Conrad Bails on Public Option
by mcjoan
Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:46:04 PM PDT
It's Kent Conrad's way or the highway for him on healthcare reform, at least as far as he's concerned, anyway.
CARRINGTON, N.D. — Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. presented his cooperative health care proposal here Thursday and told an audience of 100 that he would not vote for a government-run health care program....
President Barack Obama had originally set an August deadline for the House and Senate to pass health care reform. That target is too rushed, Conrad said.
“I don’t think an arbitrary timetable fits with an issue of this complexity,” he said.
Conrad said he would not vote for any health care reform that funded abortions, care for illegal immigrants or a plan that mandates end-of-life counseling.
Who needs Republicans when we've got Conrad and Baucus? This is the problem with allowing the Senate to work on critical, must pass legislation. They all end up tripping over their own egos, trying to be the one to have their name on the bill.
What Conrad hasn't said is whether he'd support a filibuster of a bill with a public option, with is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Or whether he'll stand in the way of passing the bill through reconciliation.
Kent Conrad: “Good Chance” Public Option is Dead in the Senate
By: Blue Texan Wednesday July 29, 2009 11:30 amWell, this sucks.
There's been no final resolution, but I think there's a good chance the cooperative plan will be adopted, at least at the committee level. The notion of a cooperative plan is that it's membership-controlled, membership-run -- not government-run, government-controlled.
Conrad adds later,
In the Senate, the cooperative plan is the only one that has the prospect of getting 60 votes.
Just to be clear, Conrad is essentially saying that there are Democrats, including presumably him, who will let the GOP filibuster any bill that contains a public option. Which is really just the same thing as saying they'll filibuster the public option, the feature Obama publicly lobbied for yesterday.
By the way, the co-op model that DLCers like Conrad and the Blue Dogs are fettishizing is the same approach Willard brought to Massachusetts.
I'm really having a hard time processing the notion that the American people gave Democrats control of the House and the Senate in 2006, then gave them even larger majorities two years later while installing a Democrat in the White House -- just so we could get Willard's health care plan.
Remarkable.
Top Industries
Senator Kent Conrad 2005 - 2010
Top 20 Industries contributing to Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
Industry  | Total | Indivs | PACs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawyers/Law Firms | $613,802 | $482,766 | $131,036 |
| Insurance | $327,125 | $66,825 | $260,300 |
| Securities & Investment | $311,325 | $171,225 | $140,100 |
| Health Professionals | $271,033 | $22,033 | $249,000 |
| Lobbyists | $226,042 | $221,542 | $4,500 |
| Real Estate | $196,900 | $80,900 | $116,000 |
| Hospitals/Nursing Homes | $190,930 | $21,680 | $169,250 |
| Pharmaceuticals/Health Products | $178,100 | $54,850 | $123,250 |
| Crop Production & Basic Processing | $162,975 | $58,275 | $104,700 |
| Pro-Israel | $152,410 | $78,810 | $73,600 |
| Health Services/HMOs | $132,015 | $42,900 | $89,115 |
| Commercial Banks | $119,000 | $72,750 | $46,250 |
| Railroads | $106,000 | $3,000 | $103,000 |
| Electric Utilities | $105,073 | $9,750 | $95,323 |
| Democratic/Liberal | $102,850 | $84,850 | $18,000 |
| Public Sector Unions | $101,000 | $1,000 | $100,000 |
| Transportation Unions | $94,500 | $0 | $94,500 |
| Leadership PACs | $88,200 | $0 | $88,200 |
| Beer, Wine & Liquor | $83,599 | $7,600 | $75,999 |
| Agricultural Services/Products | $81,612 | $2,000 | $79,612 |
Sector Totals (see table)
Industry Favorite
Kent Conrad is a top recipient from the following industries for the 2009 - 2010 election cycle:
Not a favorite of any industry for this cycle.Percent of Contributions Coded
 | Coded | $4,340,152 | (93.0%) |
 | Not Coded | $334,696 | (7.2%) |
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2005-2010 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Sunday, August 09, 2009.
Top 20 Contributors
Senator Kent Conrad 2005 - 2010
Senator Kent Conrad has reported a total of 274 contributions ($200 or more) totaling $192,495. To search these itemized contributions for this member, click here.
