FEEL FREE TO LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS AFTER READING THE MOST RECENT KENNEDY NEWS!!!
Showing posts with label health care legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care legislation. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2009

Spokesman: Kennedy talking health care with Obama

Ailing Senator Ted Kennedy, trying to help push health care reform as he recovers at his Massachusetts home from brain cancer, is talking to President Obama about the legislation.

Kennedy spokesman Anthony Coley confirmed to CNN that the President and Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) have spoken twice in the last two weeks.
Coley said Kennedy is closely watching developments on Capitol Hill from his home on Cape Cod. He monitors health care reform congressional hearings on television and reads daily news clips on the issue sent to him by his office staff, Coley said.
Meanwhile, the 77-year-old senator was spotted sailing this weekend in the waters near the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port.
Kennedy boarded his sailboat the "Mya" late Sunday afternoon, wearing an orange jacket, blue jeans, tennis shoes, sunglasses, and a white cap to protect his head and neck. He was surrounded by family members, including sons Ted Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy.
Photographer David G. Curren said Kennedy appeared stronger than a week earlier. Kennedy rode a golf cart to get to the boat at the Hyannis Port Yacht Club. But he was able to stand up and get onto the boat with someone holding on to him.
Curren said Kennedy was in good spirits, and the photographerer said he was struck by Kennedy's wide smile. He said Kennedy goes on the water whenever he can, "and you can tell it's what he loves to do. He's generally smiling" when he sails.
The senator and his family were on Nantucket Sound for a few hours Sunday aboard his 50-foot boat.

Go to:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/27/spokesman-kennedy-talking-health-care-with-obama/

Monday, July 20, 2009

‘The Cause of My Life’ by Ted Kennedy

July 18, 2009

In 1964, I was flying with several companions to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention when our small plane crashed and burned short of the runway. My friend and colleague in the Senate, Birch Bayh, risked his life to pull me from the wreckage. Our pilot, Edwin Zimny, and my administrative assistant, Ed Moss, didn't survive. With crushed vertebrae, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung, I spent months in New England Baptist Hospital in Boston. To prevent paralysis, I was strapped into a special bed that immobilizes a patient between two canvas slings. Nurses would regularly turn me over so my lungs didn't fill with fluid. I knew the care was expensive, but I didn't have to worry about that. I needed the care and I got it.

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I've undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.
But quality care shouldn't depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.
This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, "that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege." For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it's always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.
Nothing I'm enduring now can compare to hearing that my children were seriously ill. In 1973, when I was first fighting in the Senate for universal coverage, we learned that my 12-year-old son Teddy had bone cancer. He had to have his right leg amputated above the knee. Even then, the pathology report showed that some of the cancer cells were very aggressive. There were only a few long-shot options to stop it from spreading further. I decided his best chance for survival was a clinical trial involving massive doses of chemotherapy. Every three weeks, at Children's Hospital Boston, he had to lie still for six hours while the fluid dripped into his arm. I remember watching and praying for him, all the while knowing how sick he would be for days afterward.
During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child's life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage. But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I've sold everything. I've mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world.
That experience with Teddy made it clear to me, as never before, that health care must be affordable and available for every mother or father who hears a sick child cry in the night and worries about the deductibles and copays if they go to the doctor. But that was just one medical crisis. My family, like every other, has faced many—at every stage of life. I think of my parents and the medical care they needed after their strokes. I think of my son Patrick, who suffered serious asthma as a child and sometimes had to be rushed to the hospital for treatment. (For this reason, we had no dogs in the house when Patrick was young.) I think of my daughter, Kara, diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002. Few doctors were willing to try an operation. One did—and after that surgery and arduous rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, she's alive and healthy today. My family has had the care it needed. Other families have not, simply because they could not afford it.

