat in this race who has not wavered in support of health care reform. I have pledged to be a reliable 60th vote for health care reform. I strongly believe voters should demand nothing less from our next Senator than a pledge that you will be there when that 60th vote is needed. Unfortunately, two of my opponents have stated publicly they may not vote for health care reform. As we saw tonight, every vote is critical, and Massachusetts cannot afford to elect a Senator who could be a "no" vote."
Pagliuca's focus on health care appears to be well-founded, given the Globe poll I just wrote about. However, to this point it hasn't helped him in the polls. Pags needs to hope that the 50% of undecided voters closely match up with the 43% who think health care should pass with or without abortion restrictions.
Alan Khazei releases statement on Senate health care bill.
Alan Khazei issued a statement last night on the health care reform bill released yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
“I applaud the comprehensive healthcare plan introduced by Senate Majority Leader Reid that mandates coverage, preserves a public option, eliminates exclusion for pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps, and does not include any new draconian restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health services adopted by the House.
“I also applaud the portion of the healthcare bill that creates a new federal insurance program to help with long term care costs.
“I would fight to include a key House provision that was excluded in the Senate bill that would authorize the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug price in the Medicare prescription drug plan.
“I am troubled by the upholding of the insurance industry's exemption from federal antitrust laws, which raises premiums and hurts consumers and I do not believe we should allow states to opt out of the public option. I am also troubled that the bill’s weak employer responsibility provisions ignore the needs of part-time and seasonal workers, continuing the trends in the marketplace which incentivize hiring part time employees to avoid offering benefits.
“I would fight to improve this in the full Senate. I would vote for this bill.”
Steve Pagliuca continues to take a stand on health care.
Steve Pagliuca held a press conference earlier today during which he reiterated his pledge to support health care reform in the Senate unconditionally.
"I believe unequivocal public support of healthcare legislation like the bill passed by the House is a minimum standard that voters have a right to demand from every candidate for this seat," said Pags. I'll come back to that notion in a minute.
Pagliuca went on to criticize two of his opponents in the Senate race, Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley, for their respective pledges not to support a health care bill that includes abortion restrictions. He also laid claim to the legacy of Ted Kennedy:
I need to find someone on the Connector Board to write me a guest post or something to clarify this issue: Massachusetts does not have a public option. We have the Massachusetts Health Care Connector, which connects people who cannot afford or do not have health insurance with a variety options, including subsidized coverage, and we have the GIC, which provides health insurance to state employees. These are not public options.
Getting back to Pagliuca, his speech then addressed women's health issues, laying out a variety of conditions that would be covered under the new law. Pags says these issues, such as "gender ratings," access to breast cancer screenings, and cervical cancer prevention need to be weighed the same as abortion.
He concluded:
What do readers think? Putting Stupak-Pitts aside for a second, should Senators be unequivocally supporting any legislation?
"I believe unequivocal public support of healthcare legislation like the bill passed by the House is a minimum standard that voters have a right to demand from every candidate for this seat," said Pags. I'll come back to that notion in a minute.Pagliuca went on to criticize two of his opponents in the Senate race, Mike Capuano and Martha Coakley, for their respective pledges not to support a health care bill that includes abortion restrictions. He also laid claim to the legacy of Ted Kennedy:
"I believe that Senator Kennedy would not take the position that Attorney General Coakley and Congressman Capuano have taken on this issue, and his own words are proof of that. My belief that he would not have done so is supported by two of the people who knew him best, his two sons. Congressman Patrick Kennedy last week made his position clear on this issue when he said 'for anybody running for especially my dad’s seat to condition their support on an issue as to whether they are going to vote for it or against it… to me misses my dad’s legacy of healthcare for all.'
...I also agree with what Ted Kennedy Jr. said just this week. He said his father 'wouldn’t have wanted to go backwards on reproductive rights, but he thought that perfect is the enemy of the good.' Ted Kennedy Jr. also said 'and if you have a good bill you should pass that and not wait for the most perfect piece of legislation.' I agree with Ted Kennedy Jr. and I'm sure his father would have agreed with that sentiment as well."Pags went on to single out Martha Coakley:
"Recently a spokeswoman for Martha Coakley said, 'Steve Pagliuca is just wrong on this issue.' I’m here today to say that if I’m wrong, I’m in good company. If I'm wrong then Nancy Pelosi is wrong; then our ten pro choice Democratic Congressmen from Massachusetts, including Mike Capuano, were wrong when they cast that vote. And if I’m wrong, then Patrick and Ted Kennedy Jr. are wrong. When you look at the facts and consider the real choice we are making ...its easy to see who is really wrong on this issue."He then told a few stories about individuals he has met on the campaign trail, including a woman named Melody who wrote to Pags: “I can not understand the out cry over the healthcare reform… without my public option I know my life and the life of my husbands would be drastically different."
