PoorMansLobbyist.org

Democrats United (Against the Party), Republicans Just Say No (to Solving Problems)

2009-12-17T12:59:00.000-08:00

It's an interesting time in politics. I'm not sure anyone would have predicted the current state of affairs a year into Barack Obama's presidency.

An ignorant outsider might assume the Democrats are battling the Republicans, and vice versa, but this is far from the current reality.

The mission of the Republicans seems to be clear: defeat any and every initiative of the President. The current joke is that a motion to acknowledge apple pie as delicious would no doubt be met with the threat of a filibuster. And Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) would then pull the motion before it ever got debated, since the mere threat of a filibuster can apparently prevent any bill or motion from having a chance of success.

Or perhaps extensive back room negotiations would commence whereby the motion could potentially pass if and only if all ingredients are first stripped out of the apple pie recipe. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) could flip flop every few days as to whether or not he supports dessert, and President Obama could encourage Democrats to find a compromise, no matter how damaging, to get Senator Lieberman on board. How exciting that an ingredient-less apple pie might finally be declared as delicious, sans apples, sans flavor.

While the Democrats are busy trying to figure out how to make a compromised, ingredient-less apple pie delicious to the Republicans (who by the way have no plans to ever support apple pie, unless the President comes out against apple pie), the Republicans are meanwhile imploding, thanks to their cable news channel Political Action Committee giving so much free press to a small group of extremists.

The Republicans seem to be skilled at taking down a target but not necessarily solving any problem (they are better at creating problems, as George W. Bush proved). While some Democrats are focused on solving the healthcare crisis, no matter how dysfunctional some of the efforts have been, Republicans are busy attacking the AARP. Does Rep. Dave Reichart (R-WA) really think his voters want him spending so much time investigating the AARP, instead of addressing health care, the economy, and unemployment? Just because the Republicans found out they were good at harming ACORN doesn't mean that they have to also leverage that skill with the AARP. I suspect that voters don't vote for which politician can kill the most community groups or attack the most advocacy groups.

But the Democrats, after 8 years under George Bush, don't seem to know how to lead. They are so used to being held hostage that they don't really know what to do now that they have some power. Senator Reid needs to fight even when there is a threat of a filibuster. Believe it not, voters respect politicians who fight for what they believe in, even if they lose. But not even fighting is inexcusable. There's a basketball analogy that you miss every shot you don't take. Senator Reid seems to frequently decide not to take a shot, since he's concerned he will miss. But if he would take more shots, he would likely make more shots, and also he might have a defensive foul called once in a while if the defense actually has to perform rather than just make threats. He might even get some free throws! Or better yet, a defender who keeps fouling will eventually get kicked out of the game! But the voters need to see those dirty fouls, which requires taking the shot. Voters respect fighters who keep taking the shot, even though they sometimes might miss.

The Democrats (voters, not politicians) are very united right now. But it is unity against the party and its leaders. Even President Obama, who is clearly getting bad advice within the White House, is now losing the support of his base. The same people who campaigned for him, ringing doorbells, making phone calls, scrapping up donations, are fed up. The President has let his base down by not taking a more aggressive leadership role on hot topics such as healthcare reform, gay rights, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the presidential campaign, a repeated message was, "I want every American to have the same choices for health insurance that the members of Congress have." We also got the impression that he would fight to end discrimination against autism, so that even kids with autism could get insurance coverage for the critical therapies they need. Instead, we now hear that it's more important for Senator Lieberman to drive what the health care reform looks like. If he wants the apples removed from apple pie, then that's the way it will be, even though we didn't elect Senator Lieberman as President and leader of our country.

Supporters of President Obama have been losing patience for months. The first group of his supporters to jump ship was gay rights advocates, who have been clear that they will not campaign for President Obama in 2012, perhaps unless he suddenly makes their civil rights a priority.

Similarly, advocates for health care reform have been expressing concern for months. In our blog, we wrote both an Open Letter to the President from Your Disappointed Supporters and an article emphasizing the importance of The Public Option back in October.

And if you follow PoorMansLobbyist.org on Twitter, you have likely observed our increasing frustration with the President and his lack of leadership on health care reform.