I have seen letters and e-mails from many of these less fortunate Americans. In their pleas, there's always dignity, but too often desperation. "Our school is closing in June of 2010, which means that I will be losing my job and my health insurance," writes Mary Dunn, a 58-year-old schoolteacher in Eden, S.D. "I am a Type I diabetic, and I had heart bypass surgery in 2005. My husband is also a teacher [here], so we will both be losing insurance. I am exploring options and have been told that I cannot stay on our group policy or transfer to another policy after our jobs cease because of my medical condition. What am I to do after 39 years of teaching to acquire adequate health coverage?" Dunn also serves as mayor of Eden, for which she is paid $45 a month with no health benefits.
How will we, as a nation, answer her? I've heard countless such stories, including one from the family of Cassandra Wilson, a 14-year-old who once was a competitive ice skater. She's uninsured because she has petit mal seizures, often 200 times a day. Her parents have run up $30,000 on their credit cards. They've sold her skating equipment on eBay to pay for her care.
These two cases represent only those patients who lack coverage. We also need to find answers for the increasing number of Americans whose insurance costs too much, covers too little, and can be too easily revoked when they face the most serious illnesses.
Our response to these challenges will define our character as a country. But the challenges themselves—and the demands for reform—are not new. In 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt ran for a third term as president, the platform of his newly created Progressive Party called for national health insurance. Harry Truman proposed it again more than 30 years after Roosevelt was defeated. The plan was attacked, not for the last time, as "socialized medicine," and members of Truman's White House staff were branded "followers of the Moscow party line."
For the next generation, no one ventured to tread where T.R. and Truman fell short. But in the early 1960s, a new young president was determined to take a first step—to free the elderly from the threat of medical poverty. John Kennedy called Medicare "one of the most important measures I have advocated." He understood the pain of injury and illness: as a senator, he had almost died after surgery to repair a back injury sustained during World War II, an injury that would plague him all of his life. I was in college as he recuperated and learned to walk without crutches at my parents' winter home in Florida. I visited often, and we spent afternoons painting landscapes and seascapes. (It was a competition: at dinner after we finished, we would ask family members to decide whose painting was better.) I saw how the pain would periodically hit him as we were painting; he'd have to put down his brush for a while. And I saw, too, how hard he fought as president to pass Medicare. It was a battle he didn't have the opportunity to finish. But I was in the Senate to vote for the Medicare bill before Lyndon Johnson signed it into law—with Harry Truman at his side. In the Senate, I viewed Medicare as a great achievement, but only a beginning. In 1966, I visited the Columbia Point Neighborhood Health Center in Boston; it was a pilot project providing health services to low-income families in the two-floor office of an apartment building. I saw mothers in rocking chairs, tending their children in a warm and welcoming setting. They told me this was the first time they could get basic care without spending hours on public transportation and in hospital waiting rooms. I authored legislation, which passed a few months later, establishing the network of community health centers that are all around America today.