I need to find someone on the Connector Board to write me a guest post or something to clarify this issue: Massachusetts does not have a public option. We have the Massachusetts Health Care Connector, which connects people who cannot afford or do not have health insurance with a variety options, including subsidized coverage, and we have the GIC, which provides health insurance to state employees. These are not public options.
Getting back to Pagliuca, his speech then addressed women's health issues, laying out a variety of conditions that would be covered under the new law. Pags says these issues, such as "gender ratings," access to breast cancer screenings, and cervical cancer prevention need to be weighed the same as abortion.
He concluded:
"Healthcare reform has failed for generations because we’ve lacked the leaders in Washington who were willing to stand up and be counted and who refuse to be derailed. We are at the crossroads today, and we cannot detour and turn our back on women and families who need fundamental reform in healthcare to survive. I will stand with those women and families, and tens of millions more who desperately need help now, not turn my back on them. I will proudly cast a reliable 60th vote for healthcare reform."What jumps out at me most is Pagliuca's call in the beginning of the speech for "unequivocal" public support for health care legislation like the bill passed by the house. I doubt that voters themselves unequivocally support the bill, even those who are fighting for passage of reform. There are a whole lot of proposed changes in the legislation, including some that will likely impact health care reform in Massachusetts.
What do readers think? Putting Stupak-Pitts aside for a second, should Senators be unequivocally supporting any legislation?
Mike Capuano releases statement on Senate health care reform.
Democratic Senate candidate and Congressman Mike Capuano released the following statement today on the bill released by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
"My initial reaction to the Senate health care reform bill is positive and the many improvements in it justify the vote in the House to keep reform alive in order to make such improvements. I am in the process of reviewing the legislation, which is 2000 pages long. I will pay careful attention to the strength of the public option, the impact that the bill could have on Massachusetts, and the issues surrounding choice."
Martha Coakley releases statement on Senate health care bill.
Last night, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid released his version of a health care reform bill. The 2,000+ page proposal could be voted on in the Senate as early as Saturday.
Obviously I haven't read the bill, but the New York Times reports that it, "would not go as far as the House bill in limiting access to abortion."
This morning, Massachusetts Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Senate Martha Coakley released the following statement on Reid's proposal:
Obviously I haven't read the bill, but the New York Times reports that it, "would not go as far as the House bill in limiting access to abortion."
This morning, Massachusetts Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Senate Martha Coakley released the following statement on Reid's proposal:
“While we continue to review the details of this bill, I am encouraged by the Senate’s proposal and believe it represents great progress toward our goal of assuring quality, affordable health care coverage for all Americans. It incorporates the fundamental tenets that we can and must include in any meaningful health care reform, including a public option, additional cost controls, and strong consumer protections that prevent insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. I am hopeful that with this proposal we will reach our goal of passing landmark health care reform that will make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.”
Steve Pagliuca seizes on health care as key campaign issue.
For the first month of the campaign, he was introducing himself to voters. During the second month, he focused on jobs. And as we head into the last few weeks before the primary, Steve Pagliuca has begun to make a major push on health care, challenging Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano to take a stand.
One week after the House passed health care reform, both Coakley and Capuano have committed themselves to passing a health care reform bill that does not include abortion restrictions. Pagliuca has committed himself to passing health care reform, period.
In a video sent to supporters today, Pags says that "health care is the most important issue coming out of Congress right now." He charges that Coakley and Capuano are opposed to the bill, and have applied a "litmus test" on health care.
Earlier today, Pags had challenged Coakley and Capuano to "stop applying a litmus test to health care reform and instead join him in pledging to be a reliable vote for health care reform legislation now before the U.S. Senate." He cited comments made by Representative Patrick Kennedy, son of Senator Ted Kennedy, warning that such a test threatened to derail his father's life-long dream.
In his statement, Pagliuca said:
Since I don't want to offend any readers I am going to avoid writing one of my favorite recent quotes about politics, but I think the gang down at Paddy's Pub in Philadelphia could sum this up quite nicely.
One week after the House passed health care reform, both Coakley and Capuano have committed themselves to passing a health care reform bill that does not include abortion restrictions. Pagliuca has committed himself to passing health care reform, period.
In a video sent to supporters today, Pags says that "health care is the most important issue coming out of Congress right now." He charges that Coakley and Capuano are opposed to the bill, and have applied a "litmus test" on health care.
Earlier today, Pags had challenged Coakley and Capuano to "stop applying a litmus test to health care reform and instead join him in pledging to be a reliable vote for health care reform legislation now before the U.S. Senate." He cited comments made by Representative Patrick Kennedy, son of Senator Ted Kennedy, warning that such a test threatened to derail his father's life-long dream.
