Do campaign contributions affect how members of Congress vote on legislation ?
According to CongressDaily, NRF Employee Benefits Policy Counsel Vice President Neil Trautwein, who testified before John Kline’s Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions opposing the House bill, said active lobbying on the part of his group kept the 268-148 vote well below a veto-proof margin, which was a concern.
Do you think the following groups would support H.R. 1424 Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 ?
• Aetna
• American Benefits Council
• Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
• ERISA Industry Committee
• National Association of Health Underwriters
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
• National Business Group on Health
• National Restaurant Association
• Retail Industry Leaders Association
• Society for Human Rescource Management
• The National Retail Federation [NRF]
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
These are the groups that voiced opposition to this legislation.
On the flip-side, other groups, such as American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Child Welfare League of America, Mental Health America, etc., were in favor of this legislation.
Dan Newman, of MAPLight.org which looks at correlations between campaign contributions and legislation points out that "Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those who vote in favor."
MAPLight reports that groups gave an average of $22,693 to legislators who voted No on this bill, compared to $14,183 to legislators who voted Yes. The disparity is 160% more money given to a No vote.
This begs the question: Are “Earmarks” more of a problem then the influence of lobbyists ?
As previously stated, there are No Earmarks in this legislation.
But the lobbyists influence is still there and without a Veto-proof majority, Kline’s NO VOTE is in sync with big money.
Kline and NRF's Neil Trautwein argued for the Senate version. As it was pointed out during the debate "one thing is clear, the bill is better for patients than the Senate bill, yet the cost is almost exactly the same.”
Republican Senator Norm Coleman said “that he considers the House bill to be the stronger version between the two chambers.”
Readers may want to monitor the Federal Elections Commission listing of John Kline contributors and MAPlight’s listing of top industries to see how the various interests attempt to influence legislative outcomes.
Kline maybe on a “Pork-free diet”, but he may serve his district better if he just said NO to special interests.
Showing posts with label Mental Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mental Health. Show all posts
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Bachmann Offers Selective Analysis During Mental Health Debate
Minnesota’s Congressional delegation was front and center on March 5th during the debate concerning the PAUL WELLSTONE MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT OF 2007.
Speaking on behalf of the legislation was Jim Ramstad who participated in fourteen listening sessions around the country … and opposing it was Michele Bachmann who cited her life experiences as a "wife of a clinical therapist.” For the record, John Kline expressed his dissatisfaction by offering an amendment to scrap the entire bill. With two Republicans attacking their fellow Republican, Tim Walz spoke in support of Mr. Ramstad’s legislation.
To anyone who saw the event via CSPAN, it was evident that health care reform will not happen while Bachmann and Kline are in Congress.
Bachman argued that the bill would cost too much and Kline argued for the Senate version. As it was pointed out during the debate "scare tactics or offer red herrings to distract from the underlying issues, but one thing is clear, the bill is better for patients than the Senate bill, yet the cost is almost exactly the same.”
Republican Senator Norm Coleman said “that he considers the House bill to be the stronger version between the two chambers.”
Bachmann cited the CBO estimate "that the cost of these mandates in the private insurance market will total $3 billion annually by 2012.”
As a point of reference, the financial cost for the activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism, another CBO reports “If the Administration’s request for 2008 is funded in full, appropriations for those purposes will rise to $188 billion this year and to a cumulative total of $752 billion since 2001. (An additional $40 billion has been appropriated for diplomatic activities and foreign aid over that period.)”
Essentially, then the cost of less than one week would cover this legislation that would potentially be impose on the private sector.
And another sidenote, that was pointed out in the debate : "This bill will also help our servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as they transition to civilian life because national barriers to mental health care ripple out to everyone. Post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related conditions can take months, if not years, to develop after discharge. Many of these veterans will not have access to VA health facilities and will rely upon private health insurance to obtain treatment.”
That aside, while Bachmann elected to site the $3 billion price, she did not put it in perspective of the impact to existing premiums. The CBO report also stated : "We estimate that the direct costs of the additional services that would be newly covered by insurance because of the mandate would equal about 0.4 percent of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums compared to having no mandate at all.”
Since Bachmann stated that ”the average premium families' paid last year $12,106” then the potential would be $48.06 per year. In reality, we know that the cost of most employer-sponsored plans are actually borne by the consumer, the employee may not even pay that.
The CBO also states some potential offsets, such that the .4 percent may actually be closer to .2 percent.
Bachmann’s points were disputed by Jim Ramstad who cited a Wall Street Journal report :” If you don't believe the Wall Street Journal, certainly those on our side of the aisle, what do you believe? Cost businesses $70 billion, just depression, untreated depression alone.
