I was going to write this, but Arianna Huffington beat me to it

Remember all of the right-wing blather about the Constitution last winter when President Obama was trying to push health care reform through the Congress?

Blah, blah, blah, we have to stick to the Constitution! The Constitution doesn't say the federal government should provide universal health care, so we shouldn't do it!

"It's not in the Constitution!" was used repeatedly as an excuse to do nothing to solve the country's multiple problems. Republicans proudly wore the badge of "Constitutional Conservative"-- until Arizona's chief wing nut Russel "Father-of-SB1070" Pearce came up with another popular white supremacist idea-- anchor babies.

What's a Constitutional Conservative-- a defender of the Constitution's purity-- to do?

The Constitution clearly says that any baby born in the US is a US citizen. There are no qualifications to that statement-- no stipulations about race, ethnicity, religion, parental citizenship-- or exclusion for mixed race Hawaiians born in the early 1960s. For a humorous look at the Congressional debate that took place when the 14th Amendment was passed originally, check out this Daily Show link..."I know it's hard to be tough on babies, but..."

Now that prominent national whities like US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have picked up Pearce's anti-anchor baby idea, things are getting progressively scarier, and right-wingers are coming out of the woodwork to speak out against the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

To put all of this Constitutional rhetoric into perspective, the Huffington Post published Republicans Hot, Cold on Constitution last week. The article is full of interesting factoids about politicians using the Constitution-- when it suits them-- and offering changes when it doesn't. According to Huff Post, Republicans have offered 42 amendments to the Constitution in this session, and the Democrats have offered 27.

Both numbers are shockingly large in my opinion, and all of these amendments-- and the anchor baby rhetoric, in particular-- smack of political grandstanding and just plain hogwash.

Our forefathers-- in their infinite wisdom-- made it really difficult to amend the Constitution-- thank God (or our elected officials would have thrown the country into the abyss in the name of ideology long ago.)



Does anyone remember the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)? (I do, and here is a photo of my ERA bracelet-- none of those plastic things for us feminists. We knew we were going to be wearing these ERA bracelets for a long time as we fought for equality for women.) The ERA was an amendment to the Constitution that would have guaranteed equal rights under any federal, state, or local law and would have prohibited discrimination based upon sex. It received the required 2/3 vote of each house of Congress-- a feat that seems miraculous now-- but failed to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures by the 1982 deadline (10 years after it was originally proposed).

The whities who are blabbing about an anchor baby amendment aren't serious. They're using this issue as another wedge to pit races and ethnicities against each other... divide and conquer, and by the way, don't forget to vote for the wise whitie who can save you from the Hottentots and the Mongol hoards. (Sarcasm here, check out the link.)

All I can say is that it is a sad day in America when anyone outside of Mesa listens to Russel Pearce's ideas.

July 1, 2010: The first day of the rest of your life

Today, a major wave of healthcare reforms begins.

Today, most importantly, the pre-existing condition dies. You can no longer be denied health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition.

If you are among the one in five Americans with a pre-existing condition and you have been denied healthcare insurance, you can sign up for a high-risk healthcare pool today.

Of course, since this system was designed by Congress, it's a bit complicated to apply. And, since state's like to hold some power, there will be some variability across states. For example, according to the LA Times, the rates for high-risk pools could vary from $140 to 900 per month. BUT, the main point is that you will not be denied coverage.

Ironically, some states that beat the states' rights drum most often-- like Arizona!-- have asked the feds to run their high-risk pools. Twenty-one states want the federal government to run their programs, while 29 others will be running their own high-risk pools.

What does all of this mean to you and your family? Check out the government's newly designed Healthcare.gov. The site includes an easy-to-use interactive tool to help you find plans in your state.

For more background, the Los Angeles Times has an extensive series of articles related to reform.

Dueling press releases: Congressional Dems defend vote, blast Brewer's cold-hearted budget cuts

Less than 24 hours after the signing of the new federal healthcare reform legislation by President Obama, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued a statement voicing her opposition to the bill and parroting Republican talking points regarding cost.