To those Senators, Congressmen, and advisors in The White House who might be reading this, time is running out to keep the support of your base. Your base is actually very united right now, but it is not currently united behind you. It's not too late to show us why we voted for you, why we campaigned for you, and why we supported you. But time is running out.

Take a time out, regroup, put together a play, and take the shot! If you go on offense but good health care reform dies, we can blame the defense (and work to replace those obstructionists). But if you have no offense, we can only blame you.

Time is running out. Don't take your base for granted. We are watching the shot clock. Put together a new play and take the shot. Time is running out.

Democracy vs. Filibuster

2009-11-17T23:33:00.001-08:00

America has apparently introduced a new version of democracy, Democracy 2.0, and it allows the previously democratic approach of a vote to simply be blocked. It's perhaps the ultimate power trip for a Senator who feels he/she deserves more than just a vote. The power to obstruct and block a vote, that is to block democracy, is apparently oh so satisfying.

Because voting is so 20th century, we can now just simply block that minor detail of democracy, and the minority can now go against the wishes of the voters, against the democracy. Why even bother with elections? If the majority can simply be stopped by a filibuster, why didn't we voters filibuster the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004? Could we have prevented the current economic crisis simply by filibustering those two elections?

So we the people get a vote, not a filibuster, but then the elected representatives (some representing the voters, some representing the insurance industry) can decide that they get more power than a vote? They can block the votes of their peers? Wow, can I block my neighbor from voting by doing a filibuster at the poll?

Indeed, The New York Times is reporting that three Democrats may empower themselves to have more power than a vote: they may actually use their Democracy 2.0 powers to stop a vote from ever taking place. Because their opinions are apparently more important than the votes of their peers. And more important than the lives of those voters who are counting on this reform to survive: both literally and financially.

The Republicans, of course, have been threatening to block democracy for months, but now a few Democrats, too, are tasting the insurance industry contributions and deciding to grab on to this new found power.

Now, the filibuster has of course been around for a long time, but its recent abuse seems unprecedented. Part of the problem is Senator Reid not calling the filibuster bluff, and he has sometimes created an unnecessary barrier of 60 votes when only 51 were needed. This has been a frustration of mine for years. He frequently doesn't even take the shot, since he is concerned he will miss. Well guess what, you always miss the shot you don't take. Wouldn't it be politically better to sometimes have a shot blocked? And maybe you'll get a foul called! The filibuster is indeed a foul.

To those Senators who are considering filibustering (aka blocking democracy), I ask that you instead use that energy to (1) lead an initiative to get rid of the anti-American filibuster, and (2) listen to your voters instead of your insurance industry lobbyists. It might actually feel good to do the right thing - give it a shot and let us know how it feels to choose lives over legal bribery.

To Senator Reid, I ask that you please call their bluff instead of killing anything that doesn't have 60 votes. This legislation is too important to settle for a lowest common denominator solution, simply due to the threat of a filibuster. Call the bluff. In a democracy, we only need 51 votes. This is still a democracy, right?

Harry Reid asks: Food, Water, or Oxygen? Pick One.

2009-11-12T10:21:00.000-08:00

I have a bad feeling about an e-mail I just received from the Friends for Harry Reid. In the e-mail, Harry Reid is asking supporters of healthcare reform to pick one of the following:

Making sure people with preexisting conditions can get affordable insurance.
Prohibiting insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick.
Creating a public insurance option to lower costs by creating competition.
We should not reform health insurance, status quo is ok by me.

The e-mail asks respondents to vote on which element of healthcare reform is most important, as if we need to prioritize whether we can have food, water, or oxygen, but not all of the above.

Am I unrealistic to ask, or make that expect, that healthcare reform address and solve all of the above? Why do we need to prioritize?

I smell an outrageous compromise in the works, and I will not be particiapting in this survey. I want (and expect) my food and water and oxygen.

The Poor Man's Lobbyist
http://blog.poormanslobbyist.org
http://www.poormanslobbyist.org

Autism Treatment: Healthcare or Education?

2009-11-10T22:00:00.000-08:00

Is Autism Treatment a Healthcare Issue or an Education Issue?

Both! The health insurance industry and its lobbyists have been hard at work trying to convince your Senators and Congressmen that an autism disability is best treated by the school district, not neurologists, not private speech therapists, not ABA therapists, and certainly not any provider that might potentially bill your insurance.