Top 20 Contributors to Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC
| Rank | Contributor | Total | Indivs | PACs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DaVita Inc | $59,900 | $32,900 | $27,000 |
| 2 | Law Offices of Peter G Angelos | $46,300 | $46,300 | $0 |
| 3 | Amgen Inc | $42,000 | $37,000 | $5,000 |
| 4 | Baron & Budd | $40,330 | $40,330 | $0 |
| 5 | Robins, Kaplan et al | $38,800 | $38,800 | $0 |
| 6 | Citigroup Inc | $36,500 | $35,500 | $1,000 |
| 7 | JPMorgan Chase & Co | $33,000 | $23,500 | $9,500 |
| 8 | American Crystal Sugar | $31,000 | $4,000 | $27,000 |
| 9 | Goldman Sachs | $30,600 | $20,600 | $10,000 |
| 10 | Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp | $30,500 | $2,500 | $28,000 |
| 11 | Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors | $30,000 | $0 | $30,000 |
| 12 | Waters & Kraus | $27,900 | $27,900 | $0 |
| 13 | American Assn of Nurse Anesthetists | $26,250 | $250 | $26,000 |
| 14 | AXA | $25,750 | $19,750 | $6,000 |
| 15 | Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers | $25,250 | $250 | $25,000 |
| 16 | CME Group | $24,500 | $0 | $24,500 |
| 17 | American Hospital Assn | $24,000 | $0 | $24,000 |
| 17 | New York Life Insurance | $24,000 | $0 | $24,000 |
| 17 | Union Pacific Corp | $24,000 | $0 | $24,000 |
| 20 | National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn | $23,750 | $0 | $23,750 |
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2009 - 2010 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
The rising cost of health care and the increasing number of Americans without health insurance are major, national problems that require action and attention. However, one approach to these issues may well do more harm than good. Association Health Plan legislation is once again gaining momentum in the House and will likely come to the House floor for a vote in the coming weeks.
Many, including President Bush, believe that the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005 (H.R. 525), would provide much needed coverage to the uninsured. The bill, which currently has 137 co-sponsors, attempts to expand affordable health care coverage, particularly for employees of small businesses, through the formation of association health plans (AHPs). These group health plans would allow small employers to band together across state lines to purchase employee health coverage exempt from state-level protections. But because AHPs are regulated at the federal rather than the state level, these plans would not be subject to the existing state consumer protections and benefit guarantees that millions of Americans rely on today.
ANA believes strongly that AHP are not a solution to the access and affordability problems facing small-firms and would, in fact, make the current problem even worse resulting in higher premiums and less secure coverage for the vast majority of small businesses. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that AHPs would cover less than one percent of the 44.3 million uninsured Americans, while actually raising premiums for four out of five workers. Disturbingly, CBO estimates that 10,000 workers with expensive health care needs would lose their insurance if AHP provisions were enacted.
Current state laws now require health insurers to cover a number of benefits that are critically important for women, including pre-natal and maternity services, mammography, cervical cancer screenings, bone-density screenings, contraceptive prescription drugs and devices, mental health services, well-child care, direct access to obstetrical and gynecological service providers, and participation in clinical trials. Under this bill, AHPs could avoid these requirements. Similarly, AHPs would be exempt from state laws that guarantee access to Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) such as nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and nurse anesthetists.
States have also enacted a number of patient protections to ensure the fairness of health insurance coverage. Most states now require insurers to allow direct access to emergency services, the right to appeal to an independent panel when an insurer denies coverage for care, and access to an adequate network of health care providers. AHPs would be exempt from these requirements, leaving those with AHP coverage with inadequate protection against potential abuses. Because AHPs would also be exempt from most direct state oversight, consumers would be left with no meaningful avenues for assistance if they have a problem with their health plan.
Because of these and other serious concerns about AHPs, ANA has joined more than 1,300 national, state, and local groups in opposition to this legislation. Those opposed to this legislation include state officials (including the nation’s governors, 41 state attorneys general, and the nation's insurance commissioners), provider and physician organizations, consumer groups, small business associations and state and local chambers of commerce, labor organizations, civil rights groups, and local farm bureaus.
On May 12, ANA took part in a press conference to unveil a new report by BlueCross and BlueShield which provides a state-by-state outline of the state consumer protects that would be lost under AHPs. Rose Gonzalez, MPS, RN, Director of ANA's Department of Government Affairs joined representatives from the National Partnership for Women and Families, the American Diabetes Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the American Cancer Society in standing up to highlight the report's findings and oppose AHPs. To find out about more about AHPs and the consumer protections at stake in your state, visit http://www.protectyourhealthcare.com/ or download the full BlueCross BlueShield report.
The outlook for AHP legislation this Congress is mixed. Last session, AHPs passed in the House twice, but were never taken up in the Senate. This year, President Bush has listed AHPs among his priorities, and H.R. 525 is expected to again pass in the House in the coming weeks. All eyes are on the Senate, where the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has already held hearings on S. 406, companion bill to H.R. 525. It seems more likely that AHPs will be considered in the Senate this session, but with the filibuster battle consuming all energies at the moment, it is difficult to know how business in the Senate will unfold in coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment