President Obama Signs Reconciliation Act

Senate bill H R 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed on March 21, 2010 and signed into law on March 23, 2010.

Today, President Obama signed into law H R 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was passed by Congress on March 25, 2010.

From the White House:

"A Great Battle Pitting the Interests of the Banks and Financial Institutions Against the Interests of Students"

Today at Northern Virginia Community College, President Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, the last step on health reform that provided fixes for some elements and which improved upon the core health reforms by increasing tax credits for the middle class, investing in community health centers, and strengthening efforts to fight waste and fraud. [...]

For a long time, our student loan system has worked for banks and financial institutions. Today, we’re finally making our student loan system work for students and our families. But we’re also doing something more.

From the moment I was sworn into office, I’ve spoken about the urgent need for us to lay a new foundation for our economy and for our future. And two pillars of that foundation are health care and education, and each has long suffered from problems that we chose to kick down the road.

With the bill I signed last week, we finally undertook meaningful reform of our health care system. With this bill, and other steps we’ve pursued over the last year, we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system. So this week, we can rightly say the foundation on which America’s future will be built is stronger than it was one year ago.

President Obama Signs Historic Health Care and Education Legislation

This historic law:

• Invests more than $40 billion in Pell Grants to ensure that all eligible students receive an award and that these awards are increased in future years to help keep pace with the rising cost of college. These investments, coupled with the funding provided in the Recovery Act and the President’s first two budgets, will more than double the total amount of funding available for Pell Grants since President Obama took office.
• Ensures that Americans can afford their student loan payments by expanding the existing income-based student loan repayment program. New borrowers who assume loans after July 1, 2014, will be able to cap their student loan repayments at 10 percent of their discretionary income and, if they keep up with their payments over time, will have the balance forgiven after 20 years.

• Includes $2 billion over four years for community colleges to develop, improve, and provide education and career training programs.

Making Higher Education More Affordable

This legislation means $40 billion more dollars in the Pell Grant program to ensure that eligible students receive an award, and that awards increase to keep pace with rising tuition. And a $2 billion investment over four years for community colleges to develop, improve, and provide education and career training programs. Students will be able to choose to limit their student loan payments to 10% of their income, with any remaining balance forgiven after 20 years. And public service workers can have their loans forgiven after 10 years.

Because special interests have been benefiting from taxpayer subsidies for too long, we’re cutting out the middlemen by ending government subsidies currently given to banks and other financial institutions that make guaranteed federal student loans. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, ending these wasteful subsidies will free up nearly $68 billion for college affordability and deficit reduction over the next 11 years. So these investments are not only paid for, but they’ll reduce the deficit in the long run.

Because of the legislation enacted today, we’re finally undertaking meaningful reform to our education system and making college more affordable and accessible.

For more information on these federal student aid programs, please go to www.studentaid.ed.gov, or call 1-800-4FED-AID.

Remarks by the President and Dr. Jill Biden at Signing of Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act

Reconciliation Passed

H R 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, has been passed in the Senate by a 56 — 43 vote, and has been passed in the House by a 220— 207 vote.

This will now go to President Obama for signing.

HCR Signed

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on,

Vicki Kennedy, wife of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, gives President Barack Obama a "TEDSTRONG" bracelet, which shows support for cancer advocacy, in the Blue Room of the White House prior to the signing ceremony for the health insurance reform bill, March 23, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

“the cause endures, the hope still lives,

President Barack Obama's signature on the health insurance reform bill at the White House, March 23, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

“and the dream shall never die.”

~Senator Edward M. Kennedy - August 12, 1980

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

The Ed Schultz Show:

Do-or-die time for health reform

15:19

March 10: Msnbc’s Ed Shultz talks to Leslie Boyd and Heather Mroz, two women who testified on Capitol Hill about how they have suffered in the hands of insurance companies.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

Antitrust Exemption Repealed; Jobs Bill Passed

House votes to kill antitrust exemption for health insurers:

The House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to repeal the antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies.

The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption, which has been in place since the end of World War II. The 19 who voted against the repeal are Republicans.