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.
That didn't happen as soon as I thought it would. When Bill Clinton returned to the issue in the first years of his presidency, I fought the battle in Congress. We lost to a virtually united front of corporations, insurance companies, and other interest groups. The Clinton proposal never even came to a vote. But we didn't just walk away and do nothing—even though Republicans were again in control of Congress. We returned to a step-by-step approach. With Sen. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas, the daughter of the 1936 Republican presidential nominee, I crafted a law to make health insurance more portable for those who change or lose jobs. It didn't do enough to fully guarantee that, but we made progress. I worked with my friend Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Republican chair of our committee, to enact CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program; today it covers more than 7 million children from low-income families, although too many of them could soon lose coverage as impoverished state governments cut their contributions.
Incremental measures won't suffice anymore. We need to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt and all others since have failed. The conditions now are better than ever. In Barack Obama, we have a president who's announced that he's determined to sign a bill into law this fall. And much of the business community, which has suffered the economic cost of inaction, is helping to shape change, not lobbying against it. I know this because I've spent the past year, along with my staff, negotiating with business leaders, hospital administrators, and doctors. As soon as I left the hospital last summer, I was on the phone, and I've kept at it. Since the inauguration, the administration has been deeply involved in the process. So have my Senate colleagues—in particular Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee, and my friend and partner in this mission, Chris Dodd. Even those most ardently opposed to reform in the past have been willing to make constructive gestures now.
To help finance a bill, the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to lower prices for seniors, not only saving them money for prescriptions but also saving the government tens of billions in Medicare payments over the next decade. Senator Baucus has agreed with hospitals on more than $100 billion in savings. We're working with Republicans to make this a bipartisan effort. Everyone won't be satisfied—and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles—in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation.
I long ago learned that you have to be a realist as you pursue your ideals. But whatever the compromises, there are several elements that are essential to any health-reform plan worthy of the name.
First, we have to cover the uninsured. When President Clinton proposed his plan, 33 million Americans had no health insurance. Today the official number has reached 47 million, but the economic crisis will certainly push the total higher. Unless we act now, within a few years, 55 million Americans could be left without coverage even as the economy recovers.
All Americans should be required to have insurance. For those who can't afford the premiums, we can provide subsidies. We'll make it illegal to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. We'll also prohibit the practice of charging women higher premiums than men, and the elderly far higher premiums than anyone else. The bill drafted by the Senate health committee will let children be covered by their parents' policy until the age of 26, since first jobs after high school or college often don't offer health benefits.
To accomplish all of this, we have to cut the costs of health care. For families who've seen health-insurance premiums more than double—from an average of less than $6,000 a year to nearly $13,000 since 1999—one of the most controversial features of reform is one of the most vital. It's been called the "public plan." Despite what its detractors allege, it's not "socialism." It could take a number of different forms. Our bill favors a "community health-insurance option." In short, this means that the federal government would negotiate rates—in keeping with local economic conditions—for a plan that would be offered alongside private insurance options. This will foster competition in pricing and services. It will be a safety net, giving Americans a place to go when they can't find or afford private insurance, and it's critical to holding costs down for everyone.
We also need to move from a system that rewards doctors for the sheer volume of tests and treatments they prescribe to one that rewards quality and positive outcomes. For example, in Medicare today, 18 percent of patients discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days—at a cost of more than $15 billion in 2005. Most of these readmissions are unnecessary, but we don't reward hospitals and doctors for preventing them. By changing that, we'll save billions of dollars while improving the quality of care for patients.
Social justice is often the best economics. We can help disabled Americans who want to live in their homes instead of a nursing home. Simple things can make all the difference, like having the money to install handrails or have someone stop by and help every day. It's more humane and less costly—for the government and for families—than paying for institutionalized care. That's why we should give all Americans a tax deduction to set aside a small portion of their earnings each month to provide for long-term care.
Another cardinal principle of reform: we have to make certain that people can keep the coverage they already have. Millions of employers already provide health insurance for their employees. We shouldn't do anything to disturb this. On the contrary, we need to mandate employer responsibility: except for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, every company should have to cover its workers or pay into a system that will.
We need to prevent disease and not just cure it. (Today 80 percent of health spending pays for care for the 20 percent of Americans with chronic illnesses like diabetes, cancer, or heart disease.) Too many people get to the doctor too seldom or too late—or know too little about how to stay healthy. No one knows better than I do that when it comes to advanced, highly specialized treatments, America can boast the best health care in the world—at least for those who can afford it. But we still have to modernize a system that doesn't always provide the basics.
I've heard the critics complain about the costs of change. I'm confident that at the end of the process, the change will be paid for—fairly, responsibly, and without adding to the federal deficit. It doesn't make sense to negotiate in the pages of NEWSWEEK, but I will say that I'm open to many options, including a surtax on the wealthy, as long as it meets the principle laid down by President Obama: that there will be no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. What I haven't heard the critics discuss is the cost of inaction. If we don't reform the system, if we leave things as they are, health-care inflation will cost far more over the next decade than health-care reform. We will pay far more for far less—with millions more Americans uninsured or underinsured.
This would threaten not just the health of Americans but also the strength of the American economy. Health-care spending already accounts for 17 percent of our entire domestic product. In other advanced nations, where the figure is around 10 percent, everyone has insurance and health outcomes that are equal or better than ours. This disparity undermines our ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. General Motors spends more per vehicle on health care than on steel.
We will bring health-care reform to the Senate and House floors soon, and there will be a vote. A century-long struggle will reach its climax. We're almost there. In the meantime, I will continue what I've been doing—making calls, urging progress. I've had dinner twice recently at my home in Hyannis Port with Senator Dodd, and when President Obama called me during his Rome trip after meeting with the Pope, much of our discussion was about health care. I believe the bill will pass, and we will end the disgrace of America as the only major industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee health care for all of its people.

At another Democratic convention, in arguing for this cause, I spoke of the insurance coverage senators and members of Congress provide for themselves. That was 1980. In the last year, I've often relied on that Congressional insurance. My wife, Vicki, and I have worried about many things, but not whether we could afford my care and treatment. Each time I've made a phone call or held a meeting about the health bill—or even when I've had the opportunity to get out for a sail along the Massachusetts coast—I've thought in an even more powerful way than before about what this will mean to others. And I am resolved to see to it this year that we create a system to ensure that someday, when there is a cure for the disease I now have, no American who needs it will be denied it.