"It will cost the citizens of the State of Arizona at least $1 billion in 2012 and more than $1 billion in 2013," states Brewer. In addition, she alludes to "the state deficit hole they have created" with healthcare reform. Of course, her statement doesn't mention any of the benefits of the bill for Arizonans-- particularly the hundreds of thousands of residents who were recently knocked off of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS).

In a show of strength and solidarity, Arizona's for Congressional Democrats--Harry Mitchell, Ed Pastor, Gabrielle Giffords, and Raul Grijalva-- issued a joint statement on Tuesday, March 23 and answered charges made by Brewer and other Republicans.

Here are their main points:

- The bill will provide $2.5 billion in new Medicaid funding for Arizona.

- Arizona's Republican Governor and state legislature recently kicked approximately 400,000 Arizonans, including 40,000 children, off their health insurance.

- Slashing Medicaid and KidsCare like this puts Arizona at risk to lose billions in federal matching funds and kill over 42,000 jobs.

- The Governor's claim that the new federal legislation will "cost $1 billion or more to Arizona are hyperbolic and completely unfounded. They are thinly veiled attempts to divert attention from their misplaced priorities and poor judgment that will keep families from receiving the health care."

- The state budget cuts "will dig the state into a deeper budget hole by jeopardizing $7 billion in federal funds. These are funds that were paid by Arizona taxpayers and they should not be forfeited because of the ill conceived decisions made by the legislature and the Governor."

- The suggestion that this new legislation is responsible for Arizona’s budget crisis is "absurd." Arizona's budget crisis predates the health insurance reform bill and will continue for the foreseeable future.

- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AKA the Stimulus bill)-- supported by Mitchell, Giffords, Grijalva, and Pastor--has "provided Arizona with $1.2 billion in extra Medicaid funds with another billion on its way."

Who should you believe? Why not read the facts? Check out this official link.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column.

Healthcare reform anyone?

Today is "the day" in a year of landmark votes on healthcare reform. As I write this on Sunday morning, National Public Radio is predicting the vote on reform in the US House of Representatives will come within hours.

This has been a week of arm-twisting, media hype, dueling polls, rallies, e-mail blasts, and facebook posts from both pro- and anti-reform camps. My personal survival strategy was to not watch television and limit my talk radio listening. Ed Schultz spent much of the week pushing for passage of the reform legislation but vowing to fight for more reform until a single payer system is achieved. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now aired several stories throughout the week, including an nterviewed Congressman Dennis Kucinich after he agreed to vote for reform. Kucinich also vowed to keep pushing for a single payer system, saying this bill is just the first step.

I was impressed with President Obama's use of social media to get the pro-reform word out to supporters. Move On and Organizing for America sent thousands of e-mails urging reform advocates to call their representatives and senators and to rally for reform.

On Friday, March 19, several of us from the local Drinking Liberally club joined other progressives for a Move On rally in front of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' Tucson office. Approximately 150 reform advocates waved signs, cheered, and chanted. (They were joined by 3 anti-reform protesters.) Earlier in the week the Arizona Daily Star reported that Giffords and Congressman Raul Grijalva would both vote for reform today.

Hundreds of lunch-hour motorists cheered and honked as they passed the marchers. If honks were votes, I'd say that there is strong support for reform in Tucson. What will happen today? Who knows, but since Barack is one of my friends on facebook, I'm sure he'll post the news on his wall.

This article was originally published in my Progressive Examiner column. To see a slide show from the Tucson rally, click on the Examiner link.

Is the public option dead? Say it ain't so...

It seems as if the US Congress has been debating healthcare reform for an eternity. Remember last summer when President Obama was hopeful that Congress would get 'er done before the August break? Ha! We'll be lucky if they finish before the Christmas break.

The latest wrangling in the Senate sounds like a good idea, but in the long run, it's probably not. The latest Congressional shell game to avoid a "robust" public option and still make it look as if they are reforming the healthcare non-system is to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55 and all younger folks who are not covered by insurance to buy into the federal system.