Liberal Democrats have said a repeal would help inject competition into the health care industry while reducing consumer costs.

House Roll Call vote: a resolution — H RES 1098 — to restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance.

H. RES. 1098

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4626) to restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

Jobs Bill Passes in Senate:

Companies that hire the unemployed would claim new tax breaks under a jobs-promoting bill the Senate passed Wednesday, delivering President Barack Obama and Democrats a much-needed victory.

The 70-28 vote sends the bill back to the House, which passed a far more costly measure in December.

Senate Roll Call vote: H.R. 2847 — “the Jobs Bill” (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act)

H.R.2847

Pursuant to H.Res. 976, the House modified the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 2847, substituting the "Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010" as Division A of the Act and the "Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009" as Division B.

Health Care Reform: Almost There?

Rachel Maddow announces the results [video - 6:13] of The Filibuster Challenge, renaming the filibuster to 'The Tarantino,' because it kills bills.

From the transcript for The Rachel Maddow Show of February 22, 2010:

Health care home stretch:

Democrats cannot wait until the filibuster is dead to move forward on health reform. They have to move health reform in a way that just gets around the problem.

And that’s what the White House started to do today: President Obama introducing his proposal to move health reform forward. It consists of minor tweaks to the Senate version of the bill that are specifically designed to allow Democrats to bypass the Republican filibuster and pass health reform with a simple majority vote in the Senate.

And here’s the funny thing about President Obama’s proposal. On the front page at Politico.com today, it was the screaming headline, “The Obama Plan.” And it had this picture of a giant stack of paper next to the president.

I have no idea what is in that stack of paper, but I can tell you tonight, it is not the health reform proposal that President Obama released today — unless it’s like 1,000 copies of that proposal. Because if you want to see what President Obama introduced today, it's this.

It’s 11 pages. That’s it. Eleven pages that consist of minor tweaks of what’s already been passed by the Senate.

It’s not starting over as Politico.com might have you believe. It’s finishing up. And this is important in terms of understanding where we are in this process.

This is what already passed the House. This guy, this one.

This one passed the House, right? Two thousand and sixteen pages. It passed way back in November.

By a 220 - 215 vote, the House of Representatives has passed H.R.3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

This is what‘s already passed the Senate, about 2,409 pages.

This passed on Christmas Eve.

By a 60 - 39 vote, the Senate passed H.R. 3590, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as Amended

These have already passed their respective chambers of Congress — House, Senate. And the way it works, as we all know from “Schoolhouse Rock” is that if two different versions pass two different houses, they have to be merged and then that merged version has to get passed again.

But because of the Tarantino, because Republicans filibuster everything, because Republicans are filibustering health reform, Democrats have to come up with something that reconciles these two bills that can avoid that Republican filibuster. And this is what does that.

This is the view of the White House. This is what the president thinks could be done. This is what remains to be done according to the White House. It’s 11 pages.

The President’s Proposal.

This is not a new proposal. It doesn’t replace everything that’s been done. So feel free to ignore Politico.com on this or any other issue. Their front page all day has been visually misinforming you on what they call “The Obama Plan.” Nothing that looks like that can also look like this, unless it‘s printed really, really big.

Republicans have thought that they killed health reform but they didn’t. It’s passed the House. It’s passed the Senate. And now, it’s very much alive. There are only 11 pages to go.

We’re almost done.

Pushing For The Public Option

Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) has written a letter to Harry Reid — co-signed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — stating, in part:

We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.

There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.

• A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline...


• A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness...


• There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation...


• There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines...

So far, a total of 11 Senators and 119 House members have signed on.

Contact your Congress critters in the Senate and the House and push!

Push!

PUSH!

Modern Christmas Tale

Congress, pass real health care reform.

Health Care Bill Moves Forward

This evening, the Senate voted 60-39 on the (cloture) Motion to Proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3590 [pdf], the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Floor Schedule:

Monday, Nov 30, 2009

2:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.3590, regarding health care reform.

Countdown: Health Care

While the obstructionists continue to play their games and block the passage of health care reform, people continue to suffer, and more will die.