Go to:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/207406/page/1

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Kennedy calls for health insurance change

March 24, 2009

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, back on Capitol Hill to pursue his political dream of universal healthcare, is declaring in a hearing today that the insurance market is broken and must be fixed.
"As the economic crisis worsens and the unemployment rate rises, the number of uninsured citizens will grow. In February 2009, more than eight percent of Americans were unemployed and 1.1 million of them will become uninsured with each one percent increase in unemployment. To guarantee that all Americans have access to quality medical services, we clearly must reform the current health insurance market," Kennedy said in a statement entered into the record before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Kennedy says that Congress should look at the healthcare overhaul in Massachusetts for "sensible reform." The Bay State plan includes an individual mandate -- something that President Obama opposes.
"A key component is the requirement that all individuals must have health insurance and that insurance must meet a minimum standard of coverage," Kennedy says in his statement.
"To assist those who have difficulty finding affordable health insurance, a state-wide “Insurance Connector” was created to pool individuals together. The plan assists low-income residents with a sliding-scale subsidy to ensure affordability. Although the nation has many diverse health insurance markets, Massachusetts’ reform shows that insurance market reforms can make a large difference – insurance coverage has risen from 94% percent to when the plan took effect in 2006 to over 97% percent today."

His full statement, provided by his Senate office, is below:
The cost of health insurance has been soaring out of control in recent years and shows no sign of slowing. Family health insurance premiums have increased by 80 percent since 2001, compared with a 24 percent increase in overall inflation. Studies estimate that 46 million Americans have no health insurance at all, and millions more are underinsured.
As the economic crisis worsens and the unemployment rate rises, the number of uninsured citizens will grow. In February 2009, more than eight percent of Americans were unemployed and 1.1 million of them will become uninsured with each one percent increase in unemployment. To guarantee that all Americans have access to quality medical services, we clearly must reform the current health insurance market.
Our goal must be to provide affordable health insurance for all Americans. Most health insurance markets do not work well today for most Americans. Small employers with fewer than 50 workers lack bargaining power to negotiate affordable prices with insurers. As a result, these employers either can’t provide insurance, or pay huge prices for coverage. Healthy individuals who can afford to pay the cost may be able to purchase private plans, but Americans with health problems – even minor conditions – often cannot find an insurer who will sell to them, or will sell at an unaffordable price.
No one is immune from the growing cost of health insurance and medical care. Large employers who historically provided full benefit packages now struggle to afford the cost of any insurance for their employees.
To reform our system, we must change how we provide and administer health insurance. In most states, insurers legally avoid providing coverage for the sick, while competing only for the healthy. In national health reform, insurers must interact with consumers efficiently, respectfully and transparently. Health insurance should help people become healthy and stay healthy. In a reasonable health insurance market, insurers should compete on price, value and patient satisfaction, not on avoiding those in need.
Massachusetts’ recent success in achieving near universal coverage shows the promise of sensible reform. A key component is the requirement that all individuals must have health insurance and that insurance must meet a minimum standard of coverage. To assist those who have difficulty finding affordable health insurance, a state-wide “Insurance Connector” was created to pool individuals together. The plan assists low-income residents with a sliding-scale subsidy to ensure affordability. Although the nation has many diverse health insurance markets, Massachusetts’ reform shows that insurance market reforms can make a large difference – insurance coverage has risen from 94% percent to when the plan took effect in 2006 to over 97% percent today.
National surveys show that the primary reason that citizens and their families are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance. In large part, coverage is too expensive because of out-of-control medical spending that consumes more than 16 percent of our national economy. For many Americans who do not have access to employer-sponsored insurance and who face health problems, insurance may not be available at any price. For Americans fortunate enough to have insurance, premiums take ever larger portions of paychecks, and rising deductibles, co-insurance and co-payments shift more of the financial burden of sickness to the patient.
We can no longer stand by while these problems grow. At this unique time in history we must seize the moment and move forward with genuine and comprehensive health reform for all Americans. To his great credit, President Obama has made such reform an early and high priority of his Administration, and the momentum is clearly with us for the first time in many years.
I commend Senator Jeff Bingaman for his impressive leadership on the HELP Committee in addressing these urgent needs. I’m hopeful that a major result of the current reform effort will be health insurance markets in every part of the nation that work for every consumer. Now is the time for Congress and the Administration, business groups and labor and consumers, health care providers, and the insurance industry to join together to create meaningful reform of our dysfunctional health insurance system.

