Who’s Your Health Care Match?
by Paul Bass | Sep 18, 2012 11:28 am
Posted to: Health, Campaign 2012
She’s proud to have voted to pass Obamacare. He wants to repeal it. You get to cast your ballot for one of them.
She’s Rosa DeLauro (at left in the above photo), a Democrat who has represented this area in Congress for 22 years.
He’s Wayne Winsley (at right), a motivational speaker and former radio talk-show host who’s running as a Republican this fall to seek to unseat her in the Nov. 6 general election.
From the President Obama’s Affordable Care Act to Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare, they give voters a genuine choice, two different perspectives on how to approach health care.
Got two minutes for a voter speed date? DeLauro and Winsley spent time with the Independent recently—she in her Elm Street office, he a half-block away at the offices the Independent shares with the Spanish-language newspaper La Voz Hispana—answering questions about where they stand on real issues they’d face next year if voters elect them.
Check out their answers on the health care questions and watch some video mash-ups (for more detailed responses) below, to see who stands where you stand.
1. Repeal Obamacare?
• Winsley said he’d join a Republican move to cancel the Affordable Care Act. “A good concept done very badly,” he said. “I would vote to repeal it and replace it with something better.”
• DeLauro would vote against repeal. “It’s one of the proudest votes I’ve ever cast,” she said, “a transformative piece of legislation” on the order of Social Security or Medicare. Highlights for her: An end to gender ratings (charging women more for the same treatments) and lifetime coverage caps; subsidies to small-business for employee coverage; banning insurance denials for pre-existing conditions (including for women who had C sections or suffered domestic violence); coverage for preventive services like breast cancer and gestational diabetes coverage.
2. Undo The Mandate?
• DeLauro supports the law’s requirement that all people buy insurance. Otherwise, people without insurance go the emergency room when they get sick—and stick the rest of taxpayers with a bigger bill, she argued. “Why should everybody else pick up their health care tab? That really isn’t fair.”
• Winsley would repeal the mandate. He acknowledged the cost passed on by the uninsured using emergency rooms: “As a compassionate society we have the means to do that. That’s the price of freedom. ... I don’t believe the federal government should ever in any instance be given the power to tell the American people by fiscal force that they have to buy a product.”
3. De-Fund Planned Parenthood?
• “All of Planned Parenthood? No,” Winsley stated. But, he said, “I don’t agree with the federal government funding abortion.”
• DeLauro: Forget about it. “No federal dollars are utilized for abortion. Anyone who says that that’s the case with Planned Parenthood is mistaken.”
4. Private Medicare Accounts?
• DeLauro would vote no. She called Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to have future Medicare recipients receive vouchers to purchase private insurance a way of charging seniors more for care and in effect “end the Medicare guarantee” that has covered 98 percent of Americans over 65. She cited research estimating that the average senior would pay $6,400 more out of pocket under the plan. (Click here to read about the report she’s citing. Click here for an independent analysis of the claim.) DeLauro called for “strengthening” Medicare, which she said Obamacare does in part by eliminating co-pays for colonoscopies and mammograms, thereby cutting costs through prevention.
(Read about the details of Ryan’s plan in this article.)
• Winsley would vote yes on some form of the plan. He said he supports the basic concept of maintaining the status quo for people currently 55 years and older, then introducing the private investment accounts for people at some younger threshold. “We must rejuvenate Medicare and Social Security so that they protect today’s seniors and they protect our young folks coming up,” he said. “If we don’t fix it, people are not going to have access to the care they have now.”
5. Ban Abortion In Case Of Incest Or Rape Or Threat To Mother’s Health?
Both candidates said they would not vote for this proposal, a plank of the Republican national platform and advocated by, among others, Reps. Todd Akin and Paul Ryan.
If you have time for a more detailed look at candidates and their positions, check out this tool from an outfit called ElectNext:
And check out Project Vote Smart’s matching game.
Tags: Rosa DeLauro, Wayne Winsley, health care, mandate, Medicare
Post a Comment
Candidate Winsley like other candidates in the GOP, are long on promises but short on details. They all claim they want to replace the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obama Care” with something better, but none of them show a tangible, concrete plan that would be viable - let alone “better.”