A little disclosure here, I am over 55 and buying into Medicare is attractive to me, but in the long term, this move benefits insurance companies more than anyone else. People use more health insurance as they age. By pushing the Baby Boomers-- who are getting older and fatter everyday-- off on the government, insurance companies are left with the "cream of the crop"-- younger, healthier Americans who are less likely to make a claim.

Shifting the cost to care for the people most likely to make a claim to the government will surely break the Medicare bank-- already scheduled to go bankrupt in 2012 (or 2017 depending upon how you crunch the numbers but in any case that's not too far away).

In a recent blog post, former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich says that this latest development will give insurance companies even more control over the current non-system, will do nothing to curb obscene profits, and will do nothing to control costs. It also guarantees that healthcare reform will be revisited in the coming years.

Again, this debate proves that we have the best Congress money can buy.

John McCain, Your Constituents Want the Public Option

Wednesday afternoon Move On organized a healthcare reform rally in front of Senator John McCain's office in downtown Tucson.


Fifty or so people waived signs and chanted as commuters headed out of downtown in evening traffic. The protesters were looking for their senator and wondering what happened to that "maverick" and his straight talk express. You know-- that guy who talked about campaign finance reform years ago? What happened to him? He seems to have forgotten his constituency and dissolved into the mainstream, ultra-conservative Republican Party (along with his partner in crime, Senator Jon Kyl).

A few speakers told their personal horror stories about health insurance problems, and State Representative Phil Lopes urged everyone to keep fighting for the simplest public option solution-- extension of Medicare to all. (After all, Medicare is working well for US seniors, why can't the rest of us have that as an option?)

After the chanting, sign-waving, and speeches, the group went to the door of McCain's office to present him with a $3.4 million dollar check-- representing the amount of money he has received from the healthcare insurance industry over the years. You see, John McCain has received more campaign contributions from the healthcare industry in his career than anyone else in the US Senate.

Protesters politely knocked on McCain's office door, but no one answered. McCain's constituents were locked out--again-- a symbolic gesture given the differences between his stance on reform and the opinions of many in Southern Arizona.

There will be more rallies. McCain and Kyl, we're not giving up.

Feel Our Pain: Uninsure Congress

The US Congress is moving at its usual glacial speed on health care reform. Proponents of reform are working hard-- organizing, rallying, phone-banking, and canvasing-- to ensure grassroots support for a meaningful resolution to the debate. Unfortunately, lobbyists are working just as hard to keep the status quo, and they have millions of dollars behind them.

Given the overwhelming data, it's hard to believe that the US Senate seems to be frozen in time. Here are a few facts:
- The US pays more for health insurance coverage than any other country in the world.
- And yet millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured.
- The cost for health insurance coverage continues to rise exponentially.
- Most bankruptcies in the US are caused by astronomical medical bills.
- Most citizens-- including most physicians-- support healthcare reform (1, 2) that includes a public option or a single payer system.

So, why don't we have healthcare reform legislation yet? Follow the money.
- Top insurers are spending millions of dollars to keep the status quo.
- Big Pharma is also spending millions to fight lower cost drugs.
- Who's the beneficiary of all of this monetary largesse? You guessed it-- our Congress-- including Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus, two influential members of the powerful Senate Finance Committee. Here are just a few links regarding campaign contributions 1, 2, 3, 4.

Robert Reich summed up the insurance industry's position up nicely in a recent blog post entitled The Audacity of Greed.

So, to sum up: we know there is a need for reform, we know the status quo stakeholders are spending millions to keep the current system, and we know our weak-kneed Congress has been receiving millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Given these conditions, how can we impress Congress with the need for reform?

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times had a great idea in his opinion piece entitled Let Congress Go without Insurance. Kristof postulates that to truly understand the problems that uninsured and underinsured Americans are facing Congress should be divested of their Cadillac insurance at a rate proportional to the national rates of insurance. He suggests that if they fail to pass meaningful reform, 15% of them should lose their healthcare insurance entirely and another 8% should receive inadequate insurance.

Sounds like a plan to me. Direct experience is a wonderful tutor.

Originally published on Muse Views, October 13, 2009