Melissa Bean

Health Care Round-Up: Moderate Dems Voice Conerns, Hamos On Stupak, More Actions

Adam Doster — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:13:39 -0800

Some more health care news...

Moderate Democrats Voice Concerns

In her Sun-Times column this morning, Carol Marin singles out Democratic Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster for their yes votes in favor of health care legislation this past weekend:

We may disagree with one another on whether, in the end, this legislation is good for America. Or whether we as a nation can afford all of its provisions.

But what is harder to disagree with is that health care in this country, at the moment, is a ragged, patched quilt of different levels of coverage.

And for between 35 million and 45 million of us, there's no coverage at all.

That's why this vote, to my mind anyway, was historic. And why it took some moxie to say yes.

Foster told Marin that his vote was "easy," yet he's still publicly criticizing some key planks of the legislation including the design of the public option. Foster contends that if the government is allowed to borrow money for start-up costs at a lower interest rate than private companies, the insurance industry will be put at a disadvantage. Bean isn't totally sold yet, either. She tells the Pioneer Press that she's seeking "improved cost containment measures" like the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Council, which would have the authority to make recommendations to the president on annual Medicare payment rates and other reforms.

Meanwhile, Rep. Debbie Halvorson has released a slick video explaining why she supported the legislation. There aren't a lot of legislative details in the spot, but there are three testimonials from women in the 11th district who have faced medical and financial strains because of inadequate health insurance coverage. "I really believe this bill," Halvorson says to close the piece, "is going to move us into the direction of affordable, accessible, and quality health care." Watch it:

Hamos: Stupak Amendment Is Unacceptable

While State Rep. Julie Hamos is just a candidate for Congress at the moment, the 10th District Democratic contender hinted yesterday that if she were on Capitol Hill last weekend, she would have voted against any bill that included language similar to the Stupak amendment. Here's her statement:

The Affordable Health Care Act is an important victory in the fight for quality, affordable health care. However, I am adamantly opposed to the last-minute addition of the anti-choice Stupak Amendment. I am disappointed that some Members of Congress would try to force a choice between health care reform for all with no reproductive health care for some.

I reached out to Rep. Jan Schakowsky and she told me that key members of the House pro-choice caucus met on Monday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and all of them agreed that the anti-choice language is unacceptable. I agree. They are hopeful that they can make the needed changes in the Senate or in the subsequent Conference Committee.

I have fought for women's reproductive freedom for decades -- from serving on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood to being involved in every legislative initiative affecting choice or reproductive health care. The Stupak Amendment is another clear reminder of how important it is to have a Representative in Congress who understands what is at stake and will stand up for what matters.

Actions Coming Up

Health care activists are still working hard to pressure recalcitrant lawmakers and insurance industry officials to support reform. Tomorrow, MoveOn's Rockford branch will protest outside of Republican Rep. Don Manzullo’s office at 12:00 pm "to criticize him for siding with the insurance industry instead of Illinois families by voting against health care reform with a public option during a recent House vote."

Next Tuesday, folks affiliated with Health Care for American Now are meeting at the headquarters of Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Chicago and marching to the Renaissance Hotel, where the industry group American Health Insurance Plans is holding their national conference. You can find more information, as well as a related video, at their website.

Consumer Financial Protection Clears Another Hurdle

Angela Caputo — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:00:20 -0700

Yesterday, the proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) cleared a major hurdle when it passed the House Financial Services Committee. Regular readers know that the future of the agency -- which has been a top priority for consumer advocates critical of the federal government for its lax regulation of predatory lending and other risky financial products -- has seemed touch-and-go at times. After months of heavy lobbying by the banking industry and the willingness of the conservative "New Democrats" (led by Illinois' own Melissa Bean) to do their bidding and weaken the agency's proposed powers, the CFPA bill (H.R. 3126) was approved with its teeth largely intact. That being said, portions of the original bill were certainly weakened, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Lawmakers made several significant changes to the White House's original proposal during a week of debate, particularly in response to lobbying from business groups. For example, they voted overwhelmingly to exempt automobile dealerships from any scrutiny by the new agency, a major win for dealerships that rake in high fees from auto financing. That change may not make it into the final version of the legislation.

