Garrett Talks Health Care

Representative Scott Garrett chats with Fox 5 about his vote against the health care bill. Garrett talks almost exclusively about Medicare Advantage as his reason, which as I've written before can currently charge taxpayers up to a 40% mark up on services.

It's good to see Garrett using the full term, as opposed to earlier, but I still can't understand how someone who claims he is a fiscal conservative can defend taxpayers paying up to 40% more than something actually costs for anything.

Although the House bill is dead in the Senate, taking the 40% mark up will be out no matter what bill comes back to the House for reconciliation.

While Garrett claims the program will be taken from those enrolled, nothing in the bill eliminates the program. What it eliminates is the 40% mark up. Now should insurance companies only participate due to their ability to gouge taxpayers, one could see them cease to offer the program, as the Chief Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid noted.

That aside, Garrett's interview is interesting in that it shows his true feeling on the Bill and overhaul in general.

Live Stream Of Garrett's Town Hall

Update: It was less of a town hall and more of a sales pitch for why Representative Scott Garrett was going to vote against the bill. He didn't read one question in support of the plan. He only spoke for 50 minutes. It's unfortunate he'd take that route.

One clear thing, he continued defending his support of Medicare Advantage, which allows insurance companies to charge a mark up of up to 40% over what things actually cost. It rips off the taxpayer and drains the trust fund, and yet he still defends it. Unbelievable.

Free video streaming by Ustream

Garrett Health Care Townhall

Representative Scott Garrett is hosting a virtual Town Hall meeting on the Health Care Bill tonight at 7PM. Here's the info:

RSVP by clicking here:

Email your questions in advance or during the town hall to congscottgarrett@gmail.com.

Garrett's $339 Billion Distortion

It's been a while since we've needed a piece like this, but as the Health Insurance debate heats up, one had to guess at some point Representative Scott Garrett was going to start spinning like a top again.

At issue is a floor speech made yesterday, that will also likely be included in this week's Garrett Gazette to mislead constituents. The focus of the speech is a report by HHS Chief Actuary Richard Foster. It has become a rallying cry to those opposed to the health insurance overhaul.

Might as well get into the speech:

According to that chief actuary whom I just mentioned, total spending on health care would actually increase by $750 billion more than if we did nothing at all.

This is the second to last true statement in the speech, an average of $75 billion a year for 10 years.

From Garrett:

You see, the real overall cost of this bill would be $1.2 trillion.

From the Actuary:

We estimate that Federal expenditures would increase by a net total of $861 billion.

That's the $339 billion distortion. Not only is Garrett's gross cost more than $100 billion higher than the Actuary's gross ($1,035 billion), he doesn't mention the savings. It's wholly dishonest of Garrett not to mention the savings.

From Garrett:

After all of this spending, there would still be around 20-some-odd million uninsured Americans. So, for those folks who are trying to keep score of all of this, that comes out to be about $35,000 per uninsured person out there.

First off, the "20-some-odd million" includes illegal immigrants, per the Actuary, so I guess it's nice Garrett's calling them Americans.

Second, based on the above correction in numbers saying that all of the money spent is only to insure the uninsured (which it's not), the cost OVER TEN YEARS is roughly $25,000 per person, or an average of $2,500 per year per newly insured person. Garrett seems back to making up five figure distortions again.

From Garrett:

Now, another promise that the President made was that he said, ‘‘if you like your current coverage, you keep it.’’ Well, again, look back to that government actuary whom we talked about before. According to that chief actuary, that’s not true if you’re a senior on Medicare, because 8.5 million seniors on Medicare today would lose their current coverage, and they would be forced into some different coverage.

This is Garrett scaring seniors again. Readers may remember Medicare Advantage is one of Garrett's favorite taxpayer fleecing programs. He conveniently left out Advantage, from Medicare Advantage, when saying these words.

The reason is because it's inconvenient for him to acknowledge that, according to the Actuary, once insurance companies can't charge the government up to a 40% mark up on the same services provided as Medicare they're likely to reduce their available plans.

Seniors will be able to get the same services, it's just that Medicare won't be billed 40% extra for the same services, thus saving taxpayers money. The Actuary and the CBO see this as a good thing. And Garrett claims to be a fiscal conservative?

From Garrett:

The chief actuary says the cuts could force such organizations, such as nursing homes and home health agencies, to leave the Medicare program and, thus, ‘‘possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.’’

Readers have to remember that if Garrett had his way, nursing care could be dropped by insurers anyway. Kind of a tough call, but as the Actuary actually said that we'll give this one to Garrett.

I've written before how this speech structure is an effective way to misrepresent the truth: book-ending the misrepresentations with facts to give credibility to the misrepresentations. The added twist here is that Garrett's talking about a report based on a bill that does not exist anymore, and won't be voted on.

And the spin goes on...

Garrett Talking Health Care

Representative Scott Garrett was on CNBC chatting about President Obama's health care reform plan.