The problem is that like many medical conditions and disabilities, autism is not a black-or-white medical or education issue. It is both. Just like an automobile accident might require both medical care and educational rehabilitation (e.g., speech therapy and occupational therapy), so does autism. And just like with an automobile accident, these therapies frequently have tremendous success rates over time. Individuals with autism work harder than most to learn basic skills, and the insurance industry wants to deny the opportunity for them to improve, progress, and become productive members of society.

While the school district should certainly play a role in helping children with autism, the reality is that children with autism usually require significant treatment outside of the school day. It is not unusual for a child with autism to spend 10-20 hours (or more!) per week outside of school in ABA therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy, mastering basic skills that come to other children easily. This is due to a medical disability, so it requires care above and beyond what a school can and should provide.

The insurance industry's argument also assumes that individuals with autism attend school 52 weeks per year, regardless of age. But we don't even need to address this flaw in the argument, since their argument would still be critically flawed even if kids did attend school every week indefinitely.

It is unfortunate that the insurance industry is promoting such an uninformed view of how autism is successfully treated (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, at least in this article, that their position is due to ignorance and not due to an unethical position of advocating harm to children, which is what happens when the treatment is denied).

Check out the latest news on AutismCrisis.org for examples of the insurance industry lobbying against healthcare for individuals with autism and lobbying for all autism-related healthcare to be provided by school districts (and thereby funded by the taxpayers rather than the insurance company shareholders).

AARP Advocates for its Members; Republicans Furious

2009-11-05T01:00:00.000-08:00

The AARP has taken an outrageous position in the healthcare debate by actually lobbying for the interests of its members, not for the interests of health insurance companies. It seems that actually reforming healthcare is more important to the AARP than protecting the insurance company profits that are so important to many legislators.

The AARP's outrageous actions are infuriating Republicans, especially Congressman Dave Reichart (R-WA). Reichart and his colleagues are counting on an Obama political failure with healthcare reform, and protecting insurance company profits is crucial for future campaign donations. The AARP, by supporting those evil liberals who actually want to reform healthcare, is not being very helpful to the agenda of Reichart and his colleagues.

Because of the perceived threat by Republicans of AARP's support for healthcare reform, Reichart and other Republicans are now spending considerable time and resources attacking the AARP. They hope they can do to the AARP what they did to ACORN.

If you agree with Reichart that failed healthcare reform is critical to the success of Republicans in 2010, and if you similarly agree the AARP and its pro-healthcare agenda must be stopped, please forward this blog to your friends so that they, too, can be aware of Reichart's leadership in attempting to stop the AARP and healthcare reform.

The Poor Man's Lobbyist

http://www.poormanslobbyist.org
http://blog.poormanslobbyist.org

An Open Letter to the President from Your Disappointed Supporters

2009-10-24T22:40:00.000-07:00

Dear President Obama:

As you may know, many of your most loyal supporters, campaigners, fundraisers, and voters are increasingly frustrated with you right now. You raised the bar for what we expect out of our President, and now we are holding you to that bar.

It is because we do have so much respect for you that we take the time to express to you our frustration and disappointment, especially as it relates to healthcare reform.

We are first surprised that you have put such a high priority on attempting to appease the politicians who are fighting you, at the expense of you not fighting for the issues that we know you believe in. You sometimes seem to be trying to please everyone, which means you are pleasing no one. We admire and respect your attempts at bipartisanship, but your opposition has shown no interest in cooperating or partnering. Their mission is your failure.

They have demonstrated that they have no interest in supporting initiatives that will help the country and its people, no matter the cause, since a political failure for you is a victory for them (even if it hurts the country). Even when their voters side with you, such as is the case with a strong public option, their politicians will still fight you and try to kill your ideas, simply because you are for it.

Therefore, I ask that you please stop trying to appease these opponents with compromises that aren’t needed. The first rule of negotiations is that both parties must sincerely want to negotiate. You are attempting to negotiate with a party that has no interest in coming to agreement. You will agree to concessions only to have them not sign off in the end. Time is wasted, and the end product will be poor.

