Open forum for concerns of voters. We want a lively discussion of topics.
Click to follow:
[img_assist|nid=63|title=Facebook|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=100][img_assist|nid=64|title=Twitter|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=100]
Holding British Petroleum Accountable
On April 20, 2010, The Deepwater Horizon, owned and operated by TransOcean Ltd., and leased to British Petroleum, PLC, exploded and sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, killing eleven employees and injuring seventeen others, and causied an ongoing catastrophic oil spill that endangers the area's fishing culture, threatens its tourism industry, and jeopardizes the entire Gulf coast ecosystem.
Starting more groups, editing current groups, etc...
In two weeks time, Coffee Party USA will be releasing an internal Facebook type application specifically for members of the Coffee Party website. Until then, we are asking that everyone make due with the tools they have currently. This new platform will knock your socks off.
Please bear with us. We built it, you came, we have to remodel. 
ukranian village chapter meeting april 10th
The coffee party group in Chicago's Ukranian Village will be meeting on April 10th at 10 am, at Cafe Ballou, located on Western Ave, just north of Chicago Ave.
Our group is a small but lively bunch! We will be discussing ways to effectively engage ourselves in the political process, as well as discussing current events. We are very much hoping to see some new faces and expand our circle- anybody in the wicker park/bucktown area, please join us!
Comments
Justice Stevens' SCOTUS Replacement
I know that two Rockford, Illinois Coffee Party members have already chimed in that the Coffee Party should not get involved in the process of selecting Justice Stevens' replacement, but I emphatically disagree.
I don't believe that we will ever see any meaningful reform in regards to campaign financing until the Supreme Court finally responds to the people of the United States, rather than to the wealthy bag men that Corporate America houses on K Street.
While no SCOTUS nominee will ever go on the record in regards to how they feel about a particular Supreme Court ruling before being confirmed, past judicial rulings and/or written opinions on matters of interest (i.e., ''Citizen's United'') should be blatant in endorsing any possible replacement for retirning Justice John John Paul Stevens.
And those blatant opinions should be firmly AGAINST the ''Citizen's United'' ruling.
We need to endorse a nominee, and the sooner the better.
~ DW
Coffee with Congress purpose
The packet they had on the main CPUSA site want'd us to follow a certain "agenda" for this meeting. I think we came up with more questions than solutions. My take on it was to get Congressional leaders to commit to finding common ground, to work on solutions instead of the current partisan political rhetoric that has created open hostility and a non-functioning government and to address issues associated with recent Supreme Court decision (Money & Politics). I admit to not being thoroughly prepared nor did I read the docs regarding these issues before our local meeting. I am curious though, is this what the rest of you got out of these materials? I for one, do not feel prepared enough to go into a meeting with my congressional rep. I feel that most of what we covered in our meeting was everything but these issues tho we did touch on them slightly and agreed they were probably the most important issues to tackle prior to November's elections. (At least in my mind they were.)
My concern is that our "Coffee with Congress" meeting not become a gripe or blame session. Not the "alternative" tea party. That it should be a well-thought out, reasonable discussion concerning Congressional accountability to represent ALL their constituents and the expectation that our elected leaders MUST uphold higher standards of civic repsponsibility/behavior and put an end to the current levels of hostility for the sake of our country and its people.
So... am I off-base on this one? What were your impressions from the materials? How do you go about keeping the conversation on target? I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas, direction from anyone else.
Thanks for your input, Annette
If you and your Coffee Party
If you and your Coffee Party group are interested in peacefully protesting the Tea Party Express III, your Coffee Party group will need to get a Rockford public event permit.
Cynthia Powers Hall is the Rockford City Events Coordinator.
Bright and early on Sunday, send her an email at cyndie.hall@rockfordil.gov requesting a permit for your Coffee Party group, for April 6th, 2010, at Davis Park in Rockford, 1 pm - 4:30 pm, close enough to the Tea Party Express group to participate, but far enough away for public safety.
Bright and early on Monday, when her office is open, contact Ms. Hall at 815-987-5546, and make the same request in person, requesting her to expediate the request due to the immediacy of the event.
We shouldn't let this opportunity pass us by to let America know, via the news media, that 'No' is an acceptable domestic policy.
For more information on the event, go to http://rockrivertimes.com/2010/03/15/rockford-tea-party-brings-tea-party...
I'm not 100% sure you can use Coffee Party's name
without approval from National. Just be aware. I think they would hate to see someone hit over the head with a Coffee Party sign :).
''Lead, follow, or get out of the way.'' ~ Thomas Paine
No final decision has yet been made... we will do so on April 3d.
The call I put out to get assembly permits for Davis Park was made so that there'd be no one denied a permit due to the lack of timeliness.
The Tea Party Express III event is just one week away, after all.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the right to clench one's fist begins where the other fellow's nose begins, Rich.
If we decide to follow through, our assembly will be peaceful, and our signs will clearly say ROCKFORD Coffee Party.
Heck - we'd be making them, not CPUSA!
If the National endorses this peaceful protest - great!