Go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/kennedy_calls_f.html

Kennedy returns to Hill as work on health plan is gearing up

March 23, 2009

Senator Edward M. Kennedy is back in Washington this week to shepherd a bipartisan bill that would greatly expand funding for national service and to hold a series of meetings on healthcare as part of an effort to draft a massive overhaul plan this summer.
It would be the longest stint on Capitol Hill of the Obama administration for Kennedy
, who has been in Florida recuperating and undergoing treatment for brain cancer.
(...)
Kennedy has been a passionate advocate of the national service legislation, which builds on initiatives to boost public service that began during his brother's presidency. The measure was the first major piece of legislation the ailing lawmaker brought forward after being diagnosed with a brain tumor last May.
Written with Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, the plan would provide $5 billion over five years to fund 250,000 volunteers in energy, environmental, healthcare, and education programs. A similar measure passed overwhelmingly last week in the House, 321-105, with 70 Republican votes, and President Obama highlighted the effort in his first joint address to Congress.
The Massachusetts Democrat was part of a 74-14 vote last evening to bring the bill to the Senate floor. A final vote is likely this week.
Kennedy - who is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee - will also hold meetings on healthcare, a spokesman said yesterday.
He and his staff have been working closely with Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who laid out a breakneck schedule for a healthcare overhaul, including a review of healthcare delivery in April, an examination of ways to expand coverage in May, and an examination of financing options before drafting the proposed legislation by June.
Kennedy "and I have set up regular meetings with those senators who will play a role in health reform, to inform and oversee the process as our staffs work closely together to craft a bill," Baucus wrote yesterday in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper. "In the coming weeks and months, the Senate Finance Committee and the entire Congress will try, try again to pass comprehensive health reform. And this time, there is a better chance than ever to succeed."

Go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/24/kennedy_returns_to_hill_as_work_on_health_plan_is_gearing_up?mode=PF

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Kennedy returns to Washington as health care reform heats up

Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has been recuperating from brain cancer surgery, was back in Washington on Thursday as President Obama set out to tackle a major domestic policy item on his increasingly loaded plate -- health care reform.
(...) But according to aides, Kennedy has been meeting with his staff multiple times a day, and is actively engaged in directing and coordinating movement on his committee on health care reform.
Ron Pollack of Families USA said Thursday that despite Kennedy's absence from Washington, his work championing health care goes on.
"Sen. Kennedy gets more done in Florida or Massachusetts in terms of what Congress needs to do than a lot of people do when they're here in Washington," he said. "So he has made sure that his staff and his committee are fully prepared for the health reform debate."
Kennedy's colleague Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said Thursday that while it's "hard when you're not here" pushing for reform, Kennedy has an "excellent staff and he is in constant communication with them on what he wants to do."
Hatch, a Republican, said that Kennedy's long history of working on the issue and outreach to the health care community will help him in his quest.
"He, more than any other person, can get those groups to move on health care, and that's one reason he is very important to this process," Hatch said. "He's got so much experience he can spend less time on it than most people."
During his long political career, Kennedy has championed social causes such as health care, education, family leave and the minimum wage. He is the author of "In Critical Condition: The Crisis in America's Health Care."
Kennedy chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and is a ranking member of the Judiciary and Armed Services committees.
Pollack says Kennedy is in constant contact with his colleagues in the Senate and his staff has been holding meetings for months on the health care issue.
"Now that he's here [in Washington], he's going to give a real life to this debate," Pollack added.
Recently, Kennedy's wife asked supporters to contribute to his political action committee -- a donation she said would help him in the quest to establish health care for "all Americans."
"He believes that every American has the right to decent, quality, affordable health care, and fighting for that right is the cause of his life," Victoria Reggie Kennedy wrote in the e-mail sent by her husband's Committee for a Democratic Majority.
Go to:

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Baucus says he'll meet with Kennedy on healthcare

Senator Max Baucus said yesterday that he plans to have lunch with Senator Edward M. Kennedy this week to discuss a major healthcare overhaul, the top priority for both Democrats.
The appointment is significant because Kennedy, who is suffering from brain cancer, has mostly been in Florida since Inauguration Day, when he experienced a seizure during a luncheon. The Massachusetts senator returned to Capitol Hill briefly last month to cast a key vote on the economic stimulus package.
At a Kaiser Family Foundation breakfast, Baucus said he has been speaking frequently with Kennedy about healthcare, the subject of a summit President Obama is convening tomorrow.
Baucus, who said he wants a bill voted on by the Senate by early summer, did not say whether Kennedy would attend the summit, but he said the two are working together closely
. They recently coauthored a Wall Street Journal opinion piece about the need for a health overhaul.
Obama put $634 billion in his 10-year budget plan as a down payment and on Monday named two key aides to push an overhaul: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as health and human services secretary, and former Clinton administration official Nancy DeParle as director of the White House Office of Health Reform.