Countdown with Keith Olberman

Transcript: Monday, November 16

The health debate continues…

Nov. 16: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., talks about the Republicans delay tactics to prevent health reform from being passed before the new year. Video: 7:35

Health reform’s human stories

Nov. 16: Countdown’s Keith Olbermann reads an account by producer Rich Stockwell of the free health clinic held in New Orleans over the weekend, in which over 1,000 people attended. Video 6:10

'Countdown' senior producer Rich Stockwell shares his experience attending the free health clinic by the Association of Free Clinics in New Orleans on Saturday.

From the transcript:

Health reform’s human stories

After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America.

Eighty-three percent of the patients they see are employed, they are not accepting other government help on a large scale, not "welfare queens" as some would like to have us believe. They are tax-paying, good, upstanding citizens who are trying to make it and give their kids a better life just like you and me.

Ninety percent of the patients who came through Saturday's clinic had two or more diagnoses.

Eighty-two percent had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension. They are victims of a system built with corporate profits at its center, which long ago forgot the moral imperative that should drive us to show compassion to our fellow men and women. [...]

Politicians continue to tell us we are the most compassionate and caring people, and clearly we have done much good in the world. I left the event overwhelmed by the hard work and dedication of the volunteers, doctors, nurses, other medical professionals, as well as ordinary citizens who came to help. I am left with one overwhelming question: what does it say about us as a nation of people who can live in a country so rich and yet allow this to continue?

National Association of Free Clinics

A Backwards Move In Health Care

The Stupak amendment should have never been allowed to be introduced in the House, and it should never be allowed into the final Health Care bill, as it would overwrite already existing laws in order to restrict the legal right of choice even more. The Hyde Amendment already restricts Federal funds for abortion. Shame on those who still aim to have further dominance over women and their bodies and limit their access to medical insurance coverage. Especially those "elites" who think they are "specially chosen" and can dictate rules that they don't always follow themselves.

Why The Stupak Amendment Is A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access

Wonk Room, Think Progress:

If you thought that just because abortion is a constitutional right and part of basic reproductive health care it would be available in the reformed health insurance market known as the Exchange, think again. The Stupak Amendment, passed Saturday night by the House of Representatives after a compromise deal fell apart, potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women’s access to abortion.

The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false. Here’s what the Stupak Amendment does:

1. It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange...
   
2. It includes only extremely narrow exceptions...
   
3. It allows for a useless abortion “rider”...
   
4. It allows for discrimination against abortion providers...

Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage?

I think so.

Robin Marty, RH Reality Check:

This weekend, a group of male pro-life Democrats gambled with women's health, and women lost. By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover "abortion services," pro-life amendments don't just affect their intended victims -- women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims -- women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

- - - - -
Hospitals and doctors in general do not have terminology to classify a difference between the termination of a live pregnancy and one in which the fetus has already died. To them, a D&C is a D&C, regardless of the state of the "conception materials" removed.

Who Subsidizes Abortion?

Eyal Press, The Notion:

As is now widely known, added to the health care reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives was a provision barring access to abortion called the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Passed with the support of sixty-four Democrats, Stupak-Pitts doesn't merely prohibit coverage of abortion in a public option. It also forbids women who receive a federal subsidy from purchasing any health insurance plan that covers the procedure, even if the abortion is paid out of a separate pool of private premium dollars (for all the background and details, see my colleague Emily Douglas' post).

If this highly regressive amendment makes its way into the legislation that Barack Obama eventually signs, millions of less affluent women who obtain access to affordable health insurance will thus join the ranks of low-income women on Medicaid, most of whom live in states that don't cover abortion procedures. The two-tiered system that dictates who in America has "choice" (more privileged women do, less affluent women do not) will be further entrenched.

But if the social consequences of Stupak-Pitts are clear, the logic is not. Supporters of the provision evidently want to assure taxpayers that they will not be forced to subsidize abortion in any way. But if they are serious about this, why haven't they drawn up an amendment abolishing tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance? As Jonathan Cohn has pointed out, this is by far the largest subsidy in health care policy today. (It is also a regressive subsidy, but that's another story.) If the employer-sponsored insurance that a worker gets happens to cover abortion – which, in roughly half the cases, it does – than that taxpayer already subsidizes abortion.