The agency would be charged with policing consumer financial products and practices, such as mortgages, credit cards, and overdraft fees, regardless of whether they are offered by banks, finance companies, or most any other type of firm.

Consumer advocates are keeping the pressure on to see that some of those banking-friendly concessions are reversed as the bill winds its way through Congress. “It is time to end the practice of putting profits over the interests of ordinary Americans and our economy as a whole," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger in a statement (the SEIU Illinois State Council sponsors this website). While calling the House committee's vote "an important milestone," Burger adds, "we must continue working with leaders in both chambers to make this bill even stronger and enact strong reforms that will protect us from future bank-induced crises." Among her recommendations for additional reforms:

-Oversight of auto dealers who receive lucrative compensation in financing auto loans;
-The authority to examine the books of all financial institutions, no matter what size, without cumbersome barriers;
-Fixes to the current compensation system which pressures and incentivizes workers to push and sell bad and unneeded products to consumers as a condition of employment;
-And the full authority to stop the sale of credit-related insurance policies that are virtually worthless.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan echoed her sentiments in a statement released on the eve of House committee vote:

Responsible borrowers—both individuals and businesses—are now literally paying for the failure of federal regulators that were either unable or uninterested in protecting consumers ...

Now more than ever, American consumers need protection from the kinds of abusive and predatory practices that led us to this economic crisis.

These reforms are essential to preventing another financial collapse.

We'll continue following this bill closely.

Bean Temporarily Drops Questionable CFPA Amendment

Angela Caputo — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:14:27 -0700

Big banks have been doling out wads of cash and stepping up political pressure on Capitol Hill in an effort to kill a package of new consumer protections. But following the latest surge in profits, along with a series of decisions to hand out historic bonuses at a time when consumers are being saddled with exorbitant fees and arbitrary rate hikes, they are losing sympathy in Washington. Even Illinois' own Rep. Melissa Bean, who agreed to introduce an amendment that would weaken the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) as the lead negotiator for the "New Democrats," appears to be taking the side of the consumers advocates who've been giving her an earful lately. The Washington Post has the details:

Large banks are on the verge of losing a key legislative battle over the shape of financial reform, an unusual setback that reflects the continued political backlash over their role in creating the financial crisis [...]

The debate came to a head last week. Bean's group said it would propose an amendment to retain the current [preemption] law. Liberals warned that if the amendment drew enough Republican support to pass, they would oppose the broader legislation to create the new agency. House leaders and the White House pressured Bean and the moderates to fall in line.

Despite tremendous pressure from the banking industry, Bean ultimately agreed.

We put out a call to Bean's office and her spokesman said only that "it's unclear" what will transpire in the House Financial Service Committee tomorrow. However, The Hill reports that Bean plans to introduce her amendment then withdraw it with the understanding that the issue will be discussed if and when the measure makes it to the House floor. The Woodstock Institute's Tom Feltner tells us that the latest developments are a step in the right direction but the battle over consumer protection is far from over. From a statement:

We appreciate Congresswoman Bean’s commitment to meaningful consumer protections, and we believe that a CFPA that sets minimum, not maximum, standards is the best way to ensure that consumers and small businesses are treated fairly...

Preempting state consumer protections is lucrative business, and we expect the financial services industry to push for preemption whenever and wherever possible.

Sen. Dick Durbin agrees. "The banking industry hates [the CFPA] like the devil hates holy water," he told Bill Cameron during a WLS interview yesterday. Durbin says he's bracing for a bitter fight until the end. Listen (the entire interview is available here):

Internal mp3

The House Financial Services Committee has already made a series of concessions to the banking industry, the most recent being a decision last week to exempt 98 percent of the nation's banks from the stricter rules that would accompany the creation of the CFPA. These small establishments control about 20 percent of the assets held by commercial banks. The rest is managed by 150 large banks, institutions which the American Bankers Association are still fighting vigorously to insulate from any reforms.

Encouragingly, the pushback from consumer advocates appears to be making an impact. And next week the pressure will mount as demonstrators are planning "a showdown" with the financial services sector at the American Bankers Association's three-day annual convention here in Chicago (October 25-27). We'll be there.