Mr. Speaker, all the empirical data, including all the actuarial studies, show that equity for mental health and addiction treatment will save literally billions of dollars nationally. At the same time, it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's our own CBO numbers. So, I don't know where these people are getting these numbers, these inflated cost figures. Pulling them out of thin air is the only thing I can surmise.
The CBO says it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1percent. In other words, for the price of a cheap cup of coffee per month, several million Americans in health plans can receive treatment for chemical addiction and mental illness. And it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some opponents of this legislation have misrepresented the costs of enacting parity.”
Jim Ramstad’s voice will be sorely missed in the next congress.
The first sixteen minutes of the Clinton-Obama debate at Cleveland State concerned health care. Akin to debating whether a cake should have cream cheese or butter cream frosting when you haven’t even acquired the cake ingredients, it is preposterous to debate the finite details of health care policy when House Republicans proved in the Mental Health legislation that they are unwilling to support anything.
Speaking on behalf of the legislation was Jim Ramstad who participated in fourteen listening sessions around the country … and opposing it was Michele Bachmann who cited her life experiences as a "wife of a clinical therapist.” For the record, John Kline expressed his dissatisfaction by offering an amendment to scrap the entire bill. With two Republicans attacking their fellow Republican, Tim Walz spoke in support of Mr. Ramstad’s legislation.
To anyone who saw the event via CSPAN, it was evident that health care reform will not happen while Bachmann and Kline are in Congress.
Bachman argued that the bill would cost too much and Kline argued for the Senate version. As it was pointed out during the debate "scare tactics or offer red herrings to distract from the underlying issues, but one thing is clear, the bill is better for patients than the Senate bill, yet the cost is almost exactly the same.”
Republican Senator Norm Coleman said “that he considers the House bill to be the stronger version between the two chambers.”
Bachmann cited the CBO estimate "that the cost of these mandates in the private insurance market will total $3 billion annually by 2012.”
As a point of reference, the financial cost for the activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on terrorism, another CBO reports “If the Administration’s request for 2008 is funded in full, appropriations for those purposes will rise to $188 billion this year and to a cumulative total of $752 billion since 2001. (An additional $40 billion has been appropriated for diplomatic activities and foreign aid over that period.)”
Essentially, then the cost of less than one week would cover this legislation that would potentially be impose on the private sector.
And another sidenote, that was pointed out in the debate : "This bill will also help our servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as they transition to civilian life because national barriers to mental health care ripple out to everyone. Post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related conditions can take months, if not years, to develop after discharge. Many of these veterans will not have access to VA health facilities and will rely upon private health insurance to obtain treatment.”
That aside, while Bachmann elected to site the $3 billion price, she did not put it in perspective of the impact to existing premiums. The CBO report also stated : "We estimate that the direct costs of the additional services that would be newly covered by insurance because of the mandate would equal about 0.4 percent of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums compared to having no mandate at all.”
Since Bachmann stated that ”the average premium families' paid last year $12,106” then the potential would be $48.06 per year. In reality, we know that the cost of most employer-sponsored plans are actually borne by the consumer, the employee may not even pay that.
The CBO also states some potential offsets, such that the .4 percent may actually be closer to .2 percent.
Bachmann’s points were disputed by Jim Ramstad who cited a Wall Street Journal report :” If you don't believe the Wall Street Journal, certainly those on our side of the aisle, what do you believe? Cost businesses $70 billion, just depression, untreated depression alone.
Mr. Speaker, all the empirical data, including all the actuarial studies, show that equity for mental health and addiction treatment will save literally billions of dollars nationally. At the same time, it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's our own CBO numbers. So, I don't know where these people are getting these numbers, these inflated cost figures. Pulling them out of thin air is the only thing I can surmise.
The CBO says it will not raise premiums more than two-tenths of 1percent. In other words, for the price of a cheap cup of coffee per month, several million Americans in health plans can receive treatment for chemical addiction and mental illness. And it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some opponents of this legislation have misrepresented the costs of enacting parity.”
Jim Ramstad’s voice will be sorely missed in the next congress.
The first sixteen minutes of the Clinton-Obama debate at Cleveland State concerned health care. Akin to debating whether a cake should have cream cheese or butter cream frosting when you haven’t even acquired the cake ingredients, it is preposterous to debate the finite details of health care policy when House Republicans proved in the Mental Health legislation that they are unwilling to support anything.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Will Kline ultimately support Ramstad and Wellstone’s Legacy ?
To Jim Ramstad (R-MN-03) "It's not just a policy issue, it's a matter of life and death for a lot of people." Meanwhile, fellow Minnesota Republican John Kline (R-MN-02) describes Ramstad's legislation as "overreaching".