Congresswoman DeLauro continues to enjoy broad support among constituents because she is in touch with voter needs and aspirations. Come this election, Winsley will look more like Loseley.
got rosa and chris but DAMMMMM it said Mitt!! WTF are they basing this on his lies?
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 18, 2012 2:16pm
DeLauro [re. individual mandate]: “Why should everybody else pick up their health care tab? That really isn’t fair.” But, according to the Supreme Court ruling, the individual mandate is only legal because, according to their interpretation, it’s a “tax”—so everybody IS picking up the tab! Winsley: “If we don’t fix [Medicare & Social Security], people are not going to have access to the care they have now.”—because these programs are going broke! And THIS is the very reality that DeLauro refuses to deal with—preferring instead to pander for votes by making unsustainable promises. “DeLauro called for ‘strengthening’ Medicare, which she said Obamacare does in part by eliminating co-pays for colonoscopies and mammograms, thereby cutting costs through prevention.” Ask anyone who works in healthcare and is familiar with the cost of medical procedures—including, for example, the surgeries and chemo that result from a post-colonoscopy or post-mammogram diagnosis—they will tell you that DeLauro is utterly delusional if she thinks that these preventive screenings are going to have any impact whatsoever on the cost of healthcare. Delauro “cited research estimating that the average senior would pay $6,400 more out of pocket under the [GOP] plan.” She is recycling numbers from an outdated Republican plan. Obviously the poor thing is having so much trouble keeping up, she really needs to consider retiring, so she can do the Georgetown Cocktail Party Circuit as a private citizen: http://easthaven.patch.com/blog_posts/the-delauro-factor-e5065dcd
Ah, the empty Republican platitudes: “replace” the Affordable Care Act with “something better.” Oh, are you in favor of single payer? Because that is the only road to “better.”
The “price of freedom” is not paying for the uninsured. “Freedom” comes when you are not beholden to the whims of a private insurance functionary who decides whether or not you get your medical treatment. So the price of that freedom is having universal access to basic health services.
Winsley is clueless if he thinks the federal government funds abortions. We all know about the vile Hyde amendment.
Winsley would “rejuvenate” Medicare by farming it out to private companies and requiring the elderly to shop for insurance that no sane insurer would provide (can you say “pre-existing conditions”?!).
Winsley is yet another rotten Republican apple. I look forward to Rosa’s justified landslide reelection.
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 18, 2012 4:41pm
ObamaCare spends trillions of dollars that the government doesn’t have, raises taxes (e.g. “mandates”) on workers & businesses and puts the federal government in the middle of health-care decisions. Using the mathematics unique to our federal govt., ObamaCare relies on 10 years of tax increases, hospital fines & Medicare cuts—to pay for six years of new spending. The bill raids more than $700 billion from Medicare to fuel a new $1.7 trillion open ended entitlement—and ignores the $298 billion needed to avert cuts to Medicare physicians—who will survive by simply dropping Medicare/Medicaid patients. Even the implementation costs of ObamaCare are hidden behind budgetary & accounting gimmicks. In addition to its impact on the deficit, the health care law is damaging to job creation & economic growth. It’s no secret that many employers plan to lay off workers or reduce their hours to part-time to avoid providing coverage—or to drop coverage and dump employees into a government-controlled exchange rather than pay the increased rates associated with new mandates. Pres. Obama’s own Chief Actuary has raised many of these same concerns. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation—yet our health outcomes are worse. Republicans AND Democrats both agree that the status quo in health care is unacceptable. We need reforms that equalize the tax treatment of health insurance, preserve Medicare and Medicaid—and invite TRUE competition. Because competition among “product producers” ALWAYS has been the single factor that ultimately reduces prices—NOT government control. PH is as delusional as DeLauro if he thinks that ObamaCare means there no longer will be a “functionary who decides whether or not you get your medical treatment.” Winsley is not specific about what will replace ObamaCare, because when he replaces DeLauro & goes to Washington in January—to actually work for the people—these are details that must be worked out by Dems AND GOP, so that we have a new healthcare law that eliminates the problems outlined above. And Winsley will ensure that the govt. doesn’t create a new law—and worry about the details later.
