Tag Archive for 'pre-existing conditions'

OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENTS: NOVEMBER 2ND GENERAL ELECTION

Published by SLU Dems on October 27, 2010. 2 Comments Tags: bailout, board of education, bp, climate change, constitutional amendment 1, constitutional amendment 2, constitutional amendment 3, county assessor, earnings tax, election, Health Care Reform, lacy clay, local control, oil spill, phillip morris, pow, pre-existing conditions, preferential proposition l, proposition a, proposition b, proposition f, puppy mills, rex sinquefield, robin carnahan, roy blunt, saint louis board of election commissioners, student loan reform, susan montee, tarp, tax, tom schweich, transparency, voter registration, wall street reform.

The Saint Louis University College Democrats are proud to endorse the following candidates and positions that will appear on the ballot for SLU Students voting in the November 2nd General Election. Endorsements decisions are made by the SLU College Democrats Executive Board, and may not reflect the views of all members, or of the University as a whole. Endorsements are made only in contested races. For a sample ballot, including language of Constitutional Amendments and Propositions, visit the Saint Louis Board of Election Commissioners

Candidate Endorsements:

For United States Senate: Robin Carnahan

The choice is clear in this year’s Senate race. Robin Carnahan has been a tireless advocate for our generation, and her opponent, Roy Blunt, is simply out of touch.

Robin Carnahan has a strong record of fighting financial abuse in her time as Secretary of State – returning billions of dollars to would be victims of fraud. She also established Missouri’s first statewide voter registration system and has worked to end systemic voter disenfranchisement. By spearheading an effort to make more documents and information available online, she has demonstrated a commitment to transparency and accountability that is refreshing in this day and age. It is no surprise that she was re-elected in 2006 with more votes than any candidate in Missouri’s history.

While Robin has been working for us in Missouri, Roy Blunt has spent more than a decade in Washington, serving the needs of special interests and accumulating hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists. His close connection to notorious lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff is just the tip of Blunt’s iceberg of corruption. In 2002, he inserted a provision into the Homeland Security bill benefiting Phillip Morris while dating the company’s lobbyist. [1] As one of the top ten all-time recipients of money from BP, Roy Blunt has consistently voted for the interests of big oil, rubber-stamping the deregulation that lead to the disastrous Gulf oil spill. [2] These are just a few examples of Blunt prioritizing special interests over the interests of Missourians.

Robin Carnahan has offered a reasonable approach to the challenges facing our country. She supports common sense regulations to reign in the abuses of Wall Street, pragmatic reform to provide better health care for Missourians, and real solutions to the threat of climate change and dependence on foreign oil. Robin makes tackling problems like the deficit a personal mission, refusing to participate in the practice of earmarking.

Roy Blunt, on the other hand, helped design a 700 billion dollar bailout for his friends on Wall Street, but opposed regulation that would prevent big banks from engaging in the abuses that created the need for a bailout in the first place. [3] He opposes health care reform, and wants to repeal provisions that prevent health insurance companies from denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions, allow young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until the age of 26, and eliminate caps on lifetime benefits. [4] He denies the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming, and refuses to offer any solution to the threat of climate change. [5]

Our generation does not want another Bush era, lobbyist funded, corrupt politician. We want pragmatic leadership from someone willing to offer real solutions. We want a senator who will create job opportunities for college graduates, not a politician that supports bailouts for CEOs. We want a senator who understands the urgency of addressing climate change, not a politician that ignores the threat it posses to our generation’s future. We want a senator who is committed to transparency and accountability, not a politician in the pocket of lobbyists and special interests. We want Robin Carnahan, and we are proud to endorse her for the United States Senate.

For State Auditor: Susan Montee

The race for Missouri’s State Auditor comes down to a question of qualification, and only one candidate has the knowledge and experience for the job: Susan Montee.

Susan Montee was first elected to the position of State Auditor in 2006. She is a certified public accountant with 25 years of accounting and auditing experience. In the last four years, she has saved taxpayers millions of dollars by uncovering fraud and abuse with several successful audits. She has also turned a critical eye towards her own office, streamlining it and making it one of the most efficient in Missouri.

Susan’s opponent, while experienced as a federal prosecutor and as a special ambassador to Afghanistan, doesn’t have much experience that is relevant to the job for which he is running. This is not surprising, seeing as the State Auditor race was his fallback plan when Roy Blunt beat him to the race for Senate. [1] We need a State Auditor who is committed to the job, and has the knowledge and experience to do it well. We proudly endorse Susan Montee.