Go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/03/04/as_market_staggers_obama_keeps_focus_on_long_term/

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Can Obama deliver healthcare overhaul for Kennedy?

One year ago, Ted Kennedy faced a crucial choice between two presidential candidates seeking his endorsement.
One of them, Hillary Rodham Clinton, emphasized the necessity of overhauling the nation's healthcare system at every campaign event to such an obsessive extent that she would later be parodied on "Saturday Night Live." Bruised from her earlier healthcare battles, Clinton was loaded for bear this time around. She claimed to have developed a plan that was broadly acceptable and politically bulletproof.
The other candidate, Barack Obama, also mentioned the need for healthcare reform, but much less often, and in the middle of a list of priorities that followed a stirring speech about hope and change.
He portrayed healthcare reform as a political no-brainer - the system was so obviously broken - and seemed a little perplexed as to why Clinton would feel the need to stress it so vigorously: She was clearly exorcising some personal demons.
Kennedy, of course, opted for Obama, and quickly assured his supporters that he had satisfied himself that Obama was serious about a healthcare overhaul, the driving concern of Kennedy's 46-year Senate career.
Now Obama is president and the promised healthcare overhaul has been overshadowed by more immediate economic needs - needs that Obama has been quick to point out were not foreseeable early last year.
But as the president lays out his priorities in a speech before Congress tonight, Kennedy - who is in Florida conserving his strength amid treatment for brain cancer - could receive a strong indication of whether he chose correctly.
There is little doubt that the healthcare fight is at a critical juncture. The public is ready for action, but there are many other priorities competing for attention. Some politicians reasonably believe that the midst of an economic crisis is the wrong time to launch an initiative that would be costly, complicated, and politically difficult in the best of times.
To make matters much worse, Obama's specially chosen advocate for healthcare reform - former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle - was forced to withdraw from his nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services for having failed to pay taxes on a personal car and driver.
Daschle was more than just an expert on healthcare, having written a recent book on the subject. He was an experienced manipulator of the Senate, the prime battleground for any healthcare changes. And as an intense and early supporter of Obama, Daschle could be counted on to wield enough clout with the president to keep Obama focused on the healthcare task.
But Daschle is gone and there is no obvious successor. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, the medical doctor who served as Democratic National Committee chairman, has the energy and can-do spirit, but he may be too abrasive to handle the legislative fight. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is Dean's opposite - a political conciliator from a conservative state who may lack the can-do spirit to get the job done.
And there are real questions about Obama's commitment. He has said that he promised Kennedy he would deliver a national health plan, and, when questioned, has insisted that he will deliver. Obama also has rejected the idea that the economic crisis makes a healthcare overhaul too difficult to contemplate at this moment; he has said the economic crisis only heightens the need for health changes.
Yesterday, he announced a White House healthcare summit next week and said the issue offers "extraordinary promise as well as peril."
But he hasn't yet expended much political capital on the issue, or trumpeted it very loudly. Perhaps Obama believes that a healthcare overhaul would be better achieved with less dire language and more quiet negotiating: The final plan should be seen as the product of a broad national consensus for change, not as the Holy Grail of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Kennedy may now agree that Obama's unfussed approach is the best way to proceed, though his own attitude has often seemed closer to Clinton's view of healthcare as a Long March toward Valhalla.
Kennedy led the march for many miles, and last year had a chance to pick someone to lead it into the future. He chose Obama. Now he can only hope that he chose wisely.