The purists who don't want any of their dollars to subsidize abortion have another problem. As Amy Sullivan of Time has observed, plenty of pro-life people likely have no idea whether their private health insurance plans include abortion services (in which case their premiums indirectly fund the procedure). The same goes for pro-life organizations. Sullivan did a bit of digging and found out that Focus on the Family provides its employees insurance through Principal, a company that -- you guessed it -- covers abortion procedures.

The Price of Health Reform: Abortion Rights?

Why Bart Stupak's last-minute amendment to the health care bill is even more radical than you think.

By Rachel Morris, MoJo:

The Stupak amendment mandates that no federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion or "cover any part of any health plan" that includes coverage of an abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

The first part of the amendment isn't new. The 1976 Hyde Amendment already prevents the use of federal dollars to pay for most abortions. Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure.

That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government. The House health care bill will also provide subsidies to help people and small businesses purchase plans on an exchange. This represents a lucrative new market for insurers: anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four qualifies for assistance, as well as certain small companies. But to gain access to these new customers, insurers will have to drop abortion coverage from their plans.

This is About One More Burden for Women Navigating the Health Care System

C and L, VideoCafe:

Dr. Nancy Snyderman sums up how a lot of us feel about this absolutely horrid Stupak amendment. No, it's not fair and it is outrageous. It's bad enough we've got one party that wants to keep women living in the 1950's. We don't need two. And we don't need the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops writing legislation for Democrats.

Catholic Bishops Call the Shots on Health Care Reform

James Ridgeway, MoJo:

We now know that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which in the end run reports to Rome, was involved in the crafting and promotion of the Stupak Amendment, the provision that transformed a tepid health care victory for the Democrats into a serious loss for women’s reproductive rights. Hard as it is to believe, this sober conclave seems to have outstripped even the screaming fundamentalist Protestants in wielding influence over Congressional policymaking in this instance.

The Stupak Amendment was promulgated by a devout Catholic Democrat from Michigan, who is now being celebrated as a pro-life hero. He and 63 other Democrats insisted on the anti-choice measure, under threat of crushing the whole bill, and they reportedly worked with the USCCB to come up with "acceptable" language for the amendment. The bishops apparently had a direct line to the Repubican leadership, as well: According to Politico, "Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Republican leader John Boehner to make sure the GOP didn’t play any games with the Stupak (abortion) amendment, sources said.”

The Rachel Maddow Show: Bart Stupak's C-Street Gang

C and L, VideoCafe

Rachel Maddow runs down the list for us of C-Street family members who also voted for Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment yesterday. Nothing like having what amounts to a secretive religious cult making health care policy for women in the United States. As Rachel noted that list includes:

Rep. Bart Stupak D-MI
Rep. Joe Pitts R-PA
Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO
Rep. Mike McIntyre D-NC
Rep. John Tanner D-TN
Rep. Lincoln Davis D-TN
Rep. Dan Boren D-OK
Rep. Heath Shuler D-NC

Jeff Sharlet joined Rachel to discuss The C-Street Family's ever growing influence within the Democratic Party.

What's Really Pissing Me Off

Meteor Blades, DailyKos:

"Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Overreacting." "Hysterical."

Women recognize these words all too well. They're put-downs many of them have had thrown at them all their lives anytime they raise issues about their treatment in relationships, school, the workplace or society at large.

These words and others of similar ilk have found their way into diaries and comments here at Daily Kos yesterday and today around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. Calm down, little lady, is the tone. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works?

Pffffffft.

Many of these sexist critiques are then followed up by a distortion of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment itself, all of which amounts to the view that this is no big deal, that it does nothing more than the Hyde Amendment, the sexist, classist abomination that has been on the books in one form or another since 1976. In fact, as mcjoan pointed out earlier today, the Stupak-Pitts coathanger amendment goes a good deal further than Hyde.

So besides engaging in put-downs, the patronizers have it dead wrong. This isn't a tempest in a teapot. It matters. And it matters big time, as at least 40 members of Congress led by Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette have made pretty damn clear. If the Democratic leadership doesn't come to grips with this, they're heading the party for big trouble next November, an election month that already may be a difficult time for the party given the state of an economy that may be getting better on paper but is, at best, many months away from even beginning to trickle down to where people actually live their lives.

- - - - -
Over the decades, while engaging in a campaign of intimidation, harassment and murder, the anti-abortion movement has managed, nibble by nibble, to get ever-more restrictive legislation into place. Ultimately, the right of affluent women to obtain an abortion hasn't been much affected - except in the case of late-term procedures. But affluent women always had options even when abortion was illegal in every state. They could fly to Puerto Rico or Japan and get a safe abortion there without having to risk potentially lethal chemicals or abortions at the hands of unlicensed doctors or other providers operating on somebody's kitchen table in less than sterile conditions.

Thanks to Hyde, low-income women in most states are still at a disadvantage when it comes to getting an abortion. Stupak-Pitts, if it survives the conference process, will not only reinforce this classist attack on women, it will also broaden it.

Being ferociously opposed to it is, therefore, not irrational or hypersensitive or over-reactive. It's called standing up for progressive values.

Health Care Bill Passes In House

By a 220 - 215 vote, the House of Representatives has passed H.R.3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Public Option and Ironic Hypocrisy

They've got theirs, but don't want you to have yours?

Anthony Weiner Points Out the Hypocrisy of Members of Congress on Medicare but Against the Public Option

Video Cafe, C and L:

From Think Progress: Rep. Weiner Identifies 55 Republicans On Medicare Who ‘Steadfastly Oppose’ The Public Option

Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) office today released an internal study showing that 151 members of Congress “currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care — Medicare.” Of those 151 members, 55 are Republicans who also happen to be “steadfastly opposed [to] other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.”

Rep. Weiner talked explained why his office released that study on C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Well it’s more kind of another way of looking at this debate, this discussion about the public option, to put it in focus. We went, just out of curiosity, looked at how many members of Congress get the public option. And I know a lot of people have said, “Well under the new bill, how many of you members of Congress would choose the public option?”

Well there already is one; it’s called Medicare. And we found that 55 Republicans and 151 members of Congress are on Medicare right now. So they’re already getting the same type of public option that we’d like people who are without insurance to be able to get. And I guess the purpose of this list was to kind of point out some of the hypocrisy of this debate.

You have members of Congress thumping their chest how they’re against government health care, against government control of health care, socialized medicine and yet when it’s time for them to accept Medicare, they’re like, ‘Sign me up!’

“No government run health care. And keep your hands off my Medicare!”

Pffft.

Keep It Lit

Keep their feet to the fire and keep that fire burning:

Is It Possible The Insurance Companies Stepped On Their Wangers?

Hmmmmm. It appears that the worm may be turning... Seriously, did the insurance companies step on their wangers?

A few days ago the public option was on life supports, seemingly just days, or moments away from time of death being called.

Then the insurance companies produced a quick "study" that turned out to be cooked, threatened to raise everyone's health care premiums if the public option passed, and now all of a sudden I'm hearing optimism about the public option surviving everywhere I turn. [...]

Is it possible? Did they over play their hand and start a bit of a backlash?

Nate Silver at 538.com did a little "10 reasons" thing on the 20th on why the public option is probably gaining momentum...#1 being:

1. The tireless, and occasionally tiresome, advocacy on behalf of liberal bloggers and interest groups for the public option. Whatever you think of their tactics -- I haven't always agreed with them -- the sheer amount of focus and energy expended on their behalf has been very important, keeping the issue alive in the public debate.

Woohoo! That's us, huh???

Specter: 'We Have 60 Votes Without Sen. Snowe'

Appearing on MSNBC tonight, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) asserted that the Democrats have the votes to break an expected Republican filibuster on health care -- with or without Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

"We have 60 votes without Sen. Snowe, so we can still invoke cloture and move to a vote on the public option," he said.