In his statement, Pagliuca said:
“It is outrageous that my two main rivals in the race to succeed Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Senate have both fallen into the trap and seem anxious to tell anyone and everyone that that if given the chance, they’re prepared to stand with the opponents of health care reform and vote to kill the legislation.
I want the voters of Massachusetts to know that, while I’m not a career politician, I understand the inside-the-beltway game that is being played here. Unlike the others in this race, I will not fall into the wedge issue trap. I am a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose and for federal funding. However, we can't leave over 30 million people without affordable health care, so I can be counted on to be the decisive 60th vote for healthcare reform if that is the choice that must be made."Coakley, meanwhile, continued to push Capuano on the health care issue, and reiterate her opposition to any bill that restricts women's rights. In a Matt Viser story today in the Boston Globe, Coakley said:
“There are other matters where, of course, you would be involved in compromise. This is one, whether as a congresswoman or a senator, I wouldn’t have compromised on. This is an important issue for me; it always has been....He [Capuano] already made the decision that moving it along in the House was more important than standing up for choice. And that’s fine. He can explain that and try and iron it out. . . . I, for one, am not comfortable saying we’ll pass this and we’ll fix it later.’’It's pretty amazing how much the health care debate has changed over the past six months. We went from a focus on "death panels" and government spending to abortion seemingly overnight, and now a woman's right to choose has somehow become one of the key issues in Democratic primary in Massachusetts during a campaign when all the candidates are pro-choice.
Since I don't want to offend any readers I am going to avoid writing one of my favorite recent quotes about politics, but I think the gang down at Paddy's Pub in Philadelphia could sum this up quite nicely.
Steve Pagliuca pledges to be 60th vote for health care reform, says Coakley & Capuano are risking greatest opportunity in a generation.
Using health care reform as a rallying cry to recruit new volunteers, Democratic Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca pledged to be the 60th vote in an email to supporters today.
"The next Senator from Massachusetts could cast the deciding vote on one of the most important pieces of legislation of our lifetime: Health Care Reform," the email reads. "As your Senator, I will stand up to cast the 60th vote needed to pass comprehensive health care reform with a robust public option that will give over 30 million Americans affordable coverage and bring down costs...failure to do so will have catastrophic consequences for working families in Massachusetts and across the country."
Pagliuca told supporters that Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano are "risking the greatest opportunity we have had in a generation to make health insurance reform a reality." He continued, "I find the statements they made yesterday signaling potential opposition to landmark health care reform legislation alarming. We can't afford to send someone to the U.S. Senate who is not willing to stand up to be the 60th vote for reform."
On the inclusion of the Stupak amendment, Pags noted:
"The next Senator from Massachusetts could cast the deciding vote on one of the most important pieces of legislation of our lifetime: Health Care Reform," the email reads. "As your Senator, I will stand up to cast the 60th vote needed to pass comprehensive health care reform with a robust public option that will give over 30 million Americans affordable coverage and bring down costs...failure to do so will have catastrophic consequences for working families in Massachusetts and across the country."
Pagliuca told supporters that Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano are "risking the greatest opportunity we have had in a generation to make health insurance reform a reality." He continued, "I find the statements they made yesterday signaling potential opposition to landmark health care reform legislation alarming. We can't afford to send someone to the U.S. Senate who is not willing to stand up to be the 60th vote for reform."
On the inclusion of the Stupak amendment, Pags noted:
"I am a progressive Democrat and am committed to working to pass health care reform without the Stupak-Pitts amendment. It is divisive and repugnant and should not be in the final bill. However, if the choice is between providing affordable health insurance coverage to over 30 million Americans without federal coverage for abortion or leaving them with no coverage at all, I could not, in good conscience make the choice to leave them out in the cold."He is asking voters to show their support for health care reform by signing up to support his campaign. Pags has also recorded a radio ad with the same message, adding that he agrees with former President Bill Clinton that "the worst thing to do is nothing."
Alan Khazei calls inadequate health care for veterans "unacceptable," says it's evidence of a "broken system."
A new study by Harvard Medical School found that approximately 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died last year due to lack of health insurance or inadequate access to medical care, twice the number of troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001.
At a Veterans Day event Wednesday morning, Alan Khazei lashed out at the health insurance system, calling the findings "unacceptable."
At a Veterans Day event Wednesday morning, Alan Khazei lashed out at the health insurance system, calling the findings "unacceptable."
"Our veterans should be receiving the highest level of care in honor of their service to our country. If not even our veterans can get adequate healthcare, the current system is broken. Health insurance is a right, particularly for the men and women who have served our country."According to a Khazei press release, the Harvard study also reported that an uninsured person is 40 percent more likely to die prematurely. Khazei said he supports a strong public option that will provide affordable healthcare to average Americans who currently find it out of their reach.