For U.S. Representative Dist. 1: Lacy Clay

Representative Clay holds several prominent positions in the U.S. House of Representatives, including the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives. His work on the Census this year focused on counting traditionally under-counted minorities, ensuring that our country’s promise of equality will be carried out with fair representation. Rep. Clay has also been a strong and consistent voice for civil rights legislation during both his 17 years in the Missouri Legislature and his 4 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He will continue to be a resilient voice for progressive values when re-elected, and we happily give him our support.

For Member of the Board of Education: Donna Jones and William Haas

Donna Jones has been actively involved as a parent in the community. We feel that it is very important, especially with the control held outside of Saint Louis, that the Board has a voice that represents the people who use the system.

William Haas is highly educated, and highly qualified for the position. He has spent many years working directly in the schools. When you combine all of his various knowledge and experience he is arguably the most qualified candidate in the race.

Constitutional Amendment Endorsements

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment No. 1

To quote the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, “Politics is the last thing Missouri needs from tax assessors.” [1] County assessors should be focused on doing their job fairly and objectively, which they cannot do if they are distracted by politics.

More importantly, this is not an issue that requires a Constitutional Amendment. If voters feel that they should be able to elect their county assessor, they can do so locally, just as Saint Louis County did in August. Unfortunately, this is one of several Amendments and Propositions on this year’s ballot in which statewide voters will control local issues – vote NO.

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment No. 2

While we support the intentions behind this Amendment, this is the wrong way to go about them. Constitutions should be streamlined frameworks for government, not vehicles for arbitrarily rewarding particular groups of people with tax exemptions. While we believe that the service performed by Missouri’s former POW’s is admirable and heroic, there are better ways to go about recognizing their service. For one, their service was not to Missouri, but to the federal government, and we support federal legislation to improve the treatment of those who have given so much for our country. Furthermore, it seems unfair to arbitrarily enshrine POWs in our state’s constitution. What about families of fallen soldiers, or Congressional Medal of Honor recipients? We should make efforts to honor all of our veterans, but we should do it responsibly and fairly. Constitutional Amendment No. 2 does not pass this test – vote NO.

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment No. 3

This is yet another local issue that is being subjected to a statewide vote. If there is concern about this particular tax, it should be voted on locally (if one is ever actually proposed). This will allow voters to consider the issue in the context of reality rather than this hypothetical. Do not bind the hands of local governments and voters with this unnecessary Amendment – vote NO.

Proposition Endorsements

Vote NO on Proposition A

Proposition A is nothing but a personal vendetta by a very wealthy individual to eliminate municipal earnings taxes in Missouri. Rex Sinquefield has spent over $10,000,000 on Proposition A, and has conducted a slimy campaign portraying the Proposition as an effort to “Let Voters Decide.” [1] We say this is slimy because it will have the exact opposite effect. It will prevent any municipality in Missouri that does not currently have an earnings tax from creating one, even if local voters ask for it.

For municipalities that do have earnings taxes, such as Saint Louis and Kansas City, Proposition A will require a vote every 5 years on whether to retain the tax. If at any point, voters choose not to retain the tax, it will be phased out over 10 years, and voters will not be able to reinstate it. About 140 million dollars, or 30%, of Saint Louis’s revenue comes from its earnings tax. If Proposition A passes, that revenue will be in limbo every five years. City officials, unable to rely on this revenue, will be crippled in their budgeting decisions. The city’s bond rating would plummet. Should the earnings tax be voted down, Saint Louis would be forced to make drastic cuts in public service, education, and infrastructure. To find an alternative revenue source, the city may be forced to impose a massive sales tax.

It is a sad reflection of our political process when one multimillionaire with a nefarious agenda is on the verge of bringing one of America’s greatest cities to its knees. Don’t let it happen – vote NO.

Vote YES on Proposition B

Missouri is the puppy mill capital of the country. Proposition B creates common sense regulations that will bring an end to the rampant abuse of puppies across the state. This is an easy one – Vote YES.

Vote YES on Proposition F

The current maximum fine in the city charter is not an effective deterrent, and an increase will help city officials to stop violations like illegal dumping. This is an important tool that city officials need to improve our city – vote YES.

Vote YES on Preferential Proposition L

This year’s ballot has a significant theme of local control, and this is one of the biggest questions. Missouri legislators that the residents of Saint Louis never elected should not have control over one of our most important municipal services. This is not a binding proposition, but we should send a strong message to the Missouri Legislature that Saint Louis wants local control.

Health Care Reforms Taking Effect This Month

Published by Thomas Bloom on September 3, 2010. 0 Comments Tags: Health Care Reform, healthcare.gov, obama, pre-existing conditions.

