GOP Midterm Mandate? Not so much...

We know that the voters who turned out tended to be older, richer, and whiter than the U.S. population as a whole, but a new McClatchy-Marist poll suggests the majority of Americans didn't give the GOP any mandate - in fact, they tend to lean toward taxing the rich, and tweaking the health care reform, not extending the Bush Tax cuts and repealing what opponents insist on calling Obamacare.

For instance, while the survey did find that mandates for buying health care don't sit well with voters, some of the other changes, such as the end to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, enjoy the support of 2/3 of those surveyed. From the article:

Another 35 percent want to change it to do more. Among groups with pluralities who want to expand it: women, minorities, people younger than 45, Democrats, liberals, Northeasterners and those making less than $50,000 a year.

Not surprisingly there's broad support for asking the wealthy to pay a fair share on tax day, too. But the mainstream media seems intent to echo the Republican's claim that they've got an overwhelming mandate, and ignoring both the folks who point out that the pundits are glossing over the actual data and the reality that the current President actually lowered taxes for most Americans - just not ratings friendly stories, you see?

What the Republicans have got is success turning out voters in a mid-term election, and despite their protests that "the media" has "liberal bias" they've got control of the reports that get air-time. I'll give them credit for that.

Read more about the results at McClatchy. 

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, political strategist, and photographer who recently worked as the Campaign Manager on the Madore For Congress campaign in Minnesota's 2nd District. He contributes regularly to a host of other web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The Impact of Health Care Reform on Mental Health Treatment

Congratulations to President Obama and Congress for the historic passage of the health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), along with the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) which makes improvements to the Senate bill. The reforms should provide quality, affordable health care to nearly all Americans for the first time in our nation's history.

So what does this mean for mental health care? As a Clinical Psychologist in private practice for the past 3 years, I have seen many patients struggle to afford the psychological treatment they needed for their mental health. When I first began my practice in 2007, essentially all of my patients were paying for therapy out of pocket, or without the help of their insurance benefits. In the Bay Area, the average cost is $150 per therapy hour, with some therapists allowing a sliding scale fee for therapy. My patients’ average length of treatment is approximately 4 months of weekly therapy, with some coming in for brief, specific types of treatment, and others choosing to engage in long term treatment for 2 years or more. While many of these patients have health insurance, their insurance benefits frequently do not cover their psychotherapy because their mental health diagnosis is not considered parity. (see What The California Mental Health Parity Law Means: AB 88.) Further, in the face of many job loses and the rapid decline of the American economy in recent times, many patients found themselves no longer able to afford to pay for psychotherapy out of pocket.

"These reforms will allow Americans to achieve full health and recovery through significant investments in expanded health care access, including mental health, substance use, rehabilitation and prevention services, as well as collaborative care and chronic care management," said Laurel Stine, director of federal relations at the - The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. "This is particularly notable given that four of the ten leading causes of disability in the United States are mental disorders and 87 percent of Americans cite lack of insurance coverage as the top reason for not seeking mental health services," Stine added.

"Furthermore, these reforms are truly significant triumphs in the integration of mental health in health care," said Stine. "Building upon the recent congressional victory of mental health parity in 2008, millions of Americans will have parity benefits and the guarantee of mental health coverage and will not live in fear of being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, such as a mental disorder."

Only time will tell to what extent the health care reform will significantly influence the management of mental health problems in the United States. However, this appears to be a step in the right direction in addressing the dilemma of untreated mental illness in this country.

This article was composed by Christina Villarreal, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist in Oakland, CA

Tom Hayes: Not this time!

"For the first time ever, all five committees in Congress responsible for health reform have passed a version of legislation," President Obama said in his weekly radio address on October 17, 2009.

He went on to note that despite hurdles, "we are closer to reforming the health care system than we have ever been in history."

In response to massive lobbying and advertising efforts, the President said,

"They're filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads. They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people..."

There are 6 health care industry lobbyists in D.C. for every single member of Congress. Combined, the special interests are spending over $1,000,000 every day to defeat reform, to keep things as they've been while close to 14,000 Americans a day lose their coverage, and over half of all personal bankruptcies are triggered by uncovered medical expenses.

In what may be the best turn of phrase yet in this battle for votes, Obama also noted,

"Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time."

Read the transcript, or watch the video (below) and learn about the deceptive schemes and techniques being used by those who want you to tune out and stop listening so their profits and bonuses will remain undisturbed.

Got four minutes? Watch a quick video that sums up the President’s plan to provide security and stability to those who have insurance and coverage for those who don’t.

Thomas Hayes is a political analyst, journalist, and entrepreneur who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics including economics, politics, culture, and community.