Please stop spending so much time and energy trying to please them. Hint: they will not approve of you no matter what you do, so please get over it and move on with your agenda.

You campaigned on a promise that every American could have the same healthcare options as members of Congress. As someone who deals with errors by my employer provided health insurance almost every week, I say sign me up.

Every American, regardless of income or state of residency, should have options and be able to choose high quality healthcare insurance. There is recently talk of a very low income cap to be eligible for any public option. Families that make a decent income shouldn’t be denied this option, since many families that make more than the median income are also abused by their employer insurance companies on a regular basis. Everyone, regardless of income, should be allowed quality healthcare and quality health insurance, which currently means either a single payer system or a strong public option.

Similarly, families that have a Republican governor shouldn’t be denied choice in healthcare. The opt-out proposal is ethically outrageous. People in Republican-run states deserve quality health insurance, too. Imagine if states could opt out of public education, so that only well off families could be educated. How is healthcare any different? A right to education and healthcare is as basic as it gets, and a state’s political party of the day shouldn’t be able to deny healthcare in the name of politics.

I want to also emphasize that any public option needs to be a high quality solution, not just a checkbox that some included provision is called a “public option.” We will be reviewing the fine print, and just calling something a public option in order to get a checkbox is not sufficient. Similarly, it is not acceptable to just get a checkbox that you passed some healthcare legislation, no matter how poor. This is too important to not get it right. We deserve better than just a checkbox, and you are capable of leading us to something significantly better than just a checkbox for the next campaign.

At the end of the day, it must be reform that you can take pride in and know that you did your best. It feels like you have forgotten just how important this is to America, and it seems that you have forgotten many of your campaign promises related to healthcare reform.

Mr. President, please find your mojo and start fighting for the issues that are important to you and on which you campaigned. Lead us to a high quality healthcare bill that includes a single payer system or a high quality public option, and forget about all of these watered down compromises that won’t win any Republican support anyway.

I write this letter because of my tremendous respect for you, and I know that you can make a difference if you reassess your priorities, abandon the bipartisan efforts (they aren’t working and are actually harming the potential outcomes), and re-energize yourself behind what you believe in and what you know is the right thing to do. We are counting on you.

Your opponents won’t thank you, but the American people thank you.

Sincerely,

The Poor Man’s Lobbyist

http://blog.poormanslobbyist.org
http://www.poormanslobbyist.org

The Public Option

2009-10-22T22:22:00.000-07:00

After spending a few hours today fighting with my health insurance company over the latest errors in another claim denial, I am disheartened to read this CNN article demonstrating how out of touch the Senate is when it comes to the Public Option and/or Medicare for Everyone.

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) gets it. So does Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL). But sadly, even President Barack Obama doesn't seem to be in touch with how important of an issue this is.

Perhaps if President Obama had to deal with incorrectly denied claims for one of his daughters (and he couldn't delegate the resolution), he wouldn't be suggesting that a trigger is acceptable. Perhaps if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had to experience 6 month delays in claim processing while his small business therapy provider suffered a resulting cash flow crisis, he wouldn't still be saying that he is considering thinking about discussing the idea of potentially talking about the possibility of a public option.

And if the Republicans fighting healthcare reform could stop for one minute and actually think about something other than themselves, something other than the joy of a potential political victory, they might realize that actually working to solve this problem is the right thing to do. People are dying. People's lives are being ruined. And not just the poor, lower class people that Republicans historically don't care about. Even wealthy executives who thought they had top notch health insurance are discovering that they, too, are underinsured when they need it, and they, too, can easily get screwed by the current system. So even those Republicans that are selfish and only care about themselves should be concerned about the state of the healthcare industry and especially the insurance companies, since it will eventually impact them, too.

The Republican concern that a public option will put traditional health insurance companies out of business is very telling. We all know that USPS hasn't put FedEx or UPS out of business, and state-run public universities coincide just fine with private universities. Even public elementary schools haven't prevented private schools from prospering. Could it be that Republicans know just how inefficient and greedy insurance companies are? Do they believe that insurance companies could never operate as efficiently as a UPS, FedEx, or private school?