But someone has to be out there, even if it is just ten people:
Recent statements from John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Michael Steele make it abundantly clear that they will not work with the Democrats that we, the people, elected to their offices - and our next election day is still a long way off.
Whether you agree with the principles of one of the two major political parties or another is completely irrelevent in this matter - the failure to even try and find common ground is an outright betrayal of the democratic process, and the oaths that our elected officials have taken as our Representatives.
As voters & volunteers, we will support leaders who work towards positive solutions, but hold accountable those who obstruct them.
And the Rockford Coffee Party, for one, is going to hold those who are doing the obstructing accountable.
We have all pledged to conduct ourselves in a way that is civil, honest, and respectful toward people with whom we disagree. To that end, sir, if we move forward on this issue, we intend on holding a civil, honest, and respectful protest.
If you do not want to participate, sir, that is your perogerative... but the Rockford chapter of the Coffee Party USA doesn't believe that 'No' is a sound domestic policy... and that it is, instead, the complete lack of a domestic policy.
This can not be silently tolerated. We must voice our opposition.
I hope to see ALL of the Chicagoland area Coffee Parties step up, and be counted.
If your particular chapter does not want to participate, but you do, as an individual, you're more than welcome to come stand alongside with us.
And that means you, too, Rich: I expect you to be organizing your particualar chapter's transportation to and from Rockford!
We'll provide the coffee.
~ DW
Peaceful Protest
I just got off the phone with the Deputy Chief Booker of the ROckford Police Department and was informed that no permit is necessary for a demonstration in Davis Park - but, of course, all local, state, and federal laws as well as all city ordinences should be respected.
God Bless America!
Please be careful
If you protest with Coffee Party Signs, you by default represent the Coffee Party. The media will love to show a group of 20 people (or 100 people) vs thousands. And they would love to see a shouting match. My worst nightmare is they egg your group on, you guys get angry, and a bump becomes a shove etc. All on tape. And of course Fox will show only the edited version. They might try it. They read this forum.
Remember what Annabel said, this is theater. The TPE is here for the media and attention as much as it is for the poor souls who will attend.
Interesting note: The Tea Party Express is funded by "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC which is headed by Howard Kaloogian, who is a small time Republican who wants to be a big time Republican. 2/3 of the money raised by Our Country goes to a Republican consulting group. He will do anything to get attention from the big boys. If any group might have thugs, this one might.
Again just be careful.
To be blunt, Rich, we WANT
To be blunt, Rich, we WANT Tea Party thugs to be caught on film mocking us.
Our signs will be polite refutations of the Tea Party's tactics ('No is Not a Domestic Policy', 'Hate Vs. Hope' and 'Stop Yelling Long Enough and you might Learn Something'), and all made by us, with our own logos.
To date, the Coffee Party USA hasn't even acknowledged our existence, and not one person from the Chicago chapter has seen fit to try and organize us or sit in on a meeting: we've been on our own from jumpstreet.
Not that we mind the isolation, though - our issues are very different than those of importance to the city's residents or those living out in the suburbs, and, additionally, we prefer the autonomy.
Back to the Tea Party Express...
They're rolling into town with no less than a biker gang escort, sir.
We can't very well make the thugs look like thugs unless they are being thuggish, now, can we?
They are going to behave in whatever manner that they choose to behave, Rich - and that is completely out of our control. It is, in my view, extreme cowardice, and un-Amerian to slink away and hide simply because there are thugs running around MY public park.
As far as our numbers, how many Americans does it take to stand up for what is right and proper, sir?
I still hope to see you and your local Coffee Party find us out there at Davis Park, and join us, Rich.
Weather permitting, we might even have a cook out.
Rockford Chapter Coffee Party
I felt the Rockford meeting went very well, but I'll let the other attendees speak for themselves.
Since we did not hold an event on the 13th of March, we had a lot of ground to cover in order to catch up to where the other Chicago CPM chapters are already at.
We certainly hit the ground running!
We started right on time at noon, with 10 attendees, and closed everything down, right on time, at 2 pm.
The discussions revolved around the lack of civil discourse in today's politics, heavyhanded corporate influence in our government's affairs, and what we wanted to see the Coffee Party Movement accomplish.
We managed to get some of the staff working at the coffee house hosting our event involved in the discussions.
We all decided to show up again, at Katie's Cup, in just one week, to discuss the impending arrival of the Tea Party Express III into Rockford on the 6th of April, Sarah Palin's planned visit to the Rosemont, and to make arrangements for our ''Coffee with Congress'' event.
While I took a few pictures of the event, I had not thought of getting a group photo... (I was running on 24 hours without sleep, so PLEASE forgive me for that oversight!)
Working the midnight shift the night before left me ragged, and for that I have to apologize if I left anyone with the impression that I might have less energy than I normally might have, otherwise.
I want to personally thank everyone who attended, as well as Katie's Cup, located in beautiful downtown Rockford for hosting our get together - and hope to see everyone else at our next meeting!
PRESS RELEASE: Rockford Coffee Party-A Local Alternative to Tea
A LOCAL ALTERNATIVE TO TEA
Rockford - The inaugural meeting of the Rockford chapter of the Coffee Party USA took place at Katie's Cup coffee house in downtown Rockford, on Saturday, March 27th.
Organized by local residents who do not view government as an enemy of the people, but, instead, as a vehicle for the citizenry's collective will, and to give a voice to those Americans who desire to see cooperation in government in order to create positive solutions, the Rockford chapter of the National Coffee Party met to discuss national politics, the heated rhetoric of today's political atmosphere, and the absence of any real civil political discourse.
"To have sitting Senators tell their constituents - in what is just the third month of this year - that they'll refuse to work with their political opponents for the rest of the year is completely unsatisfactory," said the chapter's local media coordinator, Del Wasso, in reference to recent comments from Senator John McCain, of Arizona. "The American people expect better... the American people DESERVE better. The Rockford Coffee Party represents citizens in our state's 14th and 16th Congressional districts, and we will not tolerate a government that does not respond to the people governed."
Initially organized by documentary filmmaker Annabel Park as an online Facebook political discussion group, the National Coffee Party has grown to having more than 150,000 Internet members in just a mere 3 months, and has stepped out of the virtual world into the real one.
The local Rockford chapter resolved to meet again in early April to discuss the planned stop in Rockford by the conservative Tea Party Express, political firebrand Sarah Palin's planned appearance in May at the Rosemont Theatre, and the National Coffee Party's planned ''Coffee with Congress'' initiative - an attempt to sit down with local Representatives over coffee to convince them to work with their political opposition, rather than against them.
"'No' isn't a domestic policy," said Mr. Wasso. "It's the lack of one."
For more information about the Coffee Party USA, go online to http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/, or email the local chapter at RockfordCPM@aol.com.
Congressional Districts
I live in Naperville and am setting up a meeting here for the Coffee Summit. One of my interest is in Coffee with Congress. I looked at the district and there are a few meetings in her district. Here is a copy of her district http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=13. This is a good place to note other districts as well.
I wonder if other groups in her district would ask at their meetings whether to have a few meetings with Ms. Biggert or one larger one. It also depends on the number of people that may come out to a meeting, if we can get Ms. Biggert to attend.
health care straw poll results
i know this group states that it is bipartisan and for fleshing out new ideas. i think the tea parties do this as they do disagree with the GOP on several. however i do not think this is the cafe with the coffee party. why? look at the recent coffee party straw poll. after 5,295 votes, 91.3% think the current health care bill should be passed. that is HUGE.
this week's rasmussen poll shows
43% of the population is in favor of it.
55% would rather see congress scrap it and start over (i'm in here).
in trying to find support among democrats only, i've seen numbers from 70-85%.
with support among this group at 91% for the current iteration - how can one claim the coffee party to be bipartisan? or even as it was in theory intended to be - an organization to foster debate over coffee and come up with practical real world solutions? to me this indicates that the coffee party has largely made up it's mind, and is more of a reflex response to tea parties rather than a community looking for practical real world discussions on the issue. obviously there is a lot of serious debate that should take place with the current plan. yet the coffee party seems to be the demographic most committed to it! if this community is truly set up to be discussing issues - shouldn't there be less agreement, and more discussion? how do you know your views are correct without challenging them with opposing opinions? does this not indicate a group that intends to meet to foster discussion, yet in reality results not in discussion, but groupthink?
i am working at a client in the insurance industry (not health, not that it would matter) and i can tell you that the brunt of employees couldn't even describe to you well what insurance does, how it works, how it adds value, how it profits, how it fails. i expect even less voters to understand this, republican, democrat or other; tea drinkers or coffee drinkers. i like the idea of this community if the intent actually happens - people meet, exchange ideas and educate others. personally i believe the more people understand the economics of health care and insurance the less support there would be for this bill. my beliefs about that aside, the fact remains that support of it is *incredibly* strong within this group, and i really see that as a failure to reach the tenet of fostering discussion and emerging with the best ideas, because it is quite simply impossible to do so when ideas fail to have any opposing critique expressed.
One more thing
Before I get too off topic, I should point out that what you were originally saying - that people here vastly support it, and how is that bipartisan - I guess I would point to how Congress has shifted in recent years (the past 10 or so years).
- How many "moderate" Republicans are left? The senators from Maine, of course. But who else? Most House Republicans have veered quite far to the right.
- How many "conservative" Democrats are there? Quite a few - think Bart Stupak, and the number of anti-abortion legislators he claimed to have with him. These are people that are in a political party that has as it's party platform "pro-choice" wording. That's a BIG tent.
- What is the political "middle" now? Given that about 25% of people self-report as Republicans, and only 35% or so as Democrats, 40% identify as "independents" (even if they "lean" right or left on various issues), there's a LOT of space there in the center.
Me? I know I lean left, and I do register as a Democrat (but only to vote in primaries, since Illinois doesn't allow independents to vote in them). But I'm to the right one some issues too - I generally favor 2nd amendment rights (even if I don't own a gun), there is something to be said about the free enterprise system working better than government (in some areas), and I tend to favor a strong military (though not a wasteful one, or those used for wars of choice).
So I think there's a complex set of issues here, that people can reasonably disagree about. And we may be reflexively reacting to the Tea Parties - I know that I find them more than a bit disconcerting, given the highly charged, emotional rhetoric coming from them. (They remind me a lot of the John Birch folks, in many cases.) That said, more people involved in the political process is a good thing - provided it is still civil.
So what if we happen to disagree with the Tea Party folks? Isn't that kind of the point? Many of them are adamantly against the health care bill. I don't find it a surprise that many Coffee Party folks would therefore be in favor of it.
Just my $0.02 on the matter. :-)
(Whoops - this ended up before my first post. Didn't land quite where I thought it would. My apologies for any confusion!)
It's already shifting in favor
Check out the new USA Today poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable...
"By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system."
I think people were more repulsed by the 'sausage-making' of the legislative process, and now that they're learning what's IN the bill, they're realizing it's a positive for them. I'd expect those numbers to improve over time, too.
the problem with polls is
the problem with polls is that they are terribly inaccurate for anything other than the simplest near term questions. 1 out of 2 people may "like the bill" but i can guarantee you that 1 out of 2 people do not actually understand how prices are set or insurance actually works etc. i have had to explain to some very smart friends how their auto insurance actually works or their home insurance works. also what non-profit really means.
I understand
I worked in the health insurance industry for 7 years - everything from individual/small group plans on up to partially-self-funded large group plans. So although I'm quite fluent in the ways of insurance, I realize other people have minimal understandings of co-insurance, much less the finer points about exclusions / limitations and eye-glazing things like Utilization Review. I know that most people don't understand even the basic concept of risk-sharing, much less that it's good for them (lots of people think it's just a scam).
That said, there are polls out there demonstrating that people, when they are educated about what is IN the bill, realize they LIKE it. For example, check out the second graph:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/is_health-care_refor...
Taken from these polls:
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr022310nr.cfm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/publics_take...
Not bad, considering these were taken before the Senate bill passed the House. So when people understand what's in it, they realize that... well, it's pretty good.
so when more people find out
so when more people find out what's in the bill they like it more, but does that mean it's good? everyone would like the government to all send them a $5k check right now, i'm sure that would win a majority vote. does that mean it's good? the results on that first link are weird. only 55% support a 132 billion deficit reduction? why isn't that 100%? not that i trust government health savings estimates as you can look to other programs that have been off by orders of magnitude. raising taxes on the rich, isn't that a populist idea always perpetually supported?
since you were in the industry, can you tell me how the preexisting part works? i read it in some version of the bill, i don't think one that passed, and i am not really understanding it. is it that you can no longer deny coverage in entirety based on a preexisting condition, but insurers can still deny a claim for that particular condition?
my understanding of current state:
you have cancer. no health insurance company will insure you with a new policy.
is the future state:
you have cancer, a health insurance company must insure you and cover the cancer
or is it:
you have cancer, a health insurance company must insure you and cover unrelated items (cut your finger off with a saw), is allowed to charge you higher premiums based on risk for other diseases (now 5% more likely to get x) but is not expected to pay for a claim against your current cancer.
how does this work?
The good, the popular, and pre-existing stuff
"so when more people find out what's in the bill they like it more, but does that mean it's good?"
Fair question. But given what the items are, I find it hard to think that any of them are particularly bad. I mean, let's just take the items that Ezra Klein listed. Which of these are bad?
- Financial help for middle/low income folks to afford insurance
- Raising taxes on the rich (helps pay for the above)
- Employer mandate (not socialism by any stretch; makes use of present system)
- Individual mandate (I can understand why some might not like this, but as an insurance person, surely you understand why this is necessary - otherwise people would wait until they were sick and buy insurance then)
- Closing donut hole (I always thought that was a bad idea in that legislation)
- $132 billion deficit reduction (I'm guessing some people don't know what the deficit even IS.)
- Ban on health discrimination (the 20% opposing must be heartless or something)
- Exchanges (at 80% approval, that's a lot higher than I would have thought, cause I'm not terribly enthusiastic about them)
But hey - we live in a democracy (okay, "constitutional republic") with representatives that vote for/against things that either are or aren't popular. They poll CONSTANTLY to determine the "pulse" in their districts. So sure... just because something is "popular" doesn't mean it's "good" but given how the present system was so dysfunctional, I find it hard to look at what the bill DOES do and find a lot of the provisions as "bad." But maybe that's because I understand insurance fairly well.
Regarding pre-existing conditions: Basically, they will be outlawed by 2014. In other words, an insurer will not be able to deny you coverage based on the fact that you had cancer, as they can now. IIRC, that may kick in 6 months from now but ONLY on NEW policies (so old policies and plans could still technically refuse you coverage - again, IIRC). I think there's some confusion over how that will work with kids on parents' policies, so that one's up in the air. But the more important, larger issue is that within six months all states will set up "high risk pools" that allow people who have been *denied* coverage to join, and there is federal money to help pay for them. So if you do have cancer, and were denied coverage, in six months, you CAN get health insurance.