Go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/24/can_obama_deliver_healthcare_overhaul_for_kennedy/

Friday, November 14, 2008

Barack Obama, listen to Dr. Ted

Now’s the time for President-elect Obama and Congress to seize the moment and enact health care for all Americans. ASAP.
Sen. is pressing a new strategy - shaped in bipartisan meetings - for one consensus bill that can be moved swiftly through the Senate and the House, perhaps even in Obama’s first 100 days.
Kennedy has courted and listened to allies on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), ranking Republican on the Health Care Committee that Kennedy chairs, is working with Teddy. And Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) weighed in this week with his own ideas on health care; ideas that look a lot like Kennedy’s and like the Massachusetts universal coverage law that Teddy touts as a national model.
Kennedy said Baucus’ White Paper “brings us closer to our goal.” Especially since the finance committee has to find a way to pay for a law that would cost billions, yet help tens of millions of struggling citizens, many without jobs now, pay their health care bills.
That is different from the early 1990s when then-Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s opposition doomed health-care reform championed by Kennedy and the Clintons.
And Obama - though treading carefully - said recently that health reform is “priority number three,” right after the economy and energy independence, adding, “I think the time is right to do it.”
Amen. Passage of universal health care would be the capstone on Kennedy’s legacy. And Obama owes him. The passing of the Kennedy torch to Obama by Teddy and niece Caroline just before Super Tuesday was a turning point in Obama’s path to the presidency. He also owes it even more to all those people to whom he promised relief.
In last Sunday’s Washington Post, Kennedy wrote, “it is no longer just patients demanding change. Businesses, doctors and even many insurance companies are demanding it . . . The cost will be substantial, but the need for reform is too great to be deflected or delayed.”
For those who would say, “That’s just a liberal talking,” hear this:
David Blumenthal, director of the Institute for Health Policy for the Partners Health Care System and an Obama adviser, said, “Some of the largest corporations in America are struggling to compete in the world marketplace because of high health care costs.”
Rick Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, said the economic turmoil, coupled with health care’s high costs, “will likely mean the loss of jobs and employer-related health coverage . . . and possibly even diminishing access to health care services.”
Nancy Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, said, “The cost of doing nothing is much higher than the alternative” - the scuffling to pay for good care, including preventive care, and dooming millions to “live sick and die younger.”
These aren’t socialists. These are people who work with health care daily and know the crisis it is in.
Kennedy has worked behind the scenes to craft health reform since Memorial Day, by phone, by e-mail and even by face-to-face meetings despite his illness. He’s back in Washington, and he’s not slowing down.
As soon as Obama takes that oath that Kennedy’s slain brother took 48 years ago, he should start preaching and working for health care for all. And Congress, which Kennedy has served for so long, should do it for Teddy - and for the American people. It’s time to strike while those stars are aligned.
Go to:

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Kennedy ties helped secure waiver

It was the dog days of summer, and secret negotiations between Massachusetts leaders and federal officials had dragged on for months. The word was that future funding for the state's first-in-the-nation healthcare law looked bleak.
But then, something shifted in the talks. And now, four months later, state leaders are jubilant that Washington will send more money than most had dreamed possible to keep the state's pioneering program afloat. News of the $10.6 billion in federal aid arrived last week.
At a time when many other states are lamenting the lack of support from Washington for health programs, how was it possible for a state known for its liberal leanings to win such backing from a conservative administration?
An unlikely bond forged years ago between Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, an icon of the left, and US Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, a conservative former governor of Utah, is part of the answer. The friendship set a collegial tone for the negotiations. It was crucial in salvaging talks when the White House threatened to slash nearly $2 billion from the state's health financing package, key players familiar with the negotiations said in interviews last week.
The package, known as a Medicaid waiver because it offers not only money but flexibility in federal regulations, allows Massachusetts to provide subsidized health insurance to some residents with incomes higher than would typically be allowed under traditional Medicaid rules. It authorizes Massachusetts to spend up to $21.2 billion, half of it federal money, over the next three years on health programs. That's an increase of $4.3 billion over the state's last Medicaid waiver package.
Leavitt, who oversees the agency that negotiated the waiver with Massachusetts, said he has privately sought Kennedy's advice on reconciling Democrats and Republicans over health insurance issues.
"What I appreciate about him is he is unvarnished on what the political pressures on his side are and what needs to happen to progress," Leavitt said.
He traces their friendship to 2003, when President Bush nominated Leavitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Leavitt asked for Kennedy's support, to which the Senator suggested Leavitt come to New Bedford to tour some polluted sites. Leavitt agreed and, after winning confirmation, visited the city.
"We are in different parties and have different ideas on the issues, but no one can fail to admire his devotion and that day, and others, formed the basis of our relationship," Leavitt recalls.
That friendship was tested in early June, when the Office of Management and Budget stepped into the waiver negotiations because, the regulators said, they discovered that Massachusetts for 10 years had incorrectly listed many children in its Medicaid program when they should have been counted under a program called the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which is not funded by the waiver. The state's way of counting those children had, by Washington's estimate, given Massachusetts about $2 billion more than it was entitled to over the last decade.
"We are talking about having to write a check for $2 billion and having to send it to the federal government," said Governor Deval Patrick. "It was a big problem."
The clock was ticking. Federal funding for Massachusetts' last waiver package was set to expire June 30. Negotiations had hit an impasse. That's when Leavitt went to bat for Massachusetts, said a source familiar with the negotiations, calling Joshua Bolten, President Bush's chief of staff and former director of the Office of Management and Budget, to argue the state's case.
Kennedy also called Bolton from his cellphone on June 19, while en route to Hyannis Port from Boston, where he was receiving cancer treatments.
"We were all very conscious of his very personal challenges," said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, Massachusetts secretary of Health and Human Services, who helped negotiate the state's waiver. "We wanted to respect the fact that even though he was very committed to this and we wanted to make sure he was kept informed about what was going on, that we would only use him when we needed him," Bigby said.