"We cannot obstruct the passage of health care reform any longer. We cannot tolerate this devastating status quo. American citizens are dying every day because of inadequate access to healthcare, and it is our responsibility to halt that as soon as we possibly can."Khazei said he recognizes that insufficient healthcare is not the only challenge facing returning service members and their families. Veterans also face homelessness, record levels of combat stress, and unemployment back at home. "Those who have risked everything to defend our freedoms deserve more from their country," Khazei said.
Khazei ducks question on health care vote during NECN interview.
Alan Khazei just spent the past half hour on the air with NECN's RD Sahl for the first in a series of "Town Meetings in the Air," where the candidates will take questions live from viewers on the phone, via email, or on twitter.
The last question (which Khazei got with one minute left) was from a caller who asked how he would vote if the Stupak amendment was included in a final health care bill.
Khazei ducked the question, noting his support of moving the bill forward in the House and the goal of stripping the amendment from the Senate version of health care reform.
When pressed twice by RD on how he would vote, Khazei continued to duck, firmly stating his belief that it would not be included.
The last question (which Khazei got with one minute left) was from a caller who asked how he would vote if the Stupak amendment was included in a final health care bill.
Khazei ducked the question, noting his support of moving the bill forward in the House and the goal of stripping the amendment from the Senate version of health care reform.
When pressed twice by RD on how he would vote, Khazei continued to duck, firmly stating his belief that it would not be included.
Steve Pagliuca issues statement on health care - finds Coakley and Capuano positions 'alarming.'
Democratic Senate candidate Steve Pagliuca jumped back into the Capuano-Coakley health care fray, issuing the following statement:
"I am committed to working to pass health care reform without the Stupak-Pitts amendment. It is divisive and repugnant and should not be in the final bill. However, if the choice is between providing healthcare to over 30 million people without federal coverage for abortion or to leave them with no coverage at all, I could not, in good conscience make the choice to leave them out in the cold. Traveling the State, I've met families that have faced down bankruptcy, job loss and death because they lack adequate healthcare coverage. I simply cannot turn my back on those families and countless others across the country.
I find the statements that Martha Coakley and now Mike Capuano have made signaling potential opposition to landmark healthcare reform legislation alarming. The next Senator from Massachusetts represents a vital 60th vote in the Senate to provide health care to the over 30 million Americans who don't have it, and to help those who do lower spiraling health care costs. Senator Kennedy spent 40 years fighting for this opportunity, and today, it appears that two candidates for his seat are risking the greatest opportunity we have had in a generation to make health care reform a reality."Looks like Pagliuca is trying to seize the "compromise to save health care reform" mantle that Capuano appeared to squander today.
Coakley campaign issues statement on Capuano remarks.
Corey Welford, the newest edition to the Coakley campaign team and a former spokesman for her AG predecessor Tom Reilly and DA successor Gerry Leone, issued the following statement:
“We are heartened to see that Congressman Capuano has reversed his position to follow Martha Coakley’s lead, and no longer will vote for health care legislation that further restricts a woman’s right to choose. As Martha has said, we can and must pass meaningful health care reform with a strong public option without compromising women’s access to reproductive health services. That is the kind of strong, principled leadership that she will bring to the United States Senate."More updates to come.
Now Capuano spokeswoman telling Globe the Congressman will vote against final bill if Stupak amendment is included. What!?
According to the Globe's Matt Viser, Capuano press secretary Allison Mills said that the Congressman would vote against a final health care reform bill if the Stupak amendment were included.
Um...there appears to be a disconnect in the Capuano campaign, because Mills must have been sending that statement to Viser around the same time I was posting excerpts from the press release that stated:
Now obviously it doesn't say he would vote in favor of a final bill that included Stupak, but it doesn't say he would vote against either. I think Camp Caps needs to get its ducks in a row.
“Mike will fight to improve the bill and if the Stupak amendment is left intact he will vote no,” his spokeswoman, Alison Mills, said in a statement.WHAT!?
Um...there appears to be a disconnect in the Capuano campaign, because Mills must have been sending that statement to Viser around the same time I was posting excerpts from the press release that stated:
“When the final bill comes out of the House-Senate conference committee, every member will follow their conscience and cast their vote based on the pluses and minuses of the finished product. I'm proud that my vote helped keep health care reform with a public option alive, so that the fight for health care reform will go forward. I believe it's what the people of Massachusetts expect and what Ted Kennedy would have demanded."You might remember that quote, because I just posted it 40 minutes ago.
Now obviously it doesn't say he would vote in favor of a final bill that included Stupak, but it doesn't say he would vote against either. I think Camp Caps needs to get its ducks in a row.