And here's a fun fact: The insurance industry actually WANTED the pre-existing condition portion (along with an individual mandate), YEARS ago. They wanted a "level playing field" so that ALL insurers had to abide by the same rule, and cover anyone that applied. Here's the press release from 2008 (though their support for it predates this release, too):
http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=25068
Hope that helps explain it. :-)
my understanding federal
my understanding federal flood insurance (which seems in the past to be poorly capitalized) is managed by the government. high risk drivers that nobody wants to insure are divied up in each state by market share amongst private insurers. in both cases of course there is high risk, not a certainty, the house isn't in a flood right now and the car isn't in a wreck at the time they sign up.
you mention state constructed high risk pools, that the federal money helps to pay for. are they then going to divy up the state pool similarly to autos, amongst market share of private insurers? since i would expect there to be a rate cap for people in this pool (if not one now then i'd expect one later) am i correct then in understanding that the true cost burden would be paid for via higher premiums at the insurer and socialized by the federal taxpayer?
i have read small parts of the bill, although i don't think the one i downloaded was even the one they voted on. does it actually do anything to reduce the cost of goods/services? i think the cost problem is the result of a broken price discovery mechanism - no one cares about the cost of anything. they also use insurance like a prepaid service, for things that are not catastrophic events. and i think you already know i don't mean poor people who can't afford more than a $20 copay, i mean people who make $100k a year and view everything as a copay. i also heard (didn't read) that drug manufacturers were given monopoly rights to sell new drugs for an even longer period. my understanding is the drug companies often make derivatives to existing drugs that offer little if any innovation but get them new patent or monopoly rights, at which point they market the hell out of the drug. so will this longer monpoly period make milking the system easier, or will it result in them searching for more innovative solutions as they can comfortably forecast profits for longer periods of time?
Wow... that's a lot - I'll do my best based on what I know
". are they then going to divy up the state pool similarly to autos, amongst market share of private insurers?"
That's not my understanding - I believe they would either be new state pools, or rolled into existing ones.
"since i would expect there to be a rate cap for people in this pool (if not one now then i'd expect one later) am i correct then in understanding that the true cost burden would be paid for via higher premiums at the insurer and socialized by the federal taxpayer?"
I don't think at the insurer level...yet. Socialized by the federal taxpayer - yes, BUT - in the form of taxes on those who make $200,000 or more.
"does it actually do anything to reduce the cost of goods/services?"
My understanding is that it gets rid of a fair amount of waste and fraud in Medicare, so if that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean in the way health care is currently delivered in the U.S. with it's not-very-efficient system, then no, not really (except that it does have money to update to electronic medical records, which should help cut a lot of overhead costs - eventually.)
" i also heard (didn't read) that drug manufacturers were given monopoly rights to sell new drugs for an even longer period"
I believe that yes, this is correct - but they did it in exchange for Pharma not lobbying and/or advertising against the bill (hey, at least we have something now, right?), and in addition, they did agree to lower prices by some $80 billion over X number of years (10, I think).
"my understanding is the drug companies often make derivatives to existing drugs that offer little if any innovation but get them new patent or monopoly rights, at which point they market the hell out of the drug."
They're not always successful with this - Claritin is a good example, where Clarinex didn't go anywhere.
"so will this longer monpoly period make milking the system easier, or will it result in them searching for more innovative solutions as they can comfortably forecast profits for longer periods of time?"
I don't know the answer to that question. But I'm pretty confident that if they'd been against healthcare reform, we wouldn't have signed legislation as of yesterday, either. So... necessary evil, perhaps. But that's not to say Congress couldn't change something down the road either. We need to keep pushing for more reforms, and not think this was the "be all, end all" of HCR.
Again, hope that helps with illuminating the issue.
me: ". are they then going to
me: ". are they then going to divy up the state pool similarly to autos, amongst market share of private insurers?"
you: "That's not my understanding - I believe they would either be new state pools, or rolled into existing ones."
i'm not familiar with these pools. if they are not divied up, do people then pay premiums to some state entity? (similar to the fed for flood?)
"My understanding is that it gets rid of a fair amount of waste and fraud in Medicare, so if that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean in the way health care is currently delivered in the U.S. with it's not-very-efficient system, then no, not really (except that it does have money to update to electronic medical records, which should help cut a lot of overhead costs - eventually.)"
i actually meant the cost of the doc's time, consumables, running a test, getting a treatment, surgery etc. do you have any info on processes that are efficient vs. those that are not? profit seeking endeavors usually do a decent job at squeezing the nots. do you have any insight as to why EMR is not more commonly used? it seems the case for ROI is in place pretty strongly?
"I believe that yes, this is correct - but they did it in exchange for Pharma not lobbying and/or advertising against the bill (hey, at least we have something now, right?), and in addition, they did agree to lower prices by some $80 billion over X number of years (10, I think)."
meh i dunno if that was a good trade. how do they agree to lower prices such a vast amount? seems pretty hard to say you will do such a thing with new drugs coming down the line, not knowing what demand will be, etc.
i like the idea of taxing individuals and employees the same for insurance, the marriage of insurance to employment we have today is due to this - do they have any reasons for not implementing this? and thanks for the responses, good chatting with you magic.