In his conversation with Bolton - and with $2 billion on the line - Kennedy suggested that if Massachusetts universal healthcare initiative was successful, it could be a model for the rest of the country, and a legacy for the Bush White House.
"The senator and Josh definitely did talk," said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. "And Josh communicated to OMB the interest, and then they were able to work out their agreement in a way that was mutually satisfactory."
That agreement on the $2 billion difference came after several more weeks of tense talks, with Washington agreeing to extend the June 30 deadline. During that stretch, the normally restrained Leavitt posted on his blog a candid entry about a phone conversation he had with Kennedy.
"He sounded great! We talked briefly about his health. He was forward looking, crisp and as passionate as always," Leavitt wrote. "There wasn't a single hint of negativity or worry. I'm sure he has moments when both creep in, but the call was an unexpected lift to my spirits."
Ultimately, Washington allowed Massachusetts to keep the disputed $2 billion but insisted that it change its accounting method.
So why was Washington so generous with the Bay State?
"We are all going to learn from what Massachusetts is doing," said Leavitt of the state's innovative attempt at near-universal health coverage. "We will learn from things that don't work and do work, and every state will benefit from what is going on in Massachusetts."
Kennedy was not available last week to talk about his role in the negotiations, but heralded the outcome in a statement: "Any reduction in commitment would have put our reforms at risk."
Final details of the agreement are being worked out and officials say a signed deal is expected soon. Health policy specialists underscored the unusual nature of the agreement, in the context of shrinking federal dollars.
"You have bad relationships between the states and the administration around Medicaid recently, and in the middle of an economic meltdown and an environment where the federal government is not looking to spend money, Massachusetts' waiver stands out as truly unusual," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit that researches and analyzes health policies.
Several other states are cutting back their programs to reform healthcare, Altman said, because of a lack of funding.
"That's the reason Massachusetts, from a national perspective, is so significant," he said. The new waiver "allows the most sweeping health reform plan in the country to continue."

Go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/10/07/kennedy_ties_helped_secure_waiver/?page=full

Friday, September 19, 2008

Kennedy back on Capitol Hill, via videoconference

Sen. Edward Kennedy has added a new high-tech wrinkle to his push for national health care legislation: videoconferencing.
From his home in Hyannis Port, Mass. where he is recovering from treatment for a brain tumor, the Massachusetts Democrat on Thursday met via teleconference with nine colleagues on Capitol Hill who serve with him on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
The senators -- eight Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- gathered at a conference table in a committee room to watch on a 37-inch monitor.
"Senator Kennedy looked good, was in good spirits, very engaged in the issues, and he urged the committee members to work together on health care reform," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
Senator Kennedy's dogs, Sunny and Splash, were seen and heard on the call as well.
Kennedy, chairman of the committee, in recent weeks has been laying the groundwork for a renewed push early next year on his signature issue, universal health care. He hopes to capitalize on any momentum that the next president carries into office, particularly if it is Democrat Barack Obama, an ally on health care.
The 76-year-old Kennedy plans to work from his Cape Cod home this fall and return to the Senate in January.
Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor after he had a seizure in May. He has had surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation.
He made a surprise appearance at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, delivering a speech that drew a rousing response from the delegates.
Go to:
Powered By Blogger