Several major aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Health Care Reform, will take effect on September 23rd:

Extending Coverage for Young Adults

Under the new law, young adults will be allowed to stay on their parent’s plan until they turn 26 years old. (In the case of existing group health plans, this right does not apply if the young adult is offered insurance at work.) Some insurers began implementing this practice early. Check with your insurance company or employer to see if you qualify. Learn more about the young adults insurance policy.

Providing Free Preventative Care

All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Learn more about preventive care benefits.

Prohibiting Insurance Companies from Rescinding Coverage

In the past, insurance companies could search for an error, or other technical mistake, on a customer’s application and use this error to deny payment for services when he or she got sick. The new law makes this illegal. After media reports cited incidents of breast cancer patients losing coverage, insurance companies agreed to end this practice immediately.

Appealing Insurance Company Decisions

The law provides consumers with a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims to their insurance company, and establishes an external review process.

Eliminating Lifetime Limits on Insurance Coverage

Under the new law, insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays.

Regulating Annual Limits on Insurance Coverage

Under the new law, insurance companies’ use of annual dollar limits on the amount of insurance coverage a patient may receive will be restricted for new plans in the individual market and all group plans. In 2014, the use of annual dollar limits on essential benefits like hospital stays will be banned for new plans in the individual market and all group plans.

Prohibiting Denying Coverage of Children Based on Pre-Existing Conditions

The new law includes new rules to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition.

~HealthCare.gov

Proposition C Consequences

Published by Thomas Bloom on August 8, 2010. 0 Comments Tags: august 3rd, Health Care Reform, pre-existing conditions, proposition c, republicans.

From the pages of The Progressive Billiken:

On August 3rd, Missouri voters passed Proposition C with over 70% of the vote. That was a mistake, and now Missourians will literally pay the consequences.

Proposition C reads as follows:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:

-Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
-Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?

It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.

Yes – For the Proposition
No – Against the Proposition

Supporters of Proposition C presented it as a referendum on the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or health care reform. In reality, it only addressed a component of health care reform – the individual mandate.

The individual mandate is one of the least popular components of health care reform. It makes it a legal requirement that every American purchase health insurance (federal subsidies are available for those who cannot afford to do so). However, it is an important foundation for most of the popular components of reform.

For example, health care reform makes it illegal for an insurance company to drop or deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. In other words, people will not lose their health insurance just for getting sick. This is a provision that most people across the ideological spectrum agree with. It also doesn’t work without the individual mandate.

Suppose Proposition C actually went into effect. Health insurance companies would still be required to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but Missourians would no longer be required to purchase insurance.

To understand why this is a problem, imagine a similar scenario in the car insurance industry. What if drivers were not required to purchase car insurance, but insurance companies could not deny coverage to anyone, even if someone were to apply for insurance the day after being in a car accident? People would take advantage of the system, waiting until they had a car accident to purchase car insurance. Similarly, if Proposition C were to go into effect, people would simply wait until they got sick to purchase health insurance.

All forms of insurance work the same way. A large pool of people pays into the system, covering each individual’s risk. This works well for health insurance if enough healthy people pay into the system to cover the costs of those who become sick. As the proportion of sick to healthy people in the insurance pool rises, the average risk for each individual in the pool rises, and costs go up. If people wait to purchase health insurance until they get sick, 100% of the people in the pool will be sick. The result is astronomically high premiums – the kind that the Missouri Hospital Association warned of as it encouraged Missourians to vote No on Proposition C.

Fortunately, Proposition C will probably be struck down in the courts due to the supremacy of federal law over state law. Still, the costs of Proposition C will be high. It forces the state of Missouri to go to court with the federal government, wasting countless state resources on court costs.

In the mean time, we are left to wonder why Republicans have been so supportive of Proposition C. Disagreeing with health care reform is one thing, but putting a reckless proposition on the ballot that could cause Missourians’ premiums to skyrocket, just to score some cheap political points? Disgraceful.

Denied Coverage Because of a Pre-Existing Condition? Fine by Blunt.

Published by Thomas Bloom on April 12, 2010. 0 Comments Tags: Health Care Reform, pre-existing conditions, robin carnahan, senate.

Let’s send a real leader to the US Senate: RobinCarnahan.com

Relentless Idealism

Published by Thomas Bloom on December 20, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: harry reid, Health Care Reform, pre-existing conditions, public option, senate.

UPDATE: The Senate passed Reid’s amendment with 60 votes at 1:19 am, successfully invoking cloture and moving reform forward in the Senate.

———————————————

Tonight, the United States Senate will hold a major vote on health care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has proposed an amendment that is expected to achieve a 60 vote majority in favor of the reform bill. With this filibuster-proof majority, Democrats will finally be able to pass the bill in the Senate, leaping one of the greatest hurdles facing reform.