Lisa Madigan: Put Consumers Before The Banks

Angela Caputo — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:43:16 -0700

Yesterday we noted that Illinois' own Melissa Bean appears poised to introduce an amendment that would assist the banking industry by taking the teeth out of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CPFA). As the lead negotiator for the New Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, Bean is attempting to preempt states' authority to set and enforce stricter protections against the risky financial products that have made the financial services sector billions. That measure could come up for a committee vote as soon as Thursday. And Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is already pushing back, telling Bean and her fellow members of Congress that its time to "put the interests of our consumers before those of the banks." From a release:

“To truly protect consumers and ensure that the current economic crisis cannot happen again, the proposed federal agency must be able to coordinate enforcement efforts with state and local agencies,” said Madigan. “It is absolutely critical that states be allowed to continue to investigate abusive practices by major players in the financial services industry, regardless of whether these institutions have a state or national charter; and to enforce our state consumer protection laws against all lenders doing business within our borders.” [...]

“Large nationally chartered institutions share significant blame for this economic crisis,” Madigan said. “And yet, it is those same financial institutions that are fighting on Capitol Hill to prevent the passage of any significant reforms. That cannot happen. Therefore, I urge the members of the Illinois Congressional delegation to put the interests of our consumers before those of the banks that led us in part to this financial crisis.”

Madigan's staff at the state's Consumer Protection Division has seen firsthand the hardship that unreasonable lenders have created through sub-prime lending and arbitrary interest rate hikes, exorbitant penalties, and hidden fees. Bean would do well to listen.

Crain's Greg Hinz has more here.

Bean Reportedly Going To Bat For The Banks (UPDATED)

Angela Caputo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:28:40 -0700

Illinois' own Melissa Bean has become a divisive figure on Capitol Hill these days. As the lead negotiator for the New Democrats, the North Suburban congresswoman has become a key ally to the financial services industry as they continue to fight the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). As we recently noted, Bean is thought to be preparing a banking-friendly amendment that would water down the long-overdue consumer protections being pushed by the Obama administration. According to Reuters, she's poised to act sooner rather than later:

A Democratic lawmaker hopes to derail congressional efforts that would allow states to adopt stricter laws for firms offering mortgages and other financial products, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.

Democratic Representative Melissa Bean could as early as Wednesday propose an amendment to a House of Representatives bill that would remove a provision giving states more rights over federal laws to protect consumers from risky financial products, the source said.

While the language of Bean's amendment has yet to be unveiled, the goal is apparently to preempt states' authority to set and enforce the sort of strict rules that would protect unwitting consumers from getting gouged by risky financial products. Among the outspoken critics of a preemption clause is Illinois' own Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who has repeatedly made the case for why more robust state rules are essential to protecting consumers. The Woodstock Institute explains:

Rather than setting strong national standards which states can build on to address local needs, this approach would perpetuate the status quo which allowed national banks to rake in billions in high risk loans, bait-and-switch credit card rates, and deceptive overdraft fees––all while states were forbidden to act.

As the Sunlight Foundation points out, Bean and her colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee haven't been doing the bidding of corporate interests for free. The same banks and credit card companies whose profit margins would be protected by preemptive laws have rewarded those committee members with some princely sums. None has benefited more than Bean, who has so far pulled in $269,800 (43 percent of her total campaign haul) this year from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.

Encouragingly, newspaper editorial boards and citizen advocates are pushing back against Bean's amendment even before it hits the committee. Meanwhile, Public Citizen is ratcheting up the effort through the new Americans for Financial Reform coalition, noting that "our representatives in Washington have to hear from us -- the people who were put at risk by the big banks." Learn more about their campaign here.

(UPDATE): Bean's spokesman Jonathan Lipman responded with the following statement:

"Congresswoman Bean and the New Dems have promoted strong regulatory reform that institute tough new consumer and investor protection rules, credit card reforms, higher capital requirements, and executive pay reforms, all of which put mandates on these financial institutions that they don't like. Bean and New Dems have been focused on increasing transparency, reducing systemic risk, and preserving the ability for end user businesses to hedge their risk."

Bean, The Banks, And The Role Of States In Financial Consumer Protection

Angela Caputo — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:26:01 -0700

Last week, the House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) finally rolled out a draft proposal (H.R. 3126) to create a consumer protection agency that would be tasked with regulating the risky financial products -- subprime mortgages, credit cards, payday loans -- that have brought American consumers to their knees. Considering that entire city blocks are mired in foreclosure and thousands of households are buried in high-interest rate credit card debt, it's not surprising that there's overwhelming public support (PDF) for the federal government to provide oversight of the get-rich-quick instruments cooked up by Wall Street. But after months of deliberation, the proposed bill is weaker than many had hoped. Even so, banks are still unsatisfied, arguing that the reforms are too cumbersome. And it appears that Illinois Rep. Melissa Bean (D) is lending them a hand by proposing to strip the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) of even more regulatory power. Politico reports:

[M]oderates, who are members of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, are unhappy with proposed bill language that would force federally chartered firms to comply with state consumer protection laws. The moderates want to maintain the status quo, in which financial institutions that elect to have a national charter are exempt from additional state consumer protection laws.

Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.), a lead negotiator for the New Democrats, told POLITICO on Tuesday that their position on pre-emption would most likely be offered as an amendment rather than changed by Frank in the existing bill, though talks are still ongoing.

The article goes on to provide a succinct explanation of the "pre-emption" debate:

The whole issue of pre-emption may be arcane to the average voter, but it’s critical in terms of who has the power to regulate consumer financial affairs.

On one side are consumer and civil rights activists who want to make sure that states remain empowered to make their own consumer laws — oftentimes tougher than the federal rules. On the other side are national financial institutions that warn that forcing them to deal with a 50-state patchwork of rules will drive up costs and drive down choice for consumers.

As we've noted before, the financial lobby -- and bailed-out banks in particular -- has thrown millions of dollars at trying to kill the creation of the CFPA. But with the prospect of a new watchdog agency now looking relatively certain, they're now focused on weakening the federal agency’s rules and regulations and making sure they preempt state laws. (Among these opponents is the American Bankers Association, whose national convention is the target of an October protest in Chicago.) While the details of Bean's amendment have yet to emerge, the Woodstock Institute's Tom Feltner tells us that "the concern is that an amendment would make the CFPA rules the strongest standard, rather than being a minimum that state's can build on."

As we've noted before, the loose regulatory system currently in place allows large financial institutions to circumvent stricter state laws. This has prevented attorneys general from going after predatory practices such as exorbitant interest rates and credit card fees, as Illinois AG Lisa Madigan testified before the House committee last spring. Illinois' congressional delegation has "a key role in fixing the lack of oversight that contributed to this mess," the Daily Herald editorial board recently reminded Bean and her colleagues. That's a responsibility she can't afford to ignore.

Health Care Round-Up: Professionals Demand Reform, BaucusCare, Gutierrez On The Wilson Cave, More Reasons For Reform

Adam Doster — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:31:34 -0700

BaucusCare is here! That, and the latest local news in today's health care round-up.

Health Care Professionals Demand Real Reform

Before we get to the Senate Finance Committee, be sure to watch the latest video courtesy of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and United Action for Power and Justice. In it, we hear from three health care professionals who are on the ground in Illinois helping people navigate through the treacherous health insurance industry:

BaucusCare Introduced ... Finally

After months of anticipation and fractured bipartisan negotiations, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) finally released his committee's proposal (PDF) to remake the nation's health care system yesterday.

On policy, it's a mixed bag. (I'll rely a good deal on Ezra Klein's blogging from yesterday, as it's the most substantive I've seen. Be sure to check out his Washington Post site for the nitty gritty.)

To be clear, there are some glaring problems with this bill. For starters, no public option is included, as was expected. Instead, a co-op proposal, described by Klein as "neutered," has emerged. No employer mandate exists, either. Also, rather than require employers to cover their workers, the bill relies on something called "free rider" requirement, which would merely slap a fee on those who refuse to provide coverage to workers if those workers qualify for federal subsides. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out this provision's massive flaw: it discriminates against low-income workers, specifically single parents. Dana Goldstein has more.

The subsidies offered by the Baucus bill to working and middle-class folks purchasing private insurance are also far too small. Nick Beaudrot's widely-circulated chart comparing premium costs in Massachusetts under Commonwealth Care and the Senate Finance bill is instructive here.