Support a Natalie's law provision in health care legislation

Remember Natalie Sarkisyan? If the name rings a bell, it should. Natalie was a seventeen year old girl who needed a liver transplant. Only when they finally found a donor her parent's insurance company, CIGNA, which provided full coverage through her father's insurance refused to pay. After a lot of bad press they relented nine days later but by the time the procedure was performed, Sarkisyan was literally hours away from death and did not survive.

Her parents went to court to sue CIGNA for damage caused by the company's denial of their daughter's transplant. The court threw out the complaint, not because they hadn't caused her death but because of a 1987 Supreme Court decision that prevents victims from suing over coverage decisions. The decision relates to 1974's Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which governs employee retirement funds and benefit plans.

So last year Natalie's parents, Hilda and Krikor Sarkisyan went to CIGNA's corporate headquarters on October 29, 2008 to ask for an apology. What they got was a front man who came out and told them that he was very sorry but that the company would not even offer them an apology, and further that the CEO or anyone involved with the decision would not come out and talk to them. Not that they didn't see someone higher up, of course. What they got was the man upstairs throwing them 'the bird.'

Hilda and Krikor Sarkisyan are not giving up in trying to change things though.

The catalyst for this came not only in the judge being forced by the 1987 court decision to have to dismiss Natalie's wrongful death suit, but also from CIGNA's official press release after this.

"Cigna said the dismissal of the wrongful-death case in April showed that the court "agreed with our position that the Sarkisyans' claims regarding Cigna's decision making were without merit."

In fact, the court did not consider the merits of the family's wrongful-death claims. Instead, it decided those claims could not be heard.

Not heard because of the Supreme Court decision!! If it were based solely on the merits of the case then it could be heard. The pure and unadulterated arrogance and contempt on display CIGNA, knowing very well that they have nothing to fear if they do kill someone, is stunning.

The Sarkisyans have proposed 'Natalie's law,' whereby Congress would put in place a mechanism by which insurance companies like CIGNA will be held accountable (even if it is by fines rather than by direct compensation to victims or their families) for injuries or death that it can be proven was caused by withholding payment for a procedure.

According to the linked article, at least one CIGNA employee did have a conscience and quit his job so he could stand with the Sarkisyans:

"ERISA is a license to kill," Glovsky said. "The companies know that they can deny treatment with the sick or dead member having virtually no recourse."

Wendell Potter, a Cigna spokesman who quit after handling the publicity surrounding the Sarkisyan case, agreed.

"HMOs and insurers are largely free to deny access to care without fear of reprisal or financial consequences," Potter said in a speech to the Civil Justice Foundation in San Francisco.

Right now, as Congress debates health care overhaul it is time to undo the disastrous ERISA provision. The truth is that tort reform is long overdue-- instead of aiming lawsuits at doctors whose hands may well be tied by the knowlege that some procedures will likely be denied even if they ask for them, maybe the truth is that it is the insurers who should be included in these suits.

Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog sent a letter to key congressional leaders urging them to undo the ERISA ruling, and group President Jamie Court said Nataline's case shows why such a move is crucial to any healthcare reform.

"If the insurer decides they don't want to pay for the treatment because they can save a lot of money, there is not a dime available in damages if the person dies or is injured," Court said. "It's cheaper to kill you. If you die, you can't go to court.

Keith's Health Care Reform Special Comment

If you missed Keith Olbermann's extended Special Comment on Healthcare Reform this evening, DarkSyde over at KOS has posted all five MSNBC videos.

Here's the transcript:

Health care reform: Saving American lives

Keith Olbermann on what really matters when it comes to health reform

No Backing Down

We need to have many more Democrats standing up and using their spines, like Rep. Alan Grayson has done:

Rep. Alan Grayson discusses the Republican health care plan and GOP charges about him with Ed Schultz on Oct 1, 2009.

8:08

For Shame

Max Baucus screws over millions of America people, while taking millions from the insurance industry.

What a guy buy.

Victims Of Health Care Reform?

Will Ferrell and Move On join up for this new video about the "victims" of health care reform:

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

And if you believe those CEOs are "victims", then I've got a bridge you may be interested in.

Yippee! We're Number 37!

Doesn't that make you feel good? [*/snark*]