Or is it just that they enjoy those contributions from the health insurance industry so much, and they hate the idea of those donations going away. Aha! If the insurance companies aren't making record profits (when they are competing more with Medicare or a public option), then they won't have as much leftover money to donate to campaigns! Bingo. Now we see where their priorities are. An industry's checkbook is far more important to them than your health.

The latest idea being discussed is that states can opt out of the public option. Because citizens in Republican run states apparently don't deserve choice, competition, or coverage. How about this: if a state opts out of Medicare for all, or whatever the public option is called, then perhaps that state also cannot receive federal funds for public education, cannot have a USPS presence, cannot receive federal funds for roads, cannot have an FBI office, and cannot have any other service or funds from the federal government. After all, that would be communism. Force them to pay $5 (or more) to mail a letter via UPS or FedEx. After all, if USPS were allowed to exist with its less-than-a-dollar postage rate, then UPS and FedEx surely couldn't exist, and we would end up with socialized mail and socialized shipping. Oh dear. Ah, but there would have to be another requirement. Medicare and Social Security could also no longer exist for seniors or the disabled in those states, since that would also be socialism. And we can't have any level of socialism in our democracy; that would be un-American. So tear up those socialist roads and make them all privatized toll roads.

When we look at the various motives, the motives of many Republicans seem pretty clear: make sure the President fails, no matter what the issue is. But the motives of the Democrats are less clear. Take Senator Reid, for example. Is he truly this out of touch with what his voters want, or are there other factors causing him not to hear us? He seems to frequently be creating his own barriers, such as the 60 vote requirement for everything. What a luxury for the Republicans that they aren't even ever forced to actually do a a filibuster, since Senator Reid basically does it for them, by taking no action. What other factors are causing him not to act when his voters -- and the country -- are yelling so loudly and clearly? And what about President Obama? Why is he suddenly content with a poor bill, rather than doing it right? Why are the Democratic leaders (other than a handful of them) afraid to take on the health insurance industry? Perhaps it all gets back to campaign finance, but that's a different blog for a different day.

The bottom line on this issue is that President Obama made a campaign pledge that we can get the same healthcare as Congress. Senator Reid made a pledge to represent his voters, which have stated they demand a public option. So why aren't they both demanding that a public option, or Medicare for All, is a strategic component of healthcare reform? Just getting something passed to check off a box doesn't cut it.

Kudos to President Obama for initiating work on this difficult issue, but he needs to play all 4 quarters. He can't get complacent at halftime. Winning the game for his voters requires a strong public option, just like he promised in his campaign. It's the right thing to do. It's important.

If you agree with this blog, please join our new community at PoorMansLobbyist.org by signing up for e-mail updates and/or RSS feeds, and follow us on Twitter.

Health Insurance Companies Fight Against Healthcare for Autism

2009-10-18T01:09:00.000-07:00

Individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities can prosper and make amazing progress if they are diagnosed at an early age and receive the prescribed medical care they need. This treatment typically includes ABA therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy.

With these prescribed treatments, individuals can become productive members of society.

Today, unfortunately, health insurance companies and self-insured employers in most states are free to deny coverage for these treatments. It is not uncommon to see speech therapy coverage, for example, only apply to a physical injury and specifically exclude anything other than a physical injury. A developmentally disabled child has to punch himself in the face to get his needed speech therapy covered by insurance (of course, the coverage would still be denied due to the pre-existing condition).

As more states are debating new legislation to make this coverage mandatory, the health insurance industry lobbyists are hard at work to harm the kids and deny them the coverage they need.

Two recent examples are in Kansas and Virginia.

In Kansas, the Kansas City Star is reporting that political leaders killed popular autism healthcare legislation at the last minute and then were rewarded with financial donations from the health care industry. See AutismCrisis.org for more info and a link to the story.

In Virginia, an editorial in the Richmond Times-Dispatch (authored by the Virginia Association of Health Plans) argues that schools should foot the bill for all of the required medical care. Apparently, schools have more money to spend on healthcare than health insurance companies.

Their main argument is that treatment for developmentally disabled individuals is actually "education" and not "healthcare," and therfore, the burden for this neurological treatment should be placed on schools. When your neurologist prescribes the recommended medical care, it apparently needs to be executed by the school. Perhaps, too, the neurologist must be employed by the school district in order for any of this to be potentially covered.