On the plus side, the Health Insurance Exchanges (which would house the public option, if it is created) are much more robust than any bill unveiled to date. Businesses with up to 50 employees could buy into the exchanges and states would have the option of increasing that threshold to 100. Even better, states must develop plans to incorporate firms with more than 50 employees by 2017. By 2022, virtually every American would have access to the highly-regulated, transparent marketplace. The basic coverage structures laid out in the competing bills exist in Baucus' proposal as well. Medicaid would be expanded for all adults who have incomes at or below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. And that means an additional 500,000 currently-uninsured Illinoisans would have access to the public plan. (As far as the state-federal financing ratio is concerned, the mark-up says the feds will "pay a greater share of the costs for individuals newly eligible for Medicaid" and it will be on a sliding scale based on the quality of coverage, but the amount is unclear and it will only be offered through 2018.) In all, the CBO estimates that 94 percent of legal residents will be covered. That's not universal, but it is much closer.

Now to the political realities. Baucus -- who took months to build bipartisan consensus in his committee -- seems to have alienated both liberals and conservatives with his bill. House Republicans -- such as Illinois' own Rep. Judy Biggert -- as well as senators not involved in committee negotiations have dismissed it out of hand. Some liberals, most notably Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), were just as critical for the reasons outlined above. And even members of the so-called "Gang of Six" expressed reservations; Sen. Olympia Snowe, while open to discussions, said she was not ready to endorse the plan. Yesterday, Matt Yglesias slammed Baucus' delayed timing: "If he’d just stuck to the schedule, we would have been at this point in the process at a time when Barack Obama’s approval rating was considerably higher."

The good news is that, with the Baucus bill finally out in the open, the process can move forward. The measure will surely be modified this week and next (Klein offers some useful suggestions), and the Montana Democrat hopes to bring it up for a full committee vote next week.

Burris, Bean On The Public Option

While the Baucus legislation does not include a public option, there is still a chance that a government-run plan could be added to the Exchanges, either in the final Senate bill or in conference committee. In a statement yesterday, Sen. Roland Burris became the first U.S. Senator to join House progressives in pledging not to support any health care bill that does not include a public option:

"We need real reform now. The inclusion of a public option as a central component to any healthcare reform legislation is the only way to create meaningful competition with the insurance companies, and in turn, bring down costs and improve quality of care for the people of Illinois and all Americans."

He did not specify, however, whether or not he would vote no on cloture (thereby enabling a filibuster) if such a bill emerged in his chamber.

Meanwhile, 8th District Rep. Melissa Bean reinforced her stance on the public option earlier this week as well. During a tele-town hall meeting on Tuesday, the Barrington Democrat assured her constituents that the public option "is not a government takeover of health care" and expressed her support for it so long as "it’s done in a way that is paid for in a premium and not subsidized by the government.”

Gutierrez Blasts White House For Wilson Cave

After his ridiculous outburst at last week's presidential address, Rep. Joe Wilson was scorned by the national media and attacked by potential congressional challengers. But he might have influenced the reform fight in the process. And not in a productive or humane way.

To disarm opponents making false claims that the health care proposals in Congress would provide subsidies to undocumented immigrants, the White House has expressed a preference for barring undocumented immigrants from buying insurance on the health insurance exchanges, even with their own money. While it appeases anti-immigrant legislators, it will also increase health care costs across the system by providing a disincentive for immigrants to purchase private insurance, thus raising the chances that more will continue to flood emergency rooms for costly, inefficient, and publicly-financed coverage.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez wasn't pleased with the shift, telling a crowd of Latino leaders on Monday that the administration was "giving Rep. Wilson exactly what he wants." Wilson and his friends in Congress certainly don't deserve that.

Three Reasons To Pass Reform

Many political opponents of health care reform understand that our current system produces poor outcomes at a high cost for patients lucky enough to have insurance. Some just haven't internalized how dangerous the challenges we face truly are. A quick glance through some recent news demonstrates the urgency that's required on this issue.

Take this new report (PDF) from Families USA. Their research shows that the increased use and cost of health services, a lack of necessary oversight and competition in the health insurance marketplace, and implicit payments to care for the uninsured have dramatically increased the cost of employer-based insurance premiums in Illinois, which rose 86 percent (from $7,220 to $13,397) since 2009. At the same time, the median earnings of Illinois workers rose just 17 percent, from $26,806 to $31,414 (Click for an expanded version here):

Or read this Tribune profile of 17-year-old Brianna Rice, a Deerfield resident whose insurance was rescinded after her health insurance company found out she had celiac disease:

Her parents, Dale and Pat Rice of Deerfield, insist they were truthful on Brianna's application and say the insurance company is trying to back out of covering their daughter because of the February diagnosis. American Community disagrees, saying that if the Rices had given the company Brianna's full heath history when they applied for coverage, it would never have been granted. [...]

The family's situation shows just how quickly health insurance problems can lead to financial ruin. With their daughter's unpaid medical bills exceeding $20,000 and mounting, the Rices fear losing their home. Pat Rice said she cashed in some of her retirement account to pay bills.

"The next step is really bankruptcy," her husband said.

Finally, ponder this stark fact: single-payer advocate Dr. Quentin Young relayed to a group of north suburban college students last night: there are 45,000 people dead in this country because of a lack of health care, up from 18,000 in 2002.

This reform fight is literally a battle of life and death. The time for political delays and capitulation has passed.

Health Care Round-up: Reconciliation, Bean Open To Public Plan

Adam Doster — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:41:31 -0700

Here's our latest health care round-up:

Reconciliation Is On The Table

As you've probably heard by now, the latest news from Washington -- as reported by the Wall Street Journal -- is that Congressional Democrats are considering splitting health care legislation into two parts if the Gang of Six can't reach a sensible agreement in the Senate Finance Committee. The first bill would include non-budget items with broad support -- insurance consumer protections, establishing the health insurance exchange and a co-op system, small subsidies for people who can't pay premiums -- that could pass the Senate with more than 60 votes and avoid a filibuster.

The second would include many progressive elements of the reform effort that effect the budget and could thus be considered under the reconciliation process. Under this scenario, 51 senators would have the leeway to push through measures like a broad expansion of Medicaid, new taxes on individuals or employers, more generous subsidies for people buying insurance, cost-saving Medicare and Medicaid reforms, and possibly a public plan. If the GOP and conservative Democrats show no interest in legitimate compromise, the theory goes, then mainstream Democrats should leave them behind and pass a meaningful bill on their own terms.

The tactic might backfire. After all, Republican senators might not approve of the first bill, even if it means voting against common-sense and widely-popular insurance regulations, if they think they are clearing the path for President Obama's full agenda. But that the plan is being considered -- and discussed publicly -- shifts the Congressional debate in the right direction, argues The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn:

But even the theoretical possibility of Democrats passing reform on their own would change the dynamics in Congress, by giving Republicans new incentives to negotiate in good faith--and giving Democrats a way to enact legislation in case the GOP remains as obstructionist as it is now.

Bean Supportive of Public Plan, Full Health Care Bill?

Melissa Bean, once rumored to be a potential dissenting voice on health care, participated in a tele-town hall phone conversation with constituents last night. While she did not commit one way or the other, reminding callers that the House hasn't seen a final bill yet, reformers have reason to be encouraged. Not only did Bean make clear that she is open to voting for a public option, but she defended enthusiastically many of the bill's major tenets. A Prairie State Blue contributor on the call explains:

The entire experience was very encouraging. Melissa spoke very well about the need for reform and explained how Democrats in Congress are going about it, in a very supportive way. (Republicans weren't mentioned.) There was nothing in the call that was negative or disturbing. There was no bashing of the pending bills; to the contrary, Melissa defended and spoke positively about the bills that are now in the House. Her discussion of the public option was the most positive I've ever heard from her.

Hare Tells 17th District Horror Stories

Another Congressional Democrat has been answering questions about health care as well. Down in Springfield yesterday, Rep. Phil Hare talked to the press about the progress of health care reform and the importance of passing a bill to extend access to all Americans, even if it's imperfect. Watch below as Hare offers anecdotes about the problems some 17th District constituents have faced because they've lost or could not afford health coverage:

The Tribune's Weak Lede

We already know that the Tribune's editorial board does not agree with President Obama on the best way to reform the health care system. But those biases may be creeping into the staff's reporting, as well. Two weeks ago, we highlighted a frustrating story on the town hall protests that cited one shallow poll as evidence that the public had turned on the reform effort. Today, Michael Muskal's lede in a piece on bipartisanship is also pretty misleading:

President Obama is stepping up his push for healthcare reform even as the latest poll raises questions about his trademark call for a bipartisan approach to politics.

That latest poll shows that a measly 17 percent of Americans blame President Obama for his partisan gridlock. It's true that the rate has jumped from 12 percent last month, but it's a bit silly to call into question his entire campaign message because 17 percent of Americans, many of them likely Republicans, think he's pushing too hard on one issue. After all, the same poll found that 29 percent blame the GOP, who clearly aren't doing much to work across the aisle.

Health Care Roundup: Citizen Action Pressures Bean, Durbin "Open" To Alternatives

Progress Illinois — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:25:09 -0700

Here's the latest Illinois-centric health care news:

Citizen Action Targets Bean, Halvorson, Foster

In today's edition of Crain's, Paul Merrion writes that, when it comes to health care reform, suburban Reps. Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson, and Bill Foster are all "stuck in the middle, still uncommitted and coming under pressure from both ends of the political spectrum." On the left, Citizen Action/Illinois is doing its part to push these moderate reps towards supporting a public option:

"The next five or six weeks will determine whether we have a strong health reform plan or a weak one," says John Gaudette, Illinois health care director for Citizen Action, a non-profit advocacy group leading local efforts for Healthcare for America Now, a national coalition pushing for a low-cost government-run plan to pressure private insurers' premiums.

Two weeks ago, Citizen Action generated more than 1,000 calls to the three moderate Illinois Democrats, urging them to support a strong government-run plan, and the group is planning a rally with upward of 300 people in Ms. Bean's district later this month. "She's the one we've been focusing on the most," Mr. Gaudette says.

Office Visits For Health Reform

Over the weekend, Organizing for America urged supporters of health care reform across the country to schedule a visit to their congressman's district office. From their email blast announcing the "Office Visits for Health Reform" action:

As you've probably seen in the news, special interest attack groups are stirring up partisan mobs with lies about health reform, and it's getting ugly. Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand.

Office Visits for Health Reform are our chance to show that the vast majority of American voters know that the cost of inaction is too high to bear, and strongly support passing health reform in 2009.

Don't worry if you've never done anything like this before. The congressional staff is there to listen, and your opinion as a constituent matters a lot.

Durbin "Open" To Public Option Alternatives

Sen. Dick Durbin made the media rounds this past weekend to discuss the health care battle and raised some eyebrows with this comment on CNN:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he is committed to getting a bipartisan bill, even if it means sacrificing a public insurance option.

“It doesn’t have to be a perfect bill,” Durbin said. “I support a public option, but yes I am open. I want to make sure we do something positive for the American people.”

Yet Durbin said that if bipartisan talks break down, he still wants to see Members get something done. “I don’t want to see health care reform fail,” he said, noting that it’s an opportunity that only comes along “once in a political lifetime.”

Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein interpreted the remark as an indication that "the party -- from Obama on down -- sees the public option as a likely victim in an effort to get 60 votes for health care's passage in the Senate." Stein further pointed out that Howard Dean is urging Senate Democrats to use a parliamentary maneuver known as "reconciliation" to pass a reform bill with just a simple majority of 51 votes.

Durbin also appeared on Fox Chicago Sunday, where he once again lambasted the efforts by conservative reform opponents to disrupt public meetings held by members of Congress during the August recess. "This isn't about you [the public]," Durbin said. "It's about YouTube."

Costello Cancels Town Hall

Speaking of those tense public forums, downstate Democratic Rep. Jerry Costello has decided to hold a so-called "tele-town hall" on health reform, rather than appear in public on the issue:

The Belleville Democrat won’t be appearing to speak to the public about President Barack Obama’s proposed health care reform, spokesman David Gillies indicated Friday, adding the raucous crowds showing up at such meetings is a factor in Costello’s decision not to participate in one.

“We are not having any in-person town hall meetings, and the congressman thinks it is unfortunate that the disruptions are occurring and making such meetings impossible to hold,” Gillies said in an e-mail to The Southern Illinoisan.

Elsewhere in the state, Reps. Danny Davis, Jan Schakowsky, and Phil Hare are all scheduled to hold health care town halls before the end of August.