The legislation, H.R. 1424 - Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, has 25 Republican co-sponsors and additionally the complete Democratic side of the Minnesota delegation -- Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson, and Walz.
Now, it would be wrong to imply that this is good legislation because it has Paul Wellstone's name on it, or because Jim Ramstad is the primary Republican sponsor, but instead it should be based on Ramstad’s comment … "it's a matter of life and death for a lot of people."
Mental health is just as relevant (and potentially damaging) as physical ailments. Addiction comes in many forms and can impact not only the individual but family, friends and co-workers.
The House bill would establish a federal parity as a minimum and not pre-empt states that have stricter parity provisions in place (46 states currently have laws regulating mental health coverage.) Parity equalizes care between mental health and medical benefits which are important since many people are still left without sufficient mental health coverage. The legislation does not force mental-health insurance upon private carriers. Rather, insurers who offer any treatment for mental illness must use the same basic rules that they apply to the treatment of cancer or broken bones or other physical ailments. For example, a managed health-care company cannot impose a higher co-payment for a session with a clinical psychologist than it charges the same patient for a visit to the internist.
There are reasons to be disappointed with this bill … but more so because it does not go far enough. Small Business (less than 50 employees) are exempt … that makes no sense … if mental health is a problem, it needs to be addressed … should physical ailments also be discriminated based upon the ailment?
But overall, this legislation – like most legislation – is a compromise.
As usual, some will exaggerate what may be covered … would jet lag and caffeine addiction be covered? Those are just two of the reasons that some will use to vote down this legislation.
Much like the SCHIP debate, I suspect that the real concern is that some do not want to engage in health care coverage legislation for fears of where it may lead.
This legislation is needed. Anyone who has fought with an insurance company over benefit coverage will attest, or has seen the movie SICKO knows, having insurance is not the question … the question is what is covered by the insurance policy. Every day people ignore mental health and addiction problems because of fear … fear of admitting that there is a problem and fear that the treatment will not be covered.
Insurance companies denying coverage is wrong.
If you are in John Kline's or Michele Bachmann's districts, please call them to express your support for this legislation ... the vote may happen on Wednesday.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, Jim Ramstad should be congratulated for his efforts.
FOOTNOTE : Since John Kline is on a "Pork-free diet", it should be noted that this legislation has NO EARMARKS.
The legislation, H.R. 1424 - Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, has 25 Republican co-sponsors and additionally the complete Democratic side of the Minnesota delegation -- Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson, and Walz.
Now, it would be wrong to imply that this is good legislation because it has Paul Wellstone's name on it, or because Jim Ramstad is the primary Republican sponsor, but instead it should be based on Ramstad’s comment … "it's a matter of life and death for a lot of people."
Mental health is just as relevant (and potentially damaging) as physical ailments. Addiction comes in many forms and can impact not only the individual but family, friends and co-workers.
The House bill would establish a federal parity as a minimum and not pre-empt states that have stricter parity provisions in place (46 states currently have laws regulating mental health coverage.) Parity equalizes care between mental health and medical benefits which are important since many people are still left without sufficient mental health coverage. The legislation does not force mental-health insurance upon private carriers. Rather, insurers who offer any treatment for mental illness must use the same basic rules that they apply to the treatment of cancer or broken bones or other physical ailments. For example, a managed health-care company cannot impose a higher co-payment for a session with a clinical psychologist than it charges the same patient for a visit to the internist.
There are reasons to be disappointed with this bill … but more so because it does not go far enough. Small Business (less than 50 employees) are exempt … that makes no sense … if mental health is a problem, it needs to be addressed … should physical ailments also be discriminated based upon the ailment?
But overall, this legislation – like most legislation – is a compromise.
As usual, some will exaggerate what may be covered … would jet lag and caffeine addiction be covered? Those are just two of the reasons that some will use to vote down this legislation.
Much like the SCHIP debate, I suspect that the real concern is that some do not want to engage in health care coverage legislation for fears of where it may lead.
This legislation is needed. Anyone who has fought with an insurance company over benefit coverage will attest, or has seen the movie SICKO knows, having insurance is not the question … the question is what is covered by the insurance policy. Every day people ignore mental health and addiction problems because of fear … fear of admitting that there is a problem and fear that the treatment will not be covered.
Insurance companies denying coverage is wrong.
If you are in John Kline's or Michele Bachmann's districts, please call them to express your support for this legislation ... the vote may happen on Wednesday.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, Jim Ramstad should be congratulated for his efforts.