Christie Vs. Christie on Mammograms

While I've written about whether or not Representative Scott Garrett supports the elimination of mammogram coverage for women before, the argument is getting a fresh look in our Governor's race.

Tom Moran of the Star Ledger has a must read piece on what Chris Christie is saying about mammogram coverage now, versus what he said in the primary:

"He’s saying under my plan women would not be able to get mammograms,” Christie says.

Really? Corzine’s television ads are careful on this point. They charge only that Christie would allow insurers to sell policies without mammogram coverage. That happens to be true.

And Christie could not point to even a campaign stop where Corzine went overboard and made a phony accusation.

There have been many times that I've argued that on paper, many conservative ideals are very appealing to many people. However, soundbites of the appealing nature generally have real world implications and many times cease to be practical. This happens to be one of those times.

This should be an interesting test case of the argument for whoever ends up running against Garrett next year. Take what he's said, and explain to people what it means in the real world.

Way to go, Garrett!

Back in July, I wrote that I would fully support Representative Scott Garrett getting involved with a discharge petition of H. Res. 554. For those that don't know, 554 would require all bills to be posted on-line for 72 hours before a vote.

This is what I wrote at the time, as 554 relates to health care reform:

Anyone who honestly cares about making sure this reform is done right should be supporting H. Res 554. It would provide the confidence going forward, or an opportunity see issues that need amending, or the silver bullet if it deserves to fail.

Whether for or against the bill, we need to know what's in the bill.

Garrett signed the discharge petition yesterday. Actually, the entire Republican portion of our delegation has also signed it at this point, so way to go to them as well.

The good people at the Sunlight Foundation say that we're 45 signatures from getting this done. I'm rather disappointed the Democratic members of our delegation haven't signed yet. I've heard it said that transparency is inherently progressive. It's time they get on the good government train.

Garrett for Wasting Tax Dollars

One of the perplexing things about Representative Scott Garrett is that he chooses to advocate for practices that waste taxpayer money, while slamming waste in other programs. I've written before about Garrett's affinity for Medicare Advantage, which has been documented to cost taxpayers more than it should. Yet Garrett gripes about Medicare costing too much.

Today, Garrett sent an e-mail defending his opposition to reforming Federal Student loans. Here's part of his logic:

On Thursday, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3221) that will, if signed into law, eliminate private loans with federal guarantees, replacing such loans entirely with the government’s Direct Loan program – in other words, removing the optionality of the public option – at a cost of $1 trillion over the next ten years.

What Garrett conveniently fails to mention is that enacting this policy is actually saving taxpayers billions. From the CBO:

H.R. 3221 would make several changes to the federal student loan programs, including the Federal Perkins Loan Program. As shown in Table 2, CBO estimates that, on net, those changes would reduce federal costs by $40.7 billion over five years and $74.8 billion over 10 years.

So once again, we have Garrett defending taxpayer money flowing into private hands at a higher cost than we should be paying for the service we're receiving.

Adding insult to the injury of honest debate, Garrett relates his argument to the health care debate and justifying his opposition to the public option.

The student loan public option should serve as a cautionary and instructional tale for Congress and the American people as we continue to discuss ways to reform the health care system.

Garrett's right, the cautionary tale here is that without reform, we're going to continue spending more than we should. That's fine with Garrett, the question should be put to his constituents, is that okay with you?

Garrett Opposes Medicare

So, after taking a weeks vacation and working to get another project off the ground, I decided I should see what's been cooking in the health care debate with Representative Scott Garrett. Unfortunately, not much has changed in the two weeks of my hiatus.

His staff, apparently in response to pointed criticism from Representative Steve Rothman, decided to put the following statement on his website:

That's a pretty bold statement. As Medicare is government health care, I'm sure the seniors of the District would find that nugget slightly terrifying. One would have to think the sentiment could be fodder during the general next year if applied properly.

Garrett and Rothman faced off on CNN. Herb Jackson posted Rothman's critique:

You know, Scott, I looked on your website tonight. I saw that we share the same concerns and you were criticizing the Democrats' ideas, but you didn't offer one specific program on your website of how to address the problem of insurance companies dropping people with insurance when they get sick or providing competition so the insurance companies can't raise rates, double and triple, as we've seen them happen before.

Garrett does have the e-mail he's sent out before now posted, and although rather nice on platitudes, doesn't list any of the bills he claims he handed the President last week. It also, and I think this is disingenuous, links to Op-Ed pieces as "general news". Call it what it is, the opinions of people Garrett agrees with.

The bottom line is not much has changed during the health care debate. Even if everything Garrett says he supports were in the final bill, and what he isn't saying is that much of it was in the initial bill, he's going to vote against it. Garrett's not even taking the discussion or constituents' concerns seriously, as he was in Europe defending European hedge funds instead of holding town halls.

The sad thing is, Garrett isn't alone on this. Republicans are using this as a building block for 2010, at the expense of the American people and our economic recovery. Petty and partisan, my hope is that before November 2nd next year, people will start to realize that's exactly what's going on.