More answers (as best I can)
"i'm not familiar with these pools. if they are not divied up, do people then pay premiums to some state entity? (similar to the fed for flood?)"
Do they pay premiums to some state entity? Yes, there are states with high risk pools specifically for individuals that are not able to get coverage elsewhere. Generally the maximum benefit has been somewhat low, so I don't know if that changes or not (starting to get into the legislative language weeds here that I've not delved into). But those who have been denied coverage would have access to coverage in not only the states that have high risk pools, but also in states that didn't previously.
"i actually meant the cost of the doc's time, consumables, running a test, getting a treatment, surgery etc. do you have any info on processes that are efficient vs. those that are not? profit seeking endeavors usually do a decent job at squeezing the nots. do you have any insight as to why EMR is not more commonly used? it seems the case for ROI is in place pretty strongly?"
To be perfectly honest, I don't know, and I haven't seen anything written one way or the other that specifically addresses that.
"how do they agree to lower prices such a vast amount?"
Probably due to the knowledge that the will be gaining a significantly larger paying customer base.
"i like the idea of taxing individuals and employees the same for insurance, the marriage of insurance to employment we have today is due to this - do they have any reasons for not implementing this?"
My apologies - you lost me on this one. Can you clarify what you mean?
Thanks - I agree; good discussion. :-)
"Do they pay premiums to some
"Do they pay premiums to some state entity? Yes, there are states with high risk pools specifically for individuals that are not able to get coverage elsewhere. Generally the maximum benefit has been somewhat low, so I don't know if that changes or not (starting to get into the legislative language weeds here that I've not delved into). But those who have been denied coverage would have access to coverage in not only the states that have high risk pools, but also in states that didn't previously."
does this pool touch private health insurers at all? i'm a little confused as to how they interact. i was unaware of the existance of this, but it sounds like you're saying there is already in place, in many (not all) states, a high risk (and pre-existing) state pool, in which people pay premiums (to the state) into. sounding similar to federal flood insurance. and this legislation helps broaden the pool? if this is the case, why are there people today who can't get insurance, why aren't they in this pool? or is this pool only in 5 states vs. 45 states? the wording of the legislation seems to pass pre-existing to private health insurers - will they just be managing the infrastructure (filing claims) whereas the money will actually go to and be handled within the state entity? insurer handles paperwork, receiving and mailing checks, but the money actually only goes into a subsidized/socialized state pool?
re: EMR ROI,
"To be perfectly honest, I don't know, and I haven't seen anything written one way or the other that specifically addresses that."
do you know what percent of offices are using EMR? is this a requirement of the bill, EMR for all doctors by 2014 or something? if that's a requirement and only 10% of doctors have it that seems like quite a ripe business opportunity...
"i like the idea of taxing individuals and employees the same for insurance, the marriage of insurance to employment we have today is due to this - do they have any reasons for not implementing this?"
"My apologies - you lost me on this one. Can you clarify what you mean?"
my understanding, is right now individuals and employees have money used for health benefits taxed differently. basically the effect is this: if i asked my employer to not give me health insurance, and just give me the money they used for it, and then i went to the same insurer to get the same coverage, that my insurance would cost a non-trivial amount more. and this would not be due to the power of any group leverage or pricing, but due to different tax treatment. this is what has led to health insurance being linked to employment in the usa. i also think we are the only company in the world that has this. the first effect being that there is less competition among insurers - i can switch auto or home insurers in 30 minutes on the internet. i am virtually entrenched in my health insurance options, which at most companies is either plan a or premium plan b.
this marriage changes user behavior quite a bit. say my auto insurance has a $500 deductible and i need $700 repairs, because i hit my mailbox. i actually think about filing the claim or not; hey it's kind of expensive, but the claim will make *me* pay higher premiums; maybe i don't use insurance. the counterpart for health insurance is not the same, as my understanding is that it won't make premiums rise for *me* if i do the $700 option, it raises the premiums for *us* - the rise is shared amongst all coworkers. the result is that people then always use the insurance.
another behavior change is in how we use copays, and use insurance not for the catastrophic events, but for the predictable ones. insurance now becomes a prepaid service for things, a physical is an example. the $20 copay is really just an attempt to offset moral hazard and infinite demand. free market or primarily cash based doctors offer a physical for $60-80, whereas those that primarily use insurance charge $100-130. the insurer negotiates to some price with them, but the price has constant upwards pressure. instead of the price discovery mechanism of the market and competition at work, where the price would be negotiated between consumers and providers, the price is negotiated between providers and 3rd party insurers. this would be equivalent to us using auto insurance to pay for oil changes, and then only having to pay a $5 co-pay. with a predictable service based event, the 3rd party can do nothing but increase cost anyway for the mere act of participating - whether they are for profit or not. and with the market having no competition, there is no real downward pressure on price - just insurers negotiating to the lower end of the ever rising costs that are submit to them. it would be fully expected in this kind of environment for price to be ever inflating.
in this case, rather than $20 copays, what if we were able to choose $500 deductibles. premiums would be lower, because the insurer could acts as an insurance agent, not a mix of insurer and prepaid service provider. for more expensive things, people would shop around a little as well. price is not really a problem in elective care, we can see skilled doctors and expensive technology used for lasik and plastic surgery and such, and each year the price gets cheaper and the quality gets better. for surgery you need certainly you are still going to *buy it* but that doesn't mean that people can't also shop around for it as well. and not everyone needs to - only a small percent of the market really needs to shop around and put that downward pressure on price. people actually do do this today, but it's not the hospital in town a vs town b, more often it seems to be, for those capable to do it, the cost of the hospital in town a vs. the cost in country c (subsidized or not). i also find the idea of health savings accounts appealing - where that $500 can come out of an untaxed bucket earmarked for health spending. that bucket can grow over the years as well. whole foods has implemented this program and has had great success - their employees view it very favorably, and it has reduced their costs greatly.
ignoring even the success of HSAs, i think if i could just shop for health insurance as easily as auto insurance, that these free market pressures would make prices plummet. the barrier to this seems to be tax law that is now decades old. i think this single reform would be more powerful than all 2000 pages of this bill.
March 27th-and future
One of the upcoming events that appears to be planned is coffee with the politicians during the Spring recess. On that, it seems to make sense to mold group meet ups based on location for the next meeting on the 27th. I live in the 13th Congressional (Judy Biggert) which is like part of Naperville, Lisle, Downers Grove etc. Does it make sense to plan for these meetings by seeing who is interested to meet based on a Congressional District? I have no trouble starting a group for the 13th Cong District.
Mar 27th - 13th Congressional District
Rich,
You read my mind! I agree, it doesn't make sense for multiple small groups to meet with our reps. It would probably be difficult for them to fit in all of them at this short notice as I am sure they have other committments as well. What do you think is the best way to set this up? Meet in separate groups on the 27th? Then maybe have the group leaders converge sometime afterwards? Let me know.
Annette
My first goal is to get people to this meeting
I think we can make a 'presence' with 20 to 30 people at a coffee with Ms. Biggert. But right now we have 3 people signed up for Naperville. Now it will be easier to get people to go to talk to Bill Foster rather than Ms. Biggert, but we should try and reach out. This is part of the meeting on the 27th. So the more the merrier.
Events?
I am having a hard time figuring out how to tell when events are. I want to attend an event in downtown Chicago. Any help?
ditto
don't know how to find people either. i live in logan square. wanna meet up? how do we organize this? there's a coffee shop nearby, the New Wave cafe we could meet at. seems odd there's so many chicago members apparently in the burbs and in college. what about us city folk?
anyway, let me know if you wanna get together!
-- radjudy
on the front page
there is a Coffee Party Summit banner. Click on it and put in your zip code to see if anyone has started a meeting near you. If not start one. It is easy. It will ask for the location and they encourage you to check with the location first. After that it is just when, where and how many etc. More info then will become available.
North Shore?
I live in Highland Park, IL. If you are interested in helping organize a Coffee on the North Shore, please let me know. Even in this area we should be able to find enough people to meet for a Coffee Party!
Maria
North Shore location selected
Date: Saturday, March 27, 2010
Time: 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Location: Starbuck's Coffee House
Street: 675 Deerfield Road
City/Town: Deerfield, IL
I hope to see many from northern cook county and lake county there!
Maria
Planning on Dekalb area meet up
I want to host a meet up on March 27 in Dekalb, preferably the House Cafe. If anyone lives there or near or would like to help me organize, let me know!
Otherwise I hope to get connected to Northern Illinois Uni. students, but am not one myself. If anyone knows someone at NIU who might be interested in jumping on the Coffee party train please lets connect!
I already created an event for the meet up through this site, so you can search for it.
Rebecca
Dekalb
Hi Rebecca,
I'm so glad your starting a meetup in Dekalb. I'll be having one either back at the Carol Stream Starbucks or at a coffee house in St. Charles. We had an amazing turnout on the 13th and most everyone had heard about it through this web site. So I think you will get some participants if they come here to find meet ups.
You might want to post a few flyers around town at strategic locations. If you don't have the pdf that they sent out for the meetings on the 13th let me know and I will forward it to you. It's just a basic flyer that you write the time and date in on and then post it whereever.
Anyways good luck on the 27th. You'll find that this organization will give you plenty of support. Wish i could make it but I work till 2pm and then I'm planning on hosting one myself.
John
Dekalb
So the coffee shop I wanted to host the event at has an all day benefit Saturday, so I might have to go with the Starbucks- which is fine, but still I haven't connected with anyone in the Dekalb area. Should I host it anyway?
I did download the suggested materials and stuff and have been reading them over. Do we know if the meet ups on the 27th will be structured the same way as those on the 13th (i.e. making posters that identify a commonly shared issue amongst the group)?
Thanks for your help while Im getting my feet wet!
Rebecca
Chicago Western Suburbs - Carol Stream Meetup
Rich, Brian, Dan, Carol, Luther, John, Duff, Greg, Alexandra, Laurel, Howard, Patrick, Michael, Mark, Mark, Loretta, Dan, Mark, Veronique, Danielle, Paul, Virginia and Brent,
Thank you all for attending and participating in yesterdays "coffee party". I was pleasantly surprised that we completely took over Starbucks. I don't think they knew what hit them but I'm sure they were glad that we put things back in order on our way out.
I'll be emailing you all a contact list of attendee's. Then like we talked let's consider breaking the group up into smaller ones and spreading it out to other coffee shops in the Western Suburbs. Yesterday was a good baby step now it's time to keep it going and see how it all develops.
Thanks again to everyone for your participation and expect an email soon with all of our information. I'll also be uploading our pics later on today so look for them on the web site.
John
So sorry I couldn't make
So sorry I couldn't make events this weekend. I see from the above post you are considering smaller groups. Could you keep me posted on some of the smaller group sites? I am determined to help solve the problems we face as americans.
Darien, IL (western suburbs)
Just learned about The Coffee Party on CNN.com today. I identify with what I saw and heard. Am interested in attending a location in the near western Chicago suburbs. The times has come for ordinary people to take an active non-threatening part in affecting positive change in government. I am so disappointed with the lack of progress in getting congress to fairly debate (without scare tactics) healthcare reform. This will be the first time I have gotten politically involved, other than voting. I am not registered with either party, though I lean Democrat.
Western Burbs
There's one the 27th in Downers Grove at 2:30pm/Panera Bread, 160 Ogden Ave. If you go to the main page of the coffeepartyusa site there's a banner for the Mar 27th groups, click on it, then enter your zip code and the list should come up, click on the Downers Grove Area meeting so that you can RSVP.
Get on the facebook group for Chicago...
...and I'm trying to get Coffee Partiers to attend our 1st Thursday of the month meeting of Progressive Dems of Illinois for discussion. It's in Wheaton near Naperville Road & Butterfield. (IL-Rte 56)
Dan
Coffee in Carol Stream
Not sure what to expect. Was very apprehensive. Must say the turnout was beyond expectations, the facilitator (John) was fantastic, the group was very polite and intelligent, the diversity was nice, and I feel the Coffee Party is a good brew.
I can’t wait till the next meeting.
I teach government to tomorrow’s leaders and I often tell them to get involved. It feels good to be walking the talk.
Carol Stream party 13th
Invigorating, stimulating. Good discussion, big turnout. Enthusiastic people.
Carol
Dixon Dem
Not too many of us here in Reagan Country, so I'm interested in meeting with other like minds in the area. Loved the "conservative ditto-heads" reference. Let's keep working on REASONABLE, INTELLIGENT conversation so there's room for new ideas. I'll try to make the Carol Stream one today, but would rather go for a closer venue. Carol
Rockford Coffee Party
Let's all meet-up, say hello, and drink some coffee!
Katie's Cup
Date: Saturday, March 27, 2010
Time: 12:00pm - 2:00pm
Location: Katie's Cup
Street: 502 7th Street
City/Town: Rockford, IL
http://www.katiescup.com/Katies_Cup/About_Us.html
nice to meet you Carol
Glad you could make the drive out to Carol Stream. I had a blast meeting people and seeing all those people (24 people!).
Coffee Parties...How are they going today March 13th????
Hello Chicagoland!!!
How did your Coffee Parties go????
The one I'm hosting isn't until 3pm.
If you reading this and interested in attending it's at:
Starbucks
596 East North Ave (North/Schmale)
Carol Stream, Il
March 13th 3 - 5pm.
Good luck everyone,
John
Iowa Meeting March 13?
I am looking and can find no link for locations and times of the Coffee Party get-togethers today. I'm in Iowa. Can anyone help?
BTW, this type of info needs to be made more easily accessible if you want people to attend these meetings and get involved.
I will go today if there's a meeting fairly close and if I can get there in time.
Party locations
Beignet,
Go to the front of the homepage, click on the National Party day link and that will open a new window. In the new window all the Coffee Parties will be listed. You can narrow it down by putting you zip code in narrow and then narrow it down by miles from your zip code if you want.
Hope that helps,
John
Coffee Party Group in Oak Park, Il.
I'm seeking a group in my community or close by...There are a lot of progressive people in our community. Therefore there should be a Coffee Party Group here..or...one must be organized. Contact me on my facebook page or my e-mail...carol.zavala@att.net. We have a number of coffee houses in Oak Park. Waiting to hear from you. Carol Zavala
Concordia University
I'm a student that goes to Concordia University in River Forest, IL and i myself am looking to partner up with a group. Currently I am the Chairman and founder of the Young Democrats chapter on campus. I am looking for some more support from the outside community. Also, I am running for Alderman in my city back at home. My email is vwyatt29@gmail.com or crf_wyattvd@cuchicago.edu.
Concordia University
I'm a student that goes to Concordia University in River Forest, IL and i myself am looking to partner up with a group. Currently I am the Chairman and founder of the Young Democrats chapter on campus. I am looking for some more support from the outside community. Also, I am running for Alderman in my city back at home. My email is vwyatt29@gmail.com or crf_wyattvd@cuchicago.edu.