Tom Hayes: Have Town Halls jumped the shark?

The town hall format is attracting a lot of attention, but people obviously come based on partisan goals, emotions run high, and political reporters determine how the story is played in the media.

The Washington Post, for instance, recently ran with

"The DNC kickoff rally in Phoenix attracted about 1,200 reform supporters, but a raucous meeting on the other side of town hosted by Obama's former presidential campaign rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attracted hundreds more -- most of whom were loudly opposed to Democratic reform proposals."

This at best inconsistent with the reports from the Associated Press, which indicated McCain faced a hostile town hall crowd in favor of health care reform. Quoting, again,

"After McCain opened it up to questioning, one man angrily pointed at him and asked the senator why he deserves a better health care plan than him."

A more academic setting where the focus is on facts rather than carefully scripted appearances intended to mimic open forums quite probably does more to forward any discussion. Given how adept partisans and pundits of both sides are at dismissing any assertions advanced by their opponents, the chance to have a voice from outside politics, an experienced respected scientific researcher, discussing facts is overdue.

Recognizing that, Dr. Morrison Hodges, Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine (and formerly the Director of Cardiology at Hennepin County Medical Center) will describe the forces that shaped the U.S. health care system in a lecture on September 17, 2009. He intends to cover how we arrived at a "market based health care system funded by employers" and how well is it's working in comparison to other countries. Dr. Hodges will explain the history of U.S. health care and how it compares in quality and cost to other functioning systems. Dr. Hodges believes has can outline how the United States can cover everyone with quality health care "without breaking the bank."

The town hall format has done much to illuminate how central the problems with our health care insurance system are in our communities. With one in six citizens uncovered, we've all come to realize that we end up paying for their medical problems anyway, be it through increased premiums, or more subtly when they're forced to file for bankruptcy protection (over half of personal bankruptcy filings in the U.S. are triggered by medical costs.) We've come to resent that money collected to pay health care premiums is spent at a rate of over a million dollars per day just to support lobbyists seeking to continue "business as usual" in D.C., and resent paperwork that drives up costs and bureaucrats that countermand medical decisions without improving outcomes.

It's time to peel back the rhetoric, to get past the sound-bites and the spin-mongering "pundits" -- to stop pretending this is about death panels or a way to cover illegal immigrants, and find a way to preserve our American way of life by insuring that every citizen can afford decent medical care as needed. I applaud Dr. Hodges and those who have made it possible for him to share his knowledge in an academic setting, even if it doesn't make for such dramatic TV coverage.

For more information about the Hodges lecture, see:
http://tinyurl.com/kqvg2c

The on-going confusion over "single-payer" health care

Single-payer isn't a synonym for "universal health insurance coverage." The two are separate issues - although many who support one support the other, as well.

Single-payer is only about who administers the payment. It could be the government, it might not be. In either case single-payer doesn't solve the question of "universal" coverage. The President has expressed his belief that while single-payer is an ideal, it is not a practical short-term goal due to the well-established (some would say entrenched) model already in force.

Universal health insurance coverage is one way to insure coverage for those who can't/don't get it through their employer - the unemployed, the self-employed, those who have been denied coverage for any number of reasons, etc.

A "public option" isn't either of those; a public option would mean setting up the government as one possible insurance plan provider among many, each responsible for their own paperwork. It is touted as a possible path to a single-payer system, but given the pragmatic attitude of the President dealing with wealthy companies buying influence in the Congress, it's not even that - and single payer is not going to happen anytime soon despite its obvious cost savings.

By the way: none of these is socialized medicine, either.

As long as what's being discussed is an option, as long as private plans remain available, the public option concept is simply about trying to get everybody covered. Are you with me? "Public option" isn't a synonym for either single-payer or universal health insurance.

Why, you may well ask, do the special interests oppose such changes, particularly that public option, and muddy the waters in the media while lobbying in Congress? Because insurance industry surveys show that a public option wouldn't attract merely the 50 million uninsured Americans, but actually more than double that number. Insurance companies don't want to compete with a plan system that operates efficiently on such low overhead - it threatens their profits, and the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs who, in some cases, earn tens of millions of dollars per year under the current system.

“…what we’ve seen is that the private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way.”

World Bank Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz

Why are special interests opposing health care reform?

Single payer is not socialized medicine, it's how Medicare works. Do you know the facts? Medicare runs with between 2-3% overhead - that compares very favorably to private insurance, where overhead by most estimates is over 30% of the cost.

Why don't the big insurance companies want to let everybody have a choice to get affordable coverage? Who has so much influence over Democratic Senators like Max Baucus of Montana that they oppose a choice, as suggested by President Obama? Follow the money.