These 60 votes have come at a cost. Compromises and concessions have been made. Many of the reforms we have fought for the hardest, including the public option, will not be in the bill. Some of our leaders have betrayed the principles, ideals, and hopes we entrusted them with when we cast our ballots. In November of 2008, America voted for bold, decisive action to fix our failing health care system. Our representatives have thus far failed to do the same.

My frustrations are not new or unique. This process has been plagued by distractions and distortions. I remember feeling bewilderment when the media spotlight shifted so quickly from the failures of the health care system and the desperate need for reform to the propaganda driven cries of “socialism!” I felt complete disbelief when this country suddenly stopped debating how to reform, and started debating whether or not we needed reform. I could not comprehend how anyone could get on TV and claim, with a straight face, that America has the best health care in the world, and that reform is not needed.

In the midst of all of this, it has been hard to maintain the feelings of hope and optimism I felt as a young American during the 2008 elections. In a political environment in which the special interests who scream the loudest always have an ear while the uninsured, struggling American is made voiceless, I have had difficulty believing that my voice is counted.

Despite these challenges and frustrations, I have not given up hope. The United States Senate will not give us real reform tonight, but it will take us one step closer. With the passage of this bill, over 30 million uninsured Americans will gain access to insurance coverage, and insurance company abuses, including discrimination based on “pre-existing conditions”, will end.

These are incredible accomplishments. They fall short of what we hoped for, but that is the story of progress in this country. We have always believed we can achieve greater things. Because of the spirit of this country and of this generation, we are never satisfied – we relentlessly strive for more.

But even as we refuse to surrender our idealism to frustration, we must simultaneously accept the role of gradual progress in the pursuit of our ideals. We can take small steps forward without diverting our sights from the distant horizon. That is why I will support and celebrate the tremendous step this legislation takes tonight, and that is why I will continue to fight for more, eyeing the endless horizon of our country’s potential.

Health Insurance Reform and Abortion

Published by Thomas Bloom on October 20, 2009. 1 Comment Tags: abortion, guttmacher institute, Health Care Reform, john boehner, politifact.com, posters, pre-existing conditions, pregnancy, roe v. wade, vandalism, women.

Last week, the SLU College Democrats put up posters throughout campus that highlighted problems with the existing American healthcare system and encouraged students to contact their representatives to support reform. All of these posters can be seen on our earlier post. Many of these posters were posted on stakes in the quad and along West Pine Mall Blvd. On Friday, 10/16, between noon and 1 pm, these posters were subjected to vandalism. On 12 of the signs in the quad and along West Pine, “abortion is not healthcare” was written in permanent marker. We do not know who is responsible for this and we are not making any accusations. However, we are extremely disappointed by the complete lack of respect for our organization. Sadly, this incident reflects the wider issue of a decline in the level of the political discourse in our country.

That being said, I wish to use this incident to elevate our political discourse. Clearly, the person(s) who vandalized the signs have concerns about how health insurance reform will affect abortion rates in America. There is a widespread myth that current reform plans will, as House Minority Leader John Boehner claimed in July, “require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.” The non-partisan politifact.com has called this statement “false”. In fact, most reform bills in congress contain provisions specifically prohibiting the use of tax-payer dollars to fund abortion.

I found the vandalized poster pictured to the right particularly interesting. The poster points out the incredible costs of pregnancy for an uninsured woman. A 2005 study by the Guttmacher Institute shows that nearly 3/4 of women who have abortions list financial instability as a major reason for their decision. If all of these women had health insurance, the financial burden of having a child would be eased, and many of them might not have chosen to abort.

My intention is not to take a position for or against Roe v. Wade, but to argue that health insurance reform will reduce the elevated abortion rate in America by providing women better options for raising a child. Regardless of a person’s opinion on the legality of abortion, everyone can generally agree that giving women better reproductive options is a good thing. The current health care system fails to provide these options, and often creates incentives for women to choose abortion. Insurance companies, motivated by profits, have an incentive to avoid the costs of covering pregnancies. As a result, they charge higher premiums for women during their reproductive years, and they even drop women’s coverage when they become pregnant, citing the pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.

I invite the person(s) who vandalized our posters to respond to this argument in a peaceful, nondestructive manner. I have no interest in the apprehension or punishment of these person(s) as I believe that their actions were motivated by a good intention of speaking out about something they passionately believed was unjust. I only hope that in the future, they will do so in a way that elevates the political discourse rather than disrespecting others and their property.

Speak Up for Reform!

Published by SLU Dems on October 12, 2009. 0 Comments Tags: domestic violence, Health Care Reform, martin luther king jr, posters, pre-existing conditions, ted kennedy, united states conference of catholic bishops.