Health Care Roundup: Senate Deal Details, Bean Still Waffling

Adam Doster — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:08:09 -0700

Here's our latest health care round-up:

Senate Finance Closer To Deal

The Washington Post has the scoop of the morning, reporting that Senate negotiators in the crucial Finance Committee -- the only committee with jurisdiction over health care that hasn't yet passed a bill -- may be close to reaching a bipartisan agreement. The "Gang of Six" will meet with President Obama today to discuss those details, which don't look promising with regards to the public option:

The emerging Finance Committee bill would shave about $100 billion off the projected trillion-dollar cost of the legislation over the next decade and eventually provide coverage to 94 percent of Americans, according to participants in the talks. It would expand Medicaid, crack down on insurers, abandon the government insurance option that President Obama is seeking and, for the first time, tax health-care benefits under the most generous plans. Backers say the bill would also offer the only concrete plan before Congress for reining in the skyrocketing cost of federal health programs over the long term.

The committee also seems to be coalescing around an idea pushed by Sen. John Kerry to raise revenue by taxing insurance companies on their most-expensive policies. Unlike the 2 percent surtax on the wealthy, this option has broader support.

How high the subsidy levels for the uninsured will extend and how the Medicaid expansion will be structured is still unknown. But right now, the objective is to get something out of committee by Obama's September 15 deadline to keep the ball rolling. If that can't be done in a bipartisan fashion, Obama says the Democrats may have to go at it alone. "I promise you, we will pass reform by the end of this year," he said in Indiana yesterday, "because the American people need it."

Broad Or Shallow Opposition?

On their newly redesigned site, Tribune reporter Janet Hook has an unnerving piece about the critics of Obama's reform effort who keep popping up at Congressional town halls across the country. To be sure, conservative activists are making their voices heard. Just last night in Normal, 300 people showed up to GOP Rep. Tim Johnson's health care meeting, mostly elderly and angry, including one woman who claimed "our country is going to be Marxist nation."

But Hook frames the piece around the idea that the "intensity of the opposition" is somehow indicative of the public's general skittishness about reform. As evidence, she cites one poll in the last paragraph that found support for Obama's health plan dropping slightly in the past month. But most other polls show that the health care reforms Obama has pushed for since campaign season are still very popular. After all, he was elected with wide margins less than a year ago running on those very principles. The Nation's Chris Hayes ably summed up how the media's fascination with the Tea Party phenomenom may be distorting the media's perspective:

The problem is the overwhelming instinct on the part of pundits and the MSM to look, and see old white men in overalls and Legionnaire hats and think they are watching someone give voice to the sentiments of broad swaths of the electorate. And it's just not true. What we're seeing at these events are the voices of radicals, extremists and zealots.

Suburban Congressmen Still Waffling

Yesterday, we pointed out that some suburban Democrats are still on the fence about whether to support the House package when it comes up for a full vote next month. That includes Rep. Melissa Bean, who the Pioneer Press notes has received a considerable amount of money from the health insurance lobby this year:

She has the task of keeping her constituents and contributors happy. Bean has raised $61,550 from insurance companies since the 2008 election, making insurance her top contributing industry, according to www.opensecrets.org.

In addition, the International Union of Operating Engineers is Bean's top single contributor since the 2008 election, donating $10,000, according to opensecrets, the Center for Responsive Politics' Web site.

[Correction (8/7): The $61,500 figure cited in the Pioneer Press story actually represents the amount Bean has received from the insurance industry at large and is mostly made up from property, casualty and life insurers such as AllState or State Farm. We're trying to track down the actual amount Bean received from health insurance interests in particular.]

The SouthtownStar's Kristen McQueary got in touch with staffers for Democratic Reps. Debbie Halvorson and Dan Lipinski, as well. Halvorson wouldn't commit one way or the other, but a spokesperson did say that the freshman congresswoman "is firm in her stance that reform cannot happen until we get it right." What she considers "right" is unclear.

Lipinski, who has already come out in support of a public option, also hinted that cost was a major factor in his decisionmaking. "It is critical," he said in a statement, "that this bill constitutes real reform and avoids pouring more money into a broken system."

Why We Fight

Finally, the Huffington Post's Arthur Delaney has a heart-wrenching story of a man from Libertyville who was denied coverage for a pre-existing condition after quitting his job to care for his mother and uncle in 2007. It's a good reminder about why this fight is so important: People's financial and physical life are at stake.