Garrett Talking Health Care Pt. 2

It must be nice for Representative Scott Garrett to represent the District right next to New York and Secaucus. Being opposed to everything, he's likely getting a lot of phone calls for in studio time.

Here, he's on Squawk Box with Rep. Allyson Shwartz.

Garrett Talking Health Care

Representative Scott Garrett and Representative Anthony Weiner sat down on Fox 5's morning show to discuss the health care debate. One of the important things they discussed was whether or not Congress actually will read all 1,000 of the bill.

Garrett, for his part, has put his money where his mouth is on this one, signing up to co-sponsor H. Res. 554. I've written before about the "Read the Bill" campaign, and I'm really happy to see Garrett on board.

The discussion on health care is an interesting watch:



Also, Garrett and Weiner participated in a chat room together after the on-air interview. Nothing earth shattering in there, both stayed on their message.

Morons At The Gate

If significant health care reform is defeated, and people's bills continue to rise with more and more of the GDP being eaten without improved outcomes, idiotic mentality will be a leading cause. As promised, the NJ Tea Party folks visited the town hall meetings of Rep. Steve Rothman yesterday, and as The Record reports, it got a bit rowdy.

However, the lack of commonsense in those protesting could not be overlooked:

When a supporter of universal coverage declared “all Americans are entitled to health care,” he was greeted with a chorus of boos.

“Everybody does have health care,” someone shouted from the audience. “Go to the hospital and get it!”

PricewaterhouseCoopers just released a study estimating that logic costs those of us with insurance an extra $14 billion a year.

"This is an inappropriate use of the ER," said Dee Swanson, president of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. "You don't go to the ER for strep throat."

Since emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat all patients, Swanson said providers ultimately find ways to pass on the cost for treating the uninsured to other patients, such as to those who pay out-of-pocket for their medical care.

[snip]

"Going to the doctor for strep throat would cost $65-$70. In the ER, it's $600 to $800," he said.

So, the Tea Party folks seem to advocate wasting money. To be fair, I suppose it's one, but based on the previous e-mail I was forwarded, it's fair to wonder how widespread the lack of sense is.

In all, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates we waste $1.2 trillion of our $2.2 trillion spend on health care. Around 20% of this waste has been directly created by the very private insurance companies the Tea Party people are defending:

"Every insurance company has its own forms," McGenney said. "Some practices spend 40% of their revenue filling out paperwork that has nothing to do with patient care. So much of this could be automated."

Dr. Jason Dees, a family doctor in a private practice based in New Albany, Miss., said his office often resubmits claims that have been "magically denied."

"That adds to our administrative fees, extends the payment cycle and hurts our cash flow," he said.

Dees also spends a lot of time getting "pre-certification" from insurers to approve higher-priced procedures such as MRIs. "We're already operating on paper-thin margins and this takes times away from our patients," he said.

There's that private rationing again. In all the rhetoric the Tea Party people throw out about the bureaucrat rationing care, there's no mention in their talking points about the corporate bureaucrat rationing care. They have no solution for it, because there's no accountability required by health insurance companies other than to their shareholders.

When there are problems with Medicare (ex. The Donut Hole), Congress is forced to deal with it or face the ire of their constituents. One would think the very Tea Party slamming the health care bill at town hall after town hall would prefer to have someone they could directly deal with as opposed to a faceless claims processor at an insurance company.

The problem with that statement is that it makes sense. As so much of the debate has proven so far, making sense is less important than scoring points for the press and donors. Obviously, there are legitimate concerns and questions about the proposed overhaul, but when people are circulating memos on how disrupt instead of engage in the conversation, we're not going to get anywhere.

Spinning Tea

While our Representative Scott Garrett distorted numbers recently to scare people about health care reform, the Tea Party people are going from distortion to flat out lies. This is a long post, but if the mainstream media isn't going to do this, someone has to.

It's been well publicized at this point that those who are part of the Tea Party movement are packing town hall meetings to disrupt instead of discuss health care reform. There are legitimate concerns about the proposal, but the tactics being used by these folks not only drowns out those with legitimate concerns, but also discredits the very views they're supposed to be standing for and makes their opposition seem baseless.

As Blue Jersey predicted, the NJ Tea Party group is attempting to get members to Representative Steve Rothman's recess town hall meetings. To encourage members, and fire them up, they sent out an e-mail recently. With the miracle of the searchable PDF, anyone willing to ask "is that true" can go through the e-mail and shred it.

(A note, I've cut and pasted straight from the e-mail, grammatical and spelling errors are strictly the tea party people's fault)

You know the provisions of the public healthcare plan contain concerning features including the following:

You will not be able to keep your private plan (no matter what they say, it’s in the bill).

Where, exactly? That's the question that any thinking person should ask. People point to Section 102, because it prevents new enrollments in plans that don't meet the minimum requirements of coverage. This has no impact on people's current insurance.