73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan. Have you told your U.S. Representative and/or Senator? It's not about party, folks; this idea has phenomenally broad support, and it's totally congruent with what President Obama and his administration are trying to achieve. It provides coverage to the tens of millions of uninsured Americans without forcing anybody who likes their current system to change.

Broken down by party affiliation, it's:

77% of Democrats
79% of Independents
63% of Republicans

Tell your U.S. Senators and the Congressional Representative from your district what the Chief Economist of the World Bank says:

"...private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way..."

World Bank Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz

People who work hard for their money deserve to have a voice in how it's spent. The insurance industry and their lobbyists have been writing rules that boost their profits not protect Americans, and tax-payers are tired of bailing them out while worrying if we'll even have jobs. We need our leaders to take control and look out for our interests, not special interests.

73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan.

Have you told your U.S. Representative and/or Senator? It's not about which party somebody identifies with, folks; this idea has incredibly broad support among ALL voters, and it's totally congruent with what the President is trying to achieve.

Broken down by party affiliation, it's:

77% of Democrats
79% of Independents
63% of Republicans

Write 3 letters before the Senate committee meeting on Tuesday to make sure your voice is heard in D.C. before it's all over but the earmarks. Write one to the Representative of your congressional district, and one to each of your Senators (except in Minnesota, of course, where there's only one Senator.) Make sure your elected represenatives realize that this has overwhelming support among voters - all voters.

Special interests are being heard - are you?

"While recent polling has shown consistent broad support for comprehensive health care reform, this poll specifically addressed whether people want a choice of a public health insurance plan. 73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan, including Democrats (77%), Independents (79%), and Republicans (63%)"

The firm also tested the insurance industry's message about public health care and paired it with a message supporting it, and found the public to be far more receptive to the pro-public health care message:

"62% of voters believe a public health insurance plan will spend less on
profits and administration and force private insurers to compete while only 28% of voters believe the attack that a public health insurance plan would be a "big, government bureaucracy." 60% believe that if private insurers are really more efficient than government, then they won't have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. Only 23% believe a public health insurance plan would have an unfair advantage over private plans."

This polling was conducted for the pro-reform group Health Care for America Now.

But it goes beyond polls. There are hugely authoritative, respected voices pointing out that the system as it's been allowed to evolve is inefficient. It doesn't serve us well even though it does pay CEOs hefty bonuses and keep lobbyists busy. Tell your Senators and Representative what the Chief Economist of the World Bank says:

"...private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way..."

World Bank Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz

People who work hard for their money deserve to have a voice in how it's spent. The insurance industry and their lobbyists have been writing rules that boost their profits not protect Americans, and tax-payers are tired of bailing them out while worrying if we'll even have jobs. We need our leaders to take control and look out for our interests, not special interests.

Put it in your words, and write those three emails in the next 24 hours, two or three paragraphs is all it takes, then get three more people to do the same.

Why are doctors for reform? Maybe it's because places such as Duke Medical center need more billing clerks than nurses.

Why are special interests fighting it, donating money to the campaigns of key U.S. Senators such as Baucus and Murray? Maybe it's because they know their extravagant bonuses will come to an end. They're in it for the money, after all.

You've got all the facts you need right here: Make sure D.C. knows that we know the facts, and we're tired of paying for them to ignore what's right for the rest of us.

Can you explain McCain’s goals and priorities?

McCain’s a fine man; his record shows he’d be an adequate President for those who are so wealthy that taxes are just a nuisance handled by an accountant - a number that never impacts their daily spending decisions.

The rest of us, the folks on Main Street still waiting for Bush’s economic policies to trickle down some personal prosperity or create jobs, need Obama~Biden. We don't understand why McCain wants the government to administer 11 million mortgages but says health care should be as deregulated as Wall Street has been - we think bureaucrats already impede our access to health care, and we haven't lost faith in the power of the Government to be a positive force.

In some ways, if you don't try to get inside McCain's head or worry about which of Bush's fiscalor tax policies are to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it's really a pretty simple choice.

You can choose between:
1) a guy who wants government to do less because he doesn't trust the competence of anybody and everybody below him - except evidently in areas it's politically expedient to say government must intervene like the mortgage mess - or
2) the guy who wants to make health care universally affordable and available while extricating us from Iraq, fixing some inequities in the tax policies Bush has established, and bringing a unified vision to our energy and environmental policies that he sees dovetailing with national security.

One of these guys is going to run the country, taking over the government in the midst of profound economic turmoil. If you're rich, and have no kids, you may pick the former if you so desire. After watching the final 2008 Presidential debate, I prefer the vision of the latter, and I'm voting for "that one."

read more | digg story