Aaron Schock

Schock, Health Care, And Young People

Adam Doster — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:16:56 -0700

Aaron Schock, the youngest member of Congress, ostensibly understands what's important to young people around the country. That's why FOX News invited the Peoria Republican on the air yesterday to discuss whether or not voters under the age of 30 support health care reform. His response might surprise folks who have looked at any polling data over the past few months:

SCHOCK: The fact of the matter is this: Young people, my generation and those younger than me, like choices. After all, this is the Starbucks generation, if you will. They go to the coffee shop and get something different each day. This is the iTunes, Facebook, YouTube generation that like choices. And under the president’s plan, he in very short order will move towards a one-system, one-size-fits-all, single-payer system. And it’s why not only young people have rejected the president’s plan, but more importantly, the American people across the board have rejected the president’s plan. And it's why he has failed to convince his majority in Congress to pass this bill.

Let's take a look at some data, shall we? A Washington Post/ABC News poll last month found that 57 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds approve of Obama's handling of health care. Rasmussen, the favored polling outfit of the Republican leadership, saw 67 percent of those under 30 favor the plans produced by congressional Democrats.

Why is support so high? Because the current system is not working for so-called "millenials." Thirty percent of people between 19 and 24 and 26 percent of people 25 to 34 are uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. For those with jobs, just 53 percent are eligible for employer-based coverage. And coverage on the open market, even for the relatively healthy, is often extremely expensive.

Statistics aside, Schock's argument is not grounded in reality. We've written about this talking point ad nausum, but it's just patently false that the bills currently working through Congress would eradicate the private insurance market. Every bill except the "mark-up" rolled out last week in the Senate Finance Committee would restrict access to the Health Insurance Exchanges (which would house the government-run plan) to the unemployed, self-employed, or those at businesses with 10 or fewer employees. That's about 30 million Americans. Two-thirds of those people would choose to purchase regulated plans from private insurance companies. The Congressional Budget Office (in its analysis of of the House "tri-commitee bill") estimates that the other third (10 to 11 million individuals) would choose to enroll in the public option by 2019. For a "government takeover," that's a pretty small first step.

If Democrats get their way, a public option would serve as one option consumers could choose on the open market. And it's role as a check on the private insurance market could be crucial to lowering the cost of premiums.

It's not the president who is restricting choice. It's representatives like Schock.

Health Care Round-Up: Schakowsky On Reconciliation, Quigley On Cost-Shifting

Adam Doster — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:24:00 -0700

Here are today's health care headlines:

Schakowsky: We're Going To Have To Do It Without GOP

Are Democrats really ready to pass health care reform without Republican support? Rep. Jan Schakowsky thinks so. Here's her quote to The Hill this morning:

“I think that at some point everyone’s going to see that the Republicans simply are not going to agree to any kind of healthcare reform that the insurance industry isn’t supporting and that, reluctantly, we’re going to have to do it without them,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

“If we have to, we will,” said Schakowsky, a chief deputy whip and the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus's healthcare task force.

This follows news Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are drawing up plans and talking to procedural experts about moving legislation with a simple majority. It's tough to blame them. Even supposed moderate Republicans in Congress are consistently pushing explicit lies about the bills being considered, seemingly all for political gain. "I think we have now the makings," Rep. Mark Kirk told WLS' Don Wade and Roma last week, "of huge Republican win in the November 2010 elections." Spoken like a true voice of the people.

Quigely On Cost-Shifting

Rep. Mike Quigley is no "tax-and-spend" liberal. But the 5th District congressman knows a thing or two about economic reform. He also knows that passing comprehensive health care reform is a good deal for most American taxpayers.

House Democrats want to expand Medicaid and pay subsidies to middle and low-income Americans so they can afford private insurance. They hope to pay for it through savings in Medicare and Medicaid and with a small tax hike on the wealthy. The Senate might choose instead to tax insurance companies on their most-expensive policies, but neither option will harm the vast majority of Americans. In exchange, a reform bill would not only expand coverage to millions of Americans, it would save the entire nation money otherwise spent on emergency care. Quigley explains on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma (the entire segment is available here):

Internal mp3

People with insurance are already paying for the uninsured in the form of higher premiums and taxes. I’ve visited most of the hospitals in my district since I got back. They have to provide health care when people come into the emergency room and that’s where a lot of the poor go. So the average American family is already paying a so-called "hidden tax" of about $1,100 a year just because of higher premiums and taxes.

This figure comes from Ben Furnas and Peter Harbage at the Center for American Progress, who found that the cost-shift in Illinois is actually $1,200 per family, a little over 8 percent of the average premium. It's a good reminder of how expensive maintaining the status quo really is.

Coulson, Ray Run On Health Care

State Rep. Elizabeth Coulson officially announced her candidacy for the 10th Congressional District in Glenview yesterday. As a long-time medical professor, health care will likely central a key role in Coulson's campaign. As she told the Grayslake Review, she wants her "reasonable suggestions" be part of the dialogue:

"We can't break the health system we already have that really serves 84 percent of our population very well. It's the other percent that we need to try to help get access to health care and good health care," she said. "I bring a responsible, common sense approach to health care policy, not just a political approach."

Because the paper's reporter didn't follow-up with Coulson, we don't know what her "common sense approach" is. If it resembles the plans put forth by suburban Reps. Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk, she'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Another Congressional hopeful is also touting health care as a key plank of his campaign, but for entirely different reasons. Carl Ray, the Peoria Democrat looking to take on 18th District Rep. Aaron Schock, says it was his experience dealing with his son's autism that proved to him how important health care reform is. While his son is now in the third grade and well-treated, Ray's family risked financial ruin to care for their son, ultimately filing for bankruptcy to pay medical bills. Schock's vote against an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in January spurred Ray to run:

“I don’t think he’s some villain who’s voting … out of malice,” Ray said of 28-year-old Schock, the youngest member of Congress. “I just feel that he has proven with this vote and others that he lacks the life experience, the depth of context that a congressman needs to make the right decisions.”

Spilling Ink: The Health Care Debate

Angela Caputo — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:39:08 -0700

As Adam highlighted in his round-up earlier today, the health care debate has really been picking up in Illinois. Numerous editorial boards chimed this week and, with the exception of the Tribune, were largely on the same page in urging the congressional delegation to hold more public forums on this issue, and quickly. We've plucked out some choice excerpts:

The Peoria Journal-Star urges Rep. Aaron Schock and Sen. Dick Durbin to jump into the fray:

[C]ongressmen and senators ought to hear passionate discussion and be able to see just how divided America is on this. They ought to understand just how many unanswered questions there are. And they also ought to hear both sides of things clearly - and so should the people who are going to be affected by whatever final product comes out of Congress. Who knows, a few minds might even be changed.

The Belleview News-Democrat reminds Reps. John Shimkus and Jerry Costello that their job is to subject themselves to even the most contentious meetings:

They are not just a chance for the congressmen to learn, but for the public to hear and help make informed opinions.

The Sun-Times, meanwhile, pushes back against some of the fearmongering coming from the right:

The indisputable truth is this: The Democrats' health-care overhaul would not interfere with anybody's decisions about end-of-life care -- if and when and how to pull the plug [...]

Health-care reform would not put government in the position of rationing care ... In truth, private insurance companies already ration medical care in America by setting strict limits on what they will pay for every pill, every doctor's visit, every test [...]

It's time to stop scaring people. It's time to talk substance.

In the lone voice of dissent, the generally conservative Tribune board says the conversation on overhauling health care has gone too far, too quickly:

[W]e think health-care reform is better achieved one step at a time.

The White House and congressional leaders should step back from their mega-approach and let incremental successes build. We suggest focusing first on improving quality of care. Cut preventable errors. Curb hospital-borne infections.

Finally as the debate ramps up, the Southern offers the golden rule:

Regardless of anyone's position on health care reform, it is time to remember the responsibilities of good citizenship. We all have a role in democracy.

Health Care Round-Up: Schock Misleads, Bean And Foster Still Undecided

Adam Doster — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:30:55 -0700

As the national battle over health care reform enters a crucial stage and lawmakers make their case to voters during the August recess, we're going to be regularly tracking the latest health care news across Illinois. Here's our first update:

Schock's Misleading Memo

While Illinois Democrats were busy advocating for comprehensive health care yesterday, Illinois Republicans kept up their effort to stand in the way of such reform. This morning over his Twitter feed, Rep. Aaron Schock sent along a memo, prepared by Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-WI), providing (PDF) "key facts about the House Democrat health care bill for the 18th District of Illinois." But as you'll see, Cantor and Schock use the term facts rather loosely. Here's the first of many distortions in the two-page sheet:

Independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that 2 out of every 3 people would lose their current coverage, including up to 114 million people who receive health benefits through their employer or other current coverage if a government-run plan “competes” with private companies.

The Lewin Group is hardly "independent." In fact, it's "wholly owned" by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers. And the Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary analysis (PDF) of the House Democrats' so-called "tri-committee" bill last week and found that a net 3 million people will gain employer-based insurance under the Democratic plan.

But Schock and Cantor aren't done:

Nearly 11 million seniors choose Medicare Advantage plans as the coverage that best meet their needs. Specifically, the Democrats have proposed cutting Medicare spending for the 14,002 seniors in the 18th District who are currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.

In fact, Medicare benefits will not be cut, nor will the Medicare Advantage plan be discontinued. Instead, Obama has proposed ending the large public subsidies to the private insurance companies who participate in the program. As budget director Peter Orszag explained this spring, the White House is proposing that these companies compete to offer their services, thereby saving taxpayers an estimated $150 billion over 10 years. (Also, it's more than ironic that Schock, a congressman staunchly opposed to a public option, is so worried about protecting benefits provided through the nation's very popular single-payer program.)

The Schock memo also demagogues about health care reform's potential effect on small businesses, citing Heritage Foundation research claiming that 41,700 small businesses in Illinois will be required to pay higher taxes because of a proposed 2 percent surtax on individuals with more than $280,000 in income. But the Heritage figures are way overblown. Only "1.9 percent of filers with any small-business income are projected to face either of the top two income tax rates in 2009,” according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Roskam Misreads Polling ON WLS

Rep. Peter Roskam added his voice to the health care debate this morning, telling WLS Radio’s Don Wade & Roma that support for Obama's health care approach is "just dropping like a stone." Listen (The entier interview is available here):

Internal mp3

People really understand health care. We’ve had a really robust national conversation and debate ever since the Clinton administration in 1993 did the big push on that plan. And we’ve been talking about it, all of us. And when you start to say that you’re going to be taking choices away, that wait times are going to go up, and ultimately this is going to be very costly, the public gets it. And the White House, with all due respect, I think they are really underestimating the public.

The polls tell a different story. The Center for American Progress' Ruy Teixiera points to Pew Research Center data proving Americans are still broadly supportive of the president's goals: 79 percent support "requiring insurance companies to sell health coverage to people, even if they have pre-existing medical condition;" 65 percent support "requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help for those who can’t afford it;" 63 percent support "raising taxes on families with incomes of more than $350,000 and individuals earning more than $280,000;" and 52 percent support "a government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." "Don’t believe the hype," Teixiera concludes. "Health care reform is alive and kicking."

Bean, Foster Still Undecided

For the President's reform agenda to pass both chambers, conservative Democrats are going to need to come along for the ride. But two congressmen from Chicago's suburbs, Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster, remain on the fence, according to the Daily Herald:

Bean's Schaumburg office has been protested by activists on both sides of the issue. Most recently, she said she was "unconvinced" the current plan will provide a net benefit to the middle class while reigning in costs.

Foster supports the plan "in theory," a spokeswoman has said, but neither lawmaker will likely face a vote until some version of the plan moves to the House floor this fall.

DCCC Blitzes Biggert

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is also targeting Rep. Judy Biggert with its "Health Care ER" campaign. The goal of the blitz, which will include volunteer calls, emails, and tele-town halls, is to "hold targeted Republicans accountable for protecting health insurance companies' profits ... at the expense of affordable health care."

Schock, Shimkus Distance Themselves From "Birthers"

Josh Kalven — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:25:28 -0700

Last week, we highlighted a video published by FireDogLake that included a somewhat troubling response from GOP Rep. Aaron Schock regarding the manufactured controversy over President Obama's birth certificate. When asked by blogger Mike Stark if he thinks Obama is a "natural born" U.S. citizen, Schock initially answered, "That's a question he [Obama] needs to answer, not me." He then went on to say, "Well, he was my U.S. Senator. He said he was [a citizen], so I believe he was."

Considering how ridiculous this entire issue is, Schock's answer was surprisingly wishy-washy.

Today, the State Journal-Register's Bernie Schoenburg circled back and got a more definitive response from Schock's office. “Congressman Schock has no doubt whatsoever that President Obama was born in the United States,” spokesman Dave Natonski told him. Schoenburg received a similar response from the office of Republican Congressman John Shimkus, who said in a statement: "I do not believe the president’s birth should be questioned any further."

Schock In The Birther Brigade?

Josh Kalven — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:03:23 -0700

FireDogLake's Mike Stark posted a great video today featuring clips of himself chasing down Republican members of Congress and asking whether they think Barack Obama is eligible to hold the presidency. It comes in response to the ongoing "birther" conspiracy theory in right-wing ciricles, which rests on the premise that Obama was born in Africa -- rather than Hawaii -- and therefore is not a "natural born citizen." (Josh Marshall effectively skewered the whole "controversy" over the weekend.)

When confronted by Stark in the video, many Republican congressmen simply refuse to take a clear position on the issue and, in some cases, they seem to share the birthers' concerns. GOP Rep. Aaron Schock makes a cameo and seems to fall in the first camp. He initially tells Stark, "That's a question he [Obama] needs to answer, not me." Schock goes on to say, "Well, he was my U.S. Senator. He said he was [a citizen], so I believe he was."

The whole video is worth your while:

On a related note, the Tribune's Eric Zorn recently asked six Republican candidates for Illinois governor whether they share the birthers' concerns. Read their answers.

Schock Forgets About The Employer Mandate

Adam Doster — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:53:52 -0700

Rep. Aaron Schock isn't too excited about the idea of the government providing affordable health insurance (the so-called "public option"). And like his Republican colleagues in the House, he's doing everything he can to stir up opposition to the idea. Unfortunately, Schock is also leaving out some facts along the way.

For instance, on WLS' Don Wade and Roma this morning, the Peoria congressman suggested that under proposals favored by the Democrats, there will be strong incentives for employers to drop private coverage for its workforce, which will dramatically increase the price of the public plan. Listen (full audio here):

Internal mp3

SCHOCK: What [Americans] don’t want is a one-size fits all, cookie-cutter approach to insurance and to coverage. And the president tries to appease them by saying – because overall the majority of Americans are happy with their health care – the president starts by saying, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Now for the rest of you that don’t have it, let me talk to you.” And there’s the big asterisk because what the whole plan is predicated on is a catch-all system, a federal system for those who don’t have health insurance paid for by those who do have health insurance and those who pay your taxes. The problem is is that what it says is if you are an employer and you provide an employee-provided health care plan, you will be taxed -- you no longer will be able to write off the deductibility of your health care plan. And what will happen is, in very swift order, if you have a catch-all system for those that aren’t insured, and you then punish those people who are insured, you'll have in very swift order: move people who are insured, and employers saying we’re going to make responsible decisions, we’re going to cover our folks with a health care plan, drop them. And people will then be forced to go onto the one-size government plan in very short order. And the Democrat’s own estimate on what this is going to cost is going to skyrocket.

Schock's concerns can be traced back to the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of an early version of the Senate's health care reform bill in the middle of June. The office estimated that employers would stop providing coverage to 15 million employees. Those Americans would in turn be able to access the "Health Insurance Exchange" -- with the help of government subsidies -- to purchase individual health insurance. As a result, costs were much higher and coverage much lower than the Democrats had hoped. The CBO estimated that the government would spend $1 trillion over 10 years, only to see 16 million additional people gain health insurance.

But the June CBO estimate left out one crucial detail: an employer mandate. Such a provision would require employers to either provide their workers with private health insurance or help the government defray the cost of providing public insurance. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein has noted, the mandate is the key to health care. And as Schock seems to have missed, it is included in the new tri-committee bill released by House leaders yesterday.

Specifically, employers whose payrolls exceed $400,000 per year would pay a fee equal to 8 percent of their firm's average wages if they opted not to cover their workers. The fee drops to 2 percent for businesses whose payroll falls between $400,000 and $250,000. And for small businesses under $250,000, the fee does not apply. (In fact, tax credits will be available to bear the heavy coverage burden small business owners currently face.)

The CBO's score of the new bill is much more promising than their first go-round. Overall, it would cover 94 percent of people living in the U.S. and 97 percent of legal immigrants while the ten-year price tag would come in at just over $1 trillion. The House bill will actually increase the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million. And the large employer mandate would generate $163 billion in new revenue.

Perhaps Schock didn't have a chance to read the language in the bill before he was called for the interview this morning. But he'll have no excuse for dishing out these misconceptions next time around.

Schock's Chrysler Confusion

Adam Doster — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:50:02 -0700

Like his fellow Illinois Republicans, Rep. Aaron Schock doesn't agree with the decisions made by the Obama administration's auto task force. The Peoria congressman is particularly angry with Chrysler's decision to close almost 800 dealerships nationwide, including two in his hometown. According to Schock, the government is closing these shops prematurely and without taking into account consumer choice. More from the Peoria Journal-Star:

"This happened not because they failed, not because of market pressure, but because of a third party, the government, which intervened," the congressman said, saying the government shouldn't be in the business of dictating business decisions to an entire industry.

We've gone over this before: the auto companies needed structural reform, cultural reform, and huge infusions of capital to survive. That wasn't going to happen without the government stepping in. And if taxpayers are forking over their hard-earned dollars to these companies, our representatives in government should have a direct say in how that money is being spent.

To make sure the automaker remained operational, the Obama administration convened a crack staff of insiders and outsiders to guide Chrysler through the restructuring. According to the New York Times editorial board, there is reason to believe that they are actually doing a pretty solid job:

Chrysler’s bankruptcy has been so smooth and fast because the government held its hand all the way — including providing financing to keep it running through bankruptcy and cover its warranties so consumers would keep buying.

What's even sillier is Schock's notion that the auto task force isn't considering the "marketplace" in its decision to consolidate dealerships. In fact, they are doing just that, mimicking the success of companies like Toyota that sell a higher volume of cars at a smaller number of outlets. Downsizing -- and avoiding the "price wars" in which low volume dealerships often get bogged down -- could save the company crucial cash. Bloomberg quotes a Toyota spokesperson explaining the philosophy:

“The strategy at Toyota is pretty simple: keep the dealer count rational, don’t locate them too close to each other and maximize their units per outlet,” said Mike Michels, a company spokesman in Torrance, California. “A profitable dealer can invest in their dealership and personnel.”

Currently, Chrysler averages 405 annual sales at each of their new auto stores. Toyota triples that. That's a major discrepancy, and one Chrysler is hoping to minimize. It's certainly going to be hard for those familes and communities directly affected by the closures. And there should be some additional transparency about why certain branches were axed. But it's all part of a broader plan to ensure the domestic auto industry stays viable. Without it, we can expect to feel a lot more pain.

Health Care Advocates Rally Schock

Angela Caputo — Tue, 05 May 2009 10:31:34 -0700

Today on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats are holding hearings and beginning to hammer out legislation for comprehensive health care reform, a highly-anticipated debate that's expected to dominate the floor this summer. But for months, a broad coalition of proponents here in Illinois -- aligning themselves under the Health Care Justice Campaign (HCJC) -- have been pushing for progressive solutions.

Over the weekend, Peoria-based Rep. Aaron Schock drew the coalition's attention. Activists met the Republican at the doorstep of his district office to pressure him to support the inclusion of a "public plan" in any reform package, which is being pushed by Sen. Dick Durbin, 15 other Democtratic Senators, and 100 members of the House Progressive Caucus in Washington. Schock tried to brush off the demonstrators, telling the Peoria-Journal Star that it was a "political stunt." But this flimsy response shouldn't suffice. (CLARIFICATION: Schock was actually responding to a separate rally conducted that same day by Health Care For America Now (HCAN) and Citizen Action/IL. As a commenter below points out, both HCAN and HCJC "are fighting for a public health insurance option, and both organizations are calling out Rep. Schock as an obstacle to health care reform.")

For evidence that public opinion is on the side of the activists, just look at our western neighbors. A Des Moines Register poll released this week found that there's majority support for a public plan in Iowa:

The Iowa Poll found that 56 percent of Iowans support creation of a public plan. Thirty-seven percent oppose the idea and 7 percent are unsure. If such a plan were created, 47 percent of Iowans who aren't already insured by government programs say they would consider enrolling.

For years, HCJC -- a project of the Campaign for Better Health Care (CBHC) -- has organized on behalf of expanding health care to both the under-insured and those priced out of the private market. As these ranks have continued to swell, organizers have succeeded in attracting union support and also drawing supporters -- particularly business owners and faith-based groups -- who aren't necessarily perceived as left-of-center in their political views.

As CBHC's director Jim Duffet told us earlier this spring, "We're broadening the political landscape so when these boogieman statements about socialism and an overreaching government arise we'll have people, and not just liberal Democrats, who will help us downplay these claims." Peoria Story's Elaine Hopkins explains how the strategy played out at the most recent rally:

[T]hese activists have come up with an interesting strategy: Schock claims to be for small businesses. So small business owners swallowed hard and came together, in Peoria, to plead for health coverage reform. Most have no coverage or very expensive, inadequate coverage. Several made statements at the news conference.

HCJC has already taken aim at three other members of Illinois' GOP congressional delegation -- John Shimkus, Tim Johnson, and Judy Biggert -- who, like Schock, have expressed reticence about any Democratic-led health care reforms. The next stop for the group is a series of town hall meetings during the last week of May.

Colbert Gets To Know Aaron Schock

Progress Illinois — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:47:36 -0700

Another day, another instance of Stephen Colbert making a member of Illinois' congressional delegation look ridiculous. This clip, in which Colbert interviews GOP Rep Aaron Schock as part of his "Better Know A District" segment, is not to be missed:

Gun rights for fetuses, Aaron?

Two other Illinois reps have become "better known" on Colbert's show: Jan Schakowsky and Phil Hare.