In fact, had the Tea Party people scrolled down they would have seen Section 112, where insurance companies are required to renew grandfathered plans. Your coverage is protected as long as you pay for it. But obviously, that reality doesn't help the opposition's fund raising, so I'm sure the oversight was intentional.

Seniors will be compelled to attend counseling every five years to receive information on how to end one’s life with dignity --- this is code for you’re not going to get the surgery or drugs you need, so end your life sooner ---this is the culture of death.

It's amazing the Tea Party people would rather have seniors be uninformed and not know what their options are. Section 1233 absolutely wants people to know about living wills and medical proxies, options and resources regarding palliative care and hospice, and resources available in the state in which the patient lives.

Health care costs will be passed along to you in the form of increased taxes, or loss of jobs due to small employers having to eliminate jobs to pay the additional 8% on their payroll….think of it 20 employees making an average of 50,000 annual salary = $80,000 to that small employer in tax……that employer has to eliminate two jobs for every 20 people to stay even.

What they leave out in this section is that the tax only applies if the small business does not already provide benefits. If benefits are provided, there's no tax. So no one working a job at a small company that provides benefits has anything to worry about in terms of taxes costing them their job.

You will pay for all families – illegal aliens too.

This is the only true statement in the whole thing. Yes, everybody else will be paying for you.

Also, where people get the delusional thought that we don't already pay for illegal aliens is beyond me. This is true, and it will always be true whether we have private or public care. When people show up to an emergency room or the equivalent they are going to get treated and then we bill whatever national plan they're under.

You will also have your tax dollars funded toward abortions even if you are opposed to that form of birth control. That means also late term abortions…up to the day before birth!

Partial birth abortions are illegal, and whoever wrote this e-mail is intentionally misleading people. It also ignores the fact that the committee votes prevent any abortion funding.

I haven't written a post this long in a long time, but the health care debate is too important to let small groups of people using misrepresentation and intimidation to disrupt what is a vital discussion. I realize there's not a lot of money to be raised by the special interests by being truthful and having a meaningful conversation, but that's what we need right now.

There's a lot of good in this bill, but it could be a bit better. There are also good ideas that have come out of the Republican party, like allowing churches and industry groups pool together, that get drowned out by the Tea Party people.

Whether you're for or against the health care reform as presented, arguing your points needs to be based in fact. Otherwise, what may be a very good idea will either be dismissed or missed because someone decided to be disruptive instead of constructive.

Garrett's Health Care Funny Numbers

Here we go again.

Representative Scott Garrett's streak of not misrepresenting numbers has officially come to an end. In this week's Garrett Gazette, the full court press to scare people out of us becoming more competitive with the world by implementing a better health insurance system stepped it up a notch on the spin cycle.

The health care plan proposed by the Democrats will cost American families more than $1,000,000,000,000, and yet will cause as many as 114 million individuals to lose their current coverage under the bill, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group.

Sounds scary. Not only does Garrett fail to acknowledge much of the $1 trillion is already in the system, and would be shifted as opposed to being new costs; by Garrett's statement our number of uninsured would climb to 162 million. There would be no debating that would be awful, if that's actually what Lewin said.

However, if you look at the testimony, this is what they said:

Beginning in the third year, the newly established “Health Choices Commissioner” would be permitted to extend eligibility to include all employers. If the plan is opened to individuals and all employers, the number of people in the public plan would rise to 122.9 million people. Private coverage would decline by about 113.5 million people.

That's right. If the public option was made available to all individuals and employers 113.5 million would shift the way they're covered, not lose it. Why would so many people shift? Because they're choosing the lower cost option.

By entering a larger insurance pool without a profit motive, costs would drop for those who choose it. It's how insurance plans are supposed to work.

If people wanted Cadillac plans they could still get them. The thought of people actually having the freedom to choose to not to get ripped off is why former insurance lawyer Garrett and others who back the industry are fighting so hard to scare the hell out of people, and spending over $1.4 million a day to lobby Congress. They're terrified because they know if people have an honest choice, they will in fact choose the lower cost.

It never ceases to disgust me to see how untruthful the politics of health reform gets. The status quo advocates have a simple playbook: Misrepresent as much as possible to scare the hell out of people.

The debate over costs is being worked out in a pretty transparent and straight forward way by the Blue Dogs. Unfortunately, Garrett's type of argument doesn't serve as a productive addition to the discussion. It just stirs up misinformed rage.

Garrett should stick with the Financial Services sub-committee and leave health care to those whose voice can actually be heard and genuinely want us to stop having a competitive disadvantage to other nations.

Full Text of Obama's Speech

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is good to see you. Hello, New Jersey! (Applause.) All right, everybody have a seat. Everybody have a seat. I want to begin by just making a few acknowledgements. First of all, I'm going to have a lot to say about this guy, but I just want everybody to know that one of my earliest supporters, somebody who had faith and confidence in me before I was a United States senator was the man standing next to me right here -- Jon Corzine. (Applause.) And so it is a special honor to be with him.

I've got a couple other friends I want to quickly acknowledge. Larry Cohen is around here somewhere. CWA -- right here. We appreciate you, Larry. (Applause.) President of the Communication Workers. We've got a couple of outstanding mayors -- the Pride of Newark, Cory Booker is here. (Applause.) There's Cory in the back. And we've also got the Pride of Jersey City, Jeremiah Healy. (Applause.)

I want to just say a little something at the top. As many of you may have heard, five officers were shot in the line of duty in Jersey City. Jeremiah -- I just saw him; we just discussed it. He may already be on his way back. Obviously we are watching this closely. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of all the officers who have been hurt. And we are confident they are going to end up coming back strong as ever. But it's a reminder for all of us of the incredible sacrifice that our law enforcement officials engage in, and their families are part of, each and every day. So I hope everybody keeps them in their thoughts and prayers in the days to come. (Applause.)

It is great to be back in New Jersey. I'm proud to stand with a man who wakes up every single day thinking about your future and the future of this state -- and that's your governor, Jon Corzine. (Applause.)

Like many of us in public life today, Jon is a leader who's been called to govern at some extraordinary times. He's been tested by the worst recession in half a century -- a recession that was caused by years of recklessness and irresponsibility, and obviously had a disproportionate impact here in New Jersey, given the closeness of the financial sector to the state.

Part of the crisis was caused by the same small thinking that's plagued our politics for decades -- the kind of thinking that says we can afford to tinker around with big problems, put off tough decisions, defer the big challenges, tell people only what they want to hear.

That's not the kind of leader Jon Corzine is. He didn't run for this office on the promise that change would be easy, and he certainly has not avoided what is hard. This isn't somebody who's here because of some special interest or political machine -- he's here because he cares about what happens to the people of New Jersey.

This is a man who has provided more property tax relief than any other governor in New Jersey's history. (Applause.) This is the first governor in 60 years who has reduced the size of government. At the same time, this is also a leader who has stood up against those who wanted to cut what matters, like education. Jon Corzine has not only protected funding for New Jersey's schools, he's reformed them with higher standards, and now students in this state rank at the top of the country in reading and math. That's a testimony to Jon Corzine's leadership. (Applause.)

Since Jon Corzine became governor, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been expanded to reach 80,000 more children -- 80,000 who got health insurance who did not have it before. New Jersey has become a leader in clean energy. And Jon Corzine wasn't just the first governor to pass an economic recovery plan for his state; he was an ally in helping the federal government, my administration, develop the national recovery plan.

And because of these recovery plans, jobs have been saved and created throughout the state of New Jersey -- jobs of cops and teachers; jobs in small businesses and clean energy companies. Unemployment insurance and health insurance has been extended to those who have felt the brunt of this recession, who lost their jobs. Tax relief has been delivered to families and small businesses. Ninety-five percent of working families have already received tax relief as a consequence of our recovery plan. And I can promise you that more help is on the way in the weeks and months to come.

Now, I realize this is little comfort to those who have lost a job in this recession. Some of you know people who've lost jobs, or maybe you're -- worried about losing their home or can't afford their health insurance anymore. I realize that some of the progress that's been made doesn't help some folks who need to pay their bills and have fallen deeply behind. And I'll be honest with you -- even though jobs have always been one of the last things that come back in a recession, some of the jobs that have been lost may not come back.

The fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for the folks at the very top, but not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of America. It's an economy that wasn't built to compete in the 21st century. It was one where we spend more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier; where we've been slow to invest in clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and new industries in other countries because we've been slow to take up the call of clean energy. We had an economy where we've watched our graduation rates lag behind too much of the world. We used to be at the very top, number one, in college graduation rates. We aren't anymore; we're in the middle of the pack.

But that was the America of yesterday. That doesn't have to be the America of tomorrow. That must not be the America our children inherit. (Applause.) You see, what we're facing right now is more than a passing crisis. It's a transformative moment that's led this nation to an unmistakable crossroads. We've got some choices and decisions we've got to make -- right here in Washington -- in Washington and right here in Trenton.

Now, there are some in New Jersey, some in Washington, some all across the country, who want us to go down the path we've already traveled for most of the last decade -- the path where we just throw up our hands and say, "We can't do anything about health care. It's too tough. We can't do anything about energy -- too hard" -- where we do nothing but hand out more tax breaks to the wealthiest few that make the rich richer and the deficit even larger, and leave ordinary people in the lurch. That's one path. It's a path where our health care costs keep rising and our oil dependency keeps on growing, where our financial markets remain an unregulated crapshoot, and our workers lose out on the jobs of tomorrow.

But that's not the future I accept for the United States of America. That's not the future that Jon Corzine accepts for the United States of America. That's not the future you accept for the United States of America. (Applause.) We are going to set a new course for this nation, and it's going to start right here in New Jersey. (Applause.)

We did not come as far as a country as we have because we've spent all our time looking backwards, or because we stood still in the face of great challenges and said "No, we can't." We didn't get here by lowering our sights or diminishing our dreams. We are a forward-looking people -- a people who have always faced the future not with fear, but with determination; not with doubt, but with hope. We've always taken great chances, and reached for new horizons, and remade the world around us.

And that's what we must do again. I am absolutely confident that we will weather this economic storm. But once we clear away the wreckage, the real question is: What are we going to build in its place?

Even as we rescue this economy from this crisis, I believe we have to rebuild an even better economy than we had before. We're going to have to lay a new foundation that will allow this country to thrive and compete in the global economy. And that means investing in the clean energy jobs of the future. That means educating and training our workers for those jobs. That means finally controlling the health care costs that are driving this nation into debt. (Applause.)

When it comes to these issues, the naysayers seem to think that we can somehow just keep on doing what we've been doing and expect a different outcome. We can't. And everywhere we go, I meet Americans who know that we can't. They know change isn't easy. They know there will be setbacks and false starts. And I love some of our opponents who stand up and say, "Look, it's been six months and you haven't solved the economy yet." (Laughter.) The American people know better than that.

Here is what they also know: We're at a rare moment where we've been given the opportunity to remake our world; a chance to seize our future. And as difficult as it sometimes is, what is inherent about the American spirit is the fact that we don't cling to the past in this country. We always move forward. And that movement doesn't begin in Washington -- it begins with you. It happens because the American people decide it's time to move forward; because you decide it's time for change; because you're willing to face the future without fear. And if you do that now, then we will not only reelect Jon Corzine so he can keep on fighting for families here in New Jersey, but we will do what earlier generations have done and build something better to leave to our children and secure our future in the 21st century.

We are counting on you. And I'm absolutely confident that the American people are going to meet the test.

Thank you, everybody. God bless you.

Health Politics of Fear

Well, at some point we had to expect our Representative Scott Garrett to weigh in on the health care debate. In this week's Garrett Gazette he did, and his message is to be terrified of choice.

That's literally what the health care debate is over. Cut out all of the horror stories from other nations that don't apply, because that's not what we're talking about, and it comes down to choice. Even though Garrett and his fellow Republicans scream about rationing, most honest brokers acknowledge it already happens. We're talking about having an extra choice in our insurance options.

At about $100 billion a year, citizens are going to have to get health insurance, providers are going to have to become efficient, and citizens can shop for the same sort of plan Garrett and other Federal employees get.

Obviously, this scares the hell out of those spending $1.4 million a day to lobby against the effort. See, if insurance actually works as the market should dictate, instead of as a scam, the more people in an insurance pool the broader the risk is spread and the lower the cost.

Unfortunately, that's not how the system has worked. While Republicans have dusted off the early 90's playbook against health care, and are rehashing some of the misrepresentations of truth from the SCHIP debate; there are as many if not more horror stories generated by our current health care system. From hospitals dumping patients in alleys to insurance companies arbitrarily deciding people's access to care, we're living in a rationed system now.

Everyone knows at least one person who has had an issue with an insurance provider. And lets not forget that all of us who have insurance have to pay more for critical treatment of what could have been preventable when the 47 million uninsured need something.

However, we know that Garrett will vote against this based on "principle." However, as with his opposition to SCHIP, Garrett's belief that states should get to decide things for themselves, as he often cites the 10th Amendment, goes straight out the window:

Removing burdensome state coverage mandates and opening up the health care marketplace to competition across state lines could dramatically reduce health care costs in New Jersey and across the country.

So, the mandated coverage that states have decided their citizens should have needs to be removed by the Federal government. But isn't Garrett the one that argues states should be allowed to set their own standards for, well, everything else but health care?

To his credit, Garrett does address some of the things in the mammoth 1,000 page bill as being good ideas. From the Gazette:

Effectiveness: The current health care system reimburses the number of procedures rather than the quality and efficacy of the care. While doctors are compensated for extra tests and hospitals visits, they are not paid for offering telephone consultations or implementing health care IT. By encouraging quality over quantity of care, we can down on over testing and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship

This is part of what Mike Huckabee talked about when he said we have to go from a treatment of the sick mentality to a prevention and well-care mentality. It's a good idea, which is probably why steps are taken in the bill in this direction. Good ideas are good ideas regardless of party.

With Garrett being the only member of our Congressional delegation to oppose the SCHIP expansion, it makes sense that President Obama would come to our state tomorrow in support of Jon Corzine. Our program works, and reading what I have of the bill, it seems to be a further expansion of the good practices we have here. Every Republican except for Garrett believed enough in what we do here to vote for it to continue. We're a model for once. While Obama can boost Corzine, having an example that works boosts Obama.