FOOTNOTE : Since John Kline is on a "Pork-free diet", it should be noted that this legislation has NO EARMARKS.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
KAA – Another Unneccessary Death that demands Congressional Action
KIA, short for Killed In Action, is used to indicate an individual who is killed during a military operation.
KIA happens due to the enemies action.
KAA is short for Killed After Action.
KAA may be due to our inaction and inattention to the emotional state of our returning soldiers.
Brian Skold enlisted in the Minnesota Army National Guard on Dec. 30, 1998.
Skold served with the 1st Battalion, 151st Field Artillery based in Montevideo Minnesota and was deployed in Baghdad from late 2004 through 2005.
The 151st lost three men in combat in Iraq.
Skold died on May 27th after a standoff with police.
Members of his family told authorities that he may have been suicidal.
"I don't think the president and the government are doing their job with these young men and women who are coming back from the war zones and trying to turn their lives back to a regular world again," said Don Pappenfus, a Vietnam-era veteran and a Sauk Rapids City Council member, "Something's bothering them, and the screening isn't there."
"I don't know enough about his situation, but it doesn't surprise me that we're seeing more incidents like this," said James Schulze of rural Stewart, Minn., whose son Jonathan, a 25-year-old Marine veteran, committed suicide in January.
Read the complete StarTribune story
As an editorial in the Austin Daily Herald commented :
“107 suicides during Iraq operations have been recorded - and that doesn't include suicides by troops after they have returned home. That is a shocking number. Something needs to be done.”
The U.S. Army Medical Command Mental Health Advisory Team III released a report that included a number of key findings including :
-- The top non-combat stressors were deployment length and family separation.
-- Soldiers serving a repeat deployment reported higher acute stress than initial deployers.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) reports : At least one in three Iraq veterans and one in nine Afghanistan veterans are facing a serious mental health problem, from depression to anxiety to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These veterans face serious family and employment problems. Divorce, drug abuse and suicide rates are up.
Earlier this month, Democrat James Moran of Virginia introduced H.R. 2219 : "To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to award a grant to a private, nonprofit entity to establish, publicize, and operate a national toll-free suicide prevention telephone hotline targeted to and staffed by veterans of the Armed Forces." Minnesota Congressman Jim Ramstad is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2219 ... Veterans care might be one of the few issues that can – and should - get bi-partisan support.
There is no reason that every Minnesota Congressperson does not become a co-sponsor of this bill. Please contact your representative today.
KIA happens due to the enemies action.
KAA is short for Killed After Action.
KAA may be due to our inaction and inattention to the emotional state of our returning soldiers.
Brian Skold enlisted in the Minnesota Army National Guard on Dec. 30, 1998.
Skold served with the 1st Battalion, 151st Field Artillery based in Montevideo Minnesota and was deployed in Baghdad from late 2004 through 2005.
The 151st lost three men in combat in Iraq.
Skold died on May 27th after a standoff with police.
Members of his family told authorities that he may have been suicidal.
"I don't think the president and the government are doing their job with these young men and women who are coming back from the war zones and trying to turn their lives back to a regular world again," said Don Pappenfus, a Vietnam-era veteran and a Sauk Rapids City Council member, "Something's bothering them, and the screening isn't there."
"I don't know enough about his situation, but it doesn't surprise me that we're seeing more incidents like this," said James Schulze of rural Stewart, Minn., whose son Jonathan, a 25-year-old Marine veteran, committed suicide in January.
Read the complete StarTribune story
As an editorial in the Austin Daily Herald commented :
“107 suicides during Iraq operations have been recorded - and that doesn't include suicides by troops after they have returned home. That is a shocking number. Something needs to be done.”
The U.S. Army Medical Command Mental Health Advisory Team III released a report that included a number of key findings including :
-- The top non-combat stressors were deployment length and family separation.
-- Soldiers serving a repeat deployment reported higher acute stress than initial deployers.
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) reports : At least one in three Iraq veterans and one in nine Afghanistan veterans are facing a serious mental health problem, from depression to anxiety to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These veterans face serious family and employment problems. Divorce, drug abuse and suicide rates are up.
Earlier this month, Democrat James Moran of Virginia introduced H.R. 2219 : "To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to award a grant to a private, nonprofit entity to establish, publicize, and operate a national toll-free suicide prevention telephone hotline targeted to and staffed by veterans of the Armed Forces." Minnesota Congressman Jim Ramstad is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2219 ... Veterans care might be one of the few issues that can – and should - get bi-partisan support.
There is no reason that every Minnesota Congressperson does not become a co-sponsor of this bill. Please contact your representative today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Vote 60](http://img%20src=http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/ravendog/clic.gif%20border=”0"){kind=link}