What the health insurance industry fails to acknowledge is that developmental disabilities require help from BOTH the healthcare system and the education system, not one or the other. Anyone who is knowledgeable on this topic understands that kids with autism are spending a great deal of time getting special education assistance at school AND spending numerous hours outside of school getting the prescribed treatment that they need.

Take a look at the insurance industry's argument in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and let me know how Doug Gray and his peers sleep at night. You can get a link to his editorial at AutismCrisis.org.

AutismCrisis.org Launched

2009-10-15T18:25:00.000-07:00

PoorMansLobbyist.org has launched AutismCrisis.org to focus on political and legislative issues related to autism spectrum disorder. Find out which Congressmen are advocating legislation to require insurance coverage for autism treatment, which Congressmen are doing nothing, and which ones are actually fighting you in order to increase insurance company profits.

Sign up for e-mail updates and RSS feeds to keep up to date.

The Story Behind PoorMansLobbyist.org

2009-10-08T22:29:00.000-07:00

When my son was diagnosed with autism, the furthest thing from my mind was whether or not my health insurance would cover his care. I just naively assumed whatever his pediatrician and neurologist prescribed would be covered.

Six years later, I am still trying to make the surprisingly-not-obvious argument that kids with autism deserve healthcare, too. A few states have recently passed legislation making it unlawful for an insurance company to discriminate against disabled individuals with autism. Most states have remained silent.

Typically, the states that have been progressive on this issue are states where a political leader has a close relative suffering from autism. For example, Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana), who has an autistic grandson, has been an early leader in autism advocacy. While I disagree with Congressman Burton on many issues, I applaud him and respect him for his leadership related to autism healthcare.

But the unfortunate reality is that as long as autism "only" affects 1 in 58 boys (1 in 91 children), this is not enough to be a top tier issue for politicians. An issue that is viewed as "only" impacting 1-2% of children is viewed as low priority. Tackling autism doesn’t generate enough net new votes, and healthcare lobbyists are therefore far more important in today’s political system. Would Joe Senator rather receive $300,000 from the healthcare lobby or gain the support of 1-2% of parents? It's a numbers game for these politicians. Doing the right thing in today's political environment is apparently irrelevant.

I recently contacted my U.S. Representative and Senators (again) asking them for help with this issue. I asked them to please be sure to use the current healthcare reform opportunity to finally end discrimination against kids with autism. Please finally make it unlawful for an insurance company or self-insured employer to deny the prescribed care that an individual with autism needs in order to prosper. Stop writing these kids off; they work harder than any other kids their age, and when given the opportunity, they make amazing progress. I shared my story again and pleaded with them for help. While my son is fortunate to receive most of the care he needs (almost 90% out of pocket), there are so many other children suffering from autism that are not able to get the therapies they require.

From one of my Senators and from my Representative, I received lengthy canned replies about healthcare that never once mentioned the word autism. They did not even acknowledge my issues nor concerns. A one-line reply simply acknowledging autism would have meant so much more to me.

One night recently, while reviewing the latest errors by my insurance company, it dawned on me that the problem here is so much bigger than autism, so much bigger than healthcare. The problem is that our politicians are now truly owned by the corporations and lobbyists that fund their campaigns. The checkbook of an industry is so much more powerful today than one vote from an individual.

A business would never stand for this level of conflict of interest, where a vendor could buy off the purchasing agent in exchange for higher prices. But we the voters are perfectly content to let this happen to our society. We let the same legislators who write the laws about healthcare be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions of dollars) by the companies who will be affected by these laws. Where is the line? Why are we tolerating this obvious bribery and conflict of interest?

That’s when it came to me that we, the voters, need to come together and expose the correlation between corporate donations (bribes?) and the resulting votes of our representatives. We may not have as big of checkbooks, but we do have the votes. And there is power in numbers.

Only once we expose and/or stop the conflict of interest will the politicians then feel pressure to start doing the right thing and start again representing the people, not the profits.

My bet is that in the end, the politicians will thank us if we can help restore their focus to what they no doubt signed up to do in the first place – make a difference and improve our society.

It’s time to turn the lobbying model upside down and change the paradigm. Meet PoorMansLobbyist.org, the virtual "lobbyist" for the rest of us.