Is the bill perfect? No. Will the Dem leadership have to capitulate to the Blue Dogs demands for some fiscal sanity? Absolutely. But while the fiscal conservative Democrats and the socialist Democrats find middle ground to move our nation forward, the fear mongering of Garrett and his Republican brethren mean once again our District doesn't have a seat at the table. They're not willing to honestly talk about the debate to their counterparts on the other side of the aisle or their constituents. So, we're going to be left out. Is that representation?

Blue Dogs Step Up on Health Care

Even though they have been drowned out this weekend by an interestingly timed explosion of stories about the CIA, the Blue Dog Coalition put out a comprehensive letter about why they couldn't support the current Health Care reform package as written. Without the Blue Dogs, a reform package cannot get through the House.

Although some on the left may see this as obstructionist, the reality is the program's price tag needs to give us all pause. We're talking about a trillion dollars here, and as our last trillion dollar mistake should have taught us, if we don't plan well now, we'll be paying more later.

Fiscally conservative in the true sense, readers have to remember that it was the Blue Dogs that called out our own Representative Scott Garrett for refusing to support pay as you go reform and certain balanced budget initiatives. I'm glad they had the courage to put this out there. It was needed.

Here's the letter in it's entirety, as they raise some excellent concerns:

July 9, 2009

.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer:

As members of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, we write today to express our strong reservations about the process and direction of the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal. We share President Obama’s deep commitment to passing comprehensive, deficit-neutral health care reform that lowers costs for American families and businesses, increases the quality of care provided, and expands access for every American. We also believe that the process by which we get there is critically important if we hope to develop responsible health care reform legislation that accomplishes all of these goals.

After reviewing the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal, we believe it lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken. Following are our initial thoughts, and we hope to see a draft at some point that substantially addresses each key item:


Deficit Neutrality – President Obama has repeatedly called for a health care bill that “must and will be paid for.” We do not support health care reform that is not deficit neutral. We have to take steps to control the cost of health care if we ever hope to put our country back on a fiscally sustainable path. As the Senate has done, this may require us to pare back some of the cost-drivers in order to produce a bill that we can afford. We also firmly believe that paying for health care reform must start with finding savings within the current delivery system and maximizing the value of our health care dollar before we ask the public to pay more.

Delivery System Reform – We must be much more aggressive in bending the cost curve. The discussion draft fails to include adequate structural changes that will succeed in lowering costs and increasing value. We cannot simply “add” new consumers to a broken system. The inclusion of pilot programs on Accountable Care Organizations and Medical Homes are good first steps, but innovative delivery system reforms, such as value-based purchasing and the value index, would properly realign incentives to promote high quality, efficient care.

Small Business Protections – Any additional requirements for employers must be carefully considered and done so within the context of what is currently offered. Small business owners and their employees lack coverage because of high and unstable costs – not because of an unwillingness to provide or purchase it. We cannot support a bill that further exacerbates the challenges faced by small businesses.


Rural Health Equity – Rural communities face unique challenges in delivering health care, and our reform efforts must not overlook them. The short-term extensions of rural provisions included in the discussion draft are critical, but we must not fail to address the underlying problems and inequities that plague rural providers. A strong rural package is critical to our support.

Bipartisanship – It is imperative that comprehensive health care include the ideas of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The American public is looking for us to work together, regardless of party affiliation, to pass comprehensive health care reform.


We also wish to reiterate our support for the recommendations previously made by our Coalition regarding how to appropriately structure a public option. In order to establish a level playing field, providers must be fairly reimbursed at negotiated rates and their participation must be voluntary. A “Medicare-like” public option would negatively impact hospitals, doctors and patients. Medicare reimbursement is on average 20 to 30 percent lower than private plans and this inequity is even greater in some parts of the country. Using Medicare’s below-market rates would seriously weaken the financial stability of our local hospitals and doctors.

Finally, any health care reform legislation that comes to the floor must be available to all Members and the public for a sufficient amount of time before we are asked to vote for it. This includes any amendments or changes to the bill included as part of the rule. We need time to review it and discuss it with our constituents. Too short of a review period is unacceptable and only undermines Congress’ ability to pass responsible health care reform that works for all Americans.

From where we are today, significant progress on the draft tri-committee health care reform proposal needs to be made in order to address each of these concerns. We cannot support a final product that fails to do so. We stand ready to work with you to fulfill President Obama’s goal and lower the cost of health care for American families and businesses.

Will Garrett Be Full of SCHIP again?

Update: The SCHIP expansion was approved, and it was a 12 to Garrett vote among the New Jersey Delegation.

It sounds like the SCHIP expansion legislation may come to a vote today. The Courier Post gives a nice summary of the program:

It is meant to enroll children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, but too little to afford private health insurance if employer-provided coverage is unavailable.

Those of you who have been reading for a while got to witness me shred Representative Scott Garrett for his misrepresentations of the truth and flat out lies about what the program does and who it serves.

Now, as expanding SCHIP will likely sail to passage yet again; we have to expect Garrett to vote no, again.

Garrett is philosophically opposed to SCHIP, which he has the right to be. Unfortunately, Garrett used falsehoods and fear to try and get people to see things his way. Basically, he and his colleagues attacked children using lies.

The question is what, if any, explanation or speech he will give when he votes no this time. Garrett has replaced key staff since 2007, and the hope is they won't stuff him full of bad information. The greater hope is that he won't regurgitate the bad information he received last time. We'll have to see, but for the quarter of a million families on SCHIP, it should be comforting that Garrett will once again be in the minority.

Garrett vs. GM

Represntative Scott Garrett has officially started beating the drum against saving GM, Ford and Chrysler. From today's Wall Street Journal:

Another Republican, Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, said that "the real problem with this is that [a bailout] is not going to change the company, but simply to perpetuate the same business practices that created the problem in the first place."

"You will be asking the average middle-class taxpayer that doesn't have as rich of a benefit package to subsidize buyouts," Rep. Garrett added. "There are a lot of jobs on the line, but a bailout does not permanently solve the situation. Who's to say we won't be facing the same crisis in 2009?"

I'm not surprised by Garrett's stance, and even heard someone use the same line on the train this morning. Unfortunately, it's a sentiment, a subtle kind of class warfare if you will, that is likely to gain traction.

Instead of addressing the root cause of this issue; Garrett and others are going to go after the employees. While the credit crisis and gas prices were the incendiary added to the Big Three's cash burn, it's not the cause. It's health care.

Unfortunately, GM saw this crisis coming back in 2005, and started pushing for meaningful reform then. Back in 2006, the CEO's of the Big Three were given an audience with the President, who paid them the typical lip service. They weren't asking for a loan then, they were asking for health care reform. Our health care crisis is killing them.

The problem is, from a competition standpoint, that their competitors all come from nations with socialized medicine. The last estimates I saw in 2006 were that health care per car is costing more than steel per car. Obviously, we can't flip a switch and eliminate that cost to save the Big Three overnight. However, there may be another way.

While it may be too late for this, instead of a loan, the Big Three should be able to buy into the government health benefit plan. They'd pay for it, not taxpayers.

The main reason this could be a win win is from the massive cost savings both to the Big Three and taxpayers; the more people in a pool the lower the costs. Right now, GM is insuring more than a million people. Ford and Chrysler pooled with that would create a new group of close to 2.5 million all together.

Pooling the Big Three's employees with Federal workers would offer unparalleled savings to taxpayers as well, once again, as the bigger the pool the lower the cost per person. It's simply how insurance works.

I realize there will be those who would falsely claim this is some kind of expansion of government. In fact, it would be more cost effective than loans or bailouts; while at the same time lowering fees for insuring our government employees. And the Big Three would be paying for it, not taxpayers.

In essence, this option is a practical shrinking of government while preserving the companies who provide so many jobs to so many people across the country.

What a McMoron

I've disagreed with Representative Scott Garrett and his stand on a number of health insurance issues (SCHIP primarily); however, I don't recall seeing him give as idiotic a suggestion as one of Sen. John McCain's closest advisers did yesterday. In response to the Census Bureau's latest figures on the uninsured, one of the architects of McCain's health plan put in his two cents (h/t Blue Jersey).

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American - even illegal aliens - as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.
"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Obviously, that's not a solution nor does it do anything to deal with rising health care costs. Glossing over the differences between functional coverage and coverage of last resort would make costs worse. Those of us with health insurance take the first hit, as our costs are artificially higher for insurance and care because hospitals hedge their fees to deal with unneeded uninsured emergency room visits. Then, as taxpayers, we're smacked again when the hospitals guess wrong.

Access to a doctor's office saves money compared to emergency room visits. This has been shown in study after study. For example, this is part of a policy study conducted at Duke University back in 2001 of the then 1.2 million uninsured in North Carolina:

The average charge for a non-urgent emergency room visit is roughly 2.3 times more than an office-based visit, meaning that an emergency room visit costs $58.36 more than an office-based visit ($103.25 versus $44.89) (ACP-ASIM, 2000). If the additional 26,000 persons who would be able to access primary care in an office-based setting under the first policy reduced non-urgent emergency room visits by 100 percent as earlier estimated, a cost savings of $1.75 million [$58.36 x 30,000] would be realized. In addition, if the number of preventable hospitalizations were reduced by 6.0 percent as previous estimated, a cost savings of $3.3 million would be realized, assuming that the average cost of one preventable hospitalization was $7,565

As with any issue, you need good numbers to see how big of a problem you have and how best to deal with it. Lumping functioning government insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP) with rescue payments for charity care would make determining the best course of action difficult to say the least.

If the Republicans want to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and point toward lower health care costs, shutting this guy up should be priority number one.

I have to believe that Garrett is smarter than to agree with McCain's McMoron, but Garrett and his colleagues have to come out against this idiocy or they are giving tacit endorsement with their silence.