“Ban Abortion In Case Of Incest Or Rape Or Threat To Mother’s Health?
Both candidates said they would not vote for this proposal, a plank of the Republican national platform and advocated by, among others, Reps. Todd Akin and Paul Ryan.”
The Republican platform and agenda of the radical Right provides the marching orders for all who will hold GOP seats after the November elections. C
onsidering that Paul Ryan will either still be in Congress or (less likely) serve as Vice President, along with John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and others, there is *no way* a freshman Congressman will be voting contrary to the Republican Agenda.
Realistically, if this Motivational Speaker were to become a DC politician, he can only aspire to being a Party Puppet.
And, also, he doesn’t know what he is talking about, which is kinda scary.
@ Chris Schaefer who said: The bill raids more than $700 billion from Medicare to fuel a new $1.7 trillion open ended entitlement.” That is an unabashed talking point from the GOP Playbook and a point which has been debunked. Obama Care’s 700 billion is not a cut in services but takes away from future growth of Medicare by cutting all manner of unnecessary and inflated expenditures with the goal of extending medicare out another 8 years. GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan was caught in a hypocritical lie after asserting that Obama was “raiding medicare.” As we came to learn, Ryan himself had that as part of his reform package- the very same “cuts” that Obama was making to ensure the quality and longevity of the program. The mantra of “Government control” by Republicans and unwitting accomplices is fallacious hogwash intended to strike fear. The only ones who will gain from an open market paradigm are the insurance companies. Government is not a bad word. We need government to ensure a fair and solvent system that minimizes waste and cuts out the “middle man.” Millions have already seen the benefits of Obama Care in requiring insurance to cover pre-existing conditions, allowing children to age 26 to remain on parental plans, and requiring that the bulk of insurance dollars actually are devoted to direct patient care- not sustaining insurance bureaucracy at inflated prices. Sorry Mr. Schaefer, but the only inflation I see here are your GOP talking points.
Had republicans not been so intransigent, had Democrats acted when they had the political clout to do so, we could have had a single payer paradigm, which in the end is the only real solution to Health Care. Americans have just not gotten past the demonizing and catch phrases of Republicans that have kept us locked into an unsustainable system that is dollar-not patient driven.
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 18, 2012 7:28pm
“I don’t think it’s any surprise that the Republican Party is the party that embraces the dignity and sanctity of life. We’re a pro-life party. The Democrats are pro-choice…What matters in this race…is how we’re going to get the greatest country on earth back to work and out of debt…That [anti-abortion plank has] been there for 30 years. There are multiple human life amendments that were introduced 20, 30 years ago. Some of them had exceptions, some of them didn’t… It’s a general proposition to say we support human life. The rest of those details are up to the states and the people respectively.” VA Gov. Bob McDonnell, chair of the GOP convention platform committee. Independent-minded voters will not be distracted by this “issue”. Why? First, because an anti-abortion amendment will never be ratified—and everyone knows this; the inclusion of such in the GOP platform is purely symbolic. Second, based upon the reality of my first reason, independent-minded voters will focus on REAL issues that actually affect them: stagnant economy, unemployment back on the upswing, federal debt now amounting to over $150,000 PER taxpayer, a healthcare law that doesn’t actually fix the healthcare problems in this country—and actually exacerbates them. But in a one-party town, where a vast percentage of voters are dependent on “The Party Machine”—for everything from job security to getting your kid in the school of choice—are there truly any independent-minded voters who can afford to focus on the REAL issues?
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 18, 2012 8:05pm
“The way to understand the difference between Ryancare and Obamacare is not in the scale of the cuts to Medicare, which are roughly similar, but in the competing mechanisms used in reform. Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board [IPAB], to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less… that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for… whatever you think of Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare, the fact is that a Romney administration would repeal them, and replace them with a different set of reforms, reforms that would reduce Medicare spending by a lesser amount… The Obama [—and Rosa DeLauro—] approach involves (at best) doing nothing to change our long-term fiscal problems, because it cuts Medicare by $716 billion in order to fund $1.9 trillion in new health care spending. The Romney and Ryan [—and Wayne Winsley—] approaches involve resolving our long-term fiscal problems, by stabilizing entitlements and reducing the deficit.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/ Truth Avenger says “cutting all manner of unnecessary and inflated expenditures”. Yes, cuts made by 15 unelected government officials. Unfortunately both Obama and DeLauro have an unsavory history of making crony paybacks, e.g. http://www.humanevents.com/2011/10/04/delauro-campaign-finances-raise-questions/ and http://gawker.com/5145553/rahm-emanuels-illegal-dc-basement-rental?skyline=true&s=x and http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/rahm-emanuel-bp-gul-oil-spill.html So does ANYONE think it’s realistic to assume that 15 UNelected appointees will make their decisions in a completely unbiased, and unselfish way?
This can all be clearly debated since Rosa DeLauro has now said she would like to have a debate with Wayne Winsley who had asked for them months ago.You can You Tube this under “Rosa DeLauro debates” and see for yourself if she would stand up to her word and have these debates or just make another “promise”(lie)that she will not keep.
The thing to remember here regarding “Obama Care” and all other programs that distribute wealth from one group to another is that they have an extensive history of being unsustainable.
Forcing one group of individuals (at the threat of imprisonment in this case) to provide for another is slavery.
Personally I am not in favor of “Repeal and replace” but rather a free market system that provides competition between providers and thus drives the cost of medical services down to the point where they are affordable for all.
I believe that Winsley is on the right track and that it is up to US (“The People”) to hold his and all of our elected officials accountable.
Personally I cannot sit idle and watch liberal Democrats like DeLauro continue to push this country towards socialism and a welfare state. Perhaps they should pick up a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to remind them of why we fought the revolutionary war.
*Spoiler Alert* - Tyranny and Taxation. Both of which we have in spades under the current regime.
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 19, 2012 9:53am
In response to Reality: the YouTube video you reference (in which DeLauro claims “I haven’t heard from Wayne”—even though his staff has requested a series of 3 debates—and Mr. Winsley has requested that newspapers not endorse EITHER candidate UNTIL such debates have taken place) is here: http://youtu.be/IhkZ0N-iT2Y In response to Constitution 101 and “redistribution” of wealth—or, for some of us, redistribution of what little we have!—under the new catch-phrase “fairness”, Margaret Thatcher put it best: ““The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. ” While Mark Twain described the problem—and solution—to crony careerists like DeLauro: “Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.” (Personally, I think it’s also going to require shovels—in addition to the voting booth—to get rid of all that manure…)
@ Chris Schaefer who wrote: “a Romney administration would repeal them, and replace them with a different set of reforms, reforms that would reduce Medicare spending by a lesser amount”
Time for a reality check: The non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office), has clearly stated that Obama Care would reduce costs, while an analysis of the Romney-Ryan proposals, would add an immense burden to the national debt. And speaking about “outdated Republican plans….” The Romney-Ryan paradigm both in health care and the overall budget, is a throw back to trickle down economics which do not work. The problem with you Republicans is that you think privatizing profits while making the debt public is just fine and dandy. The so-called private enterprises Schaefer would depend on for competition -lowering frameworks are all dependent on government largess; tax loopholes, subsidies, grants, earmarks. Rather than trim there, Republicans go right for the juglars of the most vulnerable: The poor, students, the elderly and the sick. Then they have the onions to accuse Democrats of class warfare.
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 19, 2012 12:43pm
To Truth Avenger: The CBO is comprised of the same folks who haven’t been able to balance the budget in decades—so virtually EVERYTHING they publish is suspect. “The CBO/JCT estimate basically hinges on a two-fold set of assumptions. First, the estimators appear to assume that the decision gives states flexibility not only over whether to implement the expansion at all, but also, to what extent. That is, the estimators seem to assume that the decision somehow converts the mandate into an option and furthermore, that it creates a raft of new state implementation sub-options where the 2014 Medicaid expansion group is concerned, so that expansion can be partial rather than full…The second, (at least implicit) assumption on the part of the estimators is that the [HHS] Secretary [Sebelius] somehow has newfound powers as a result of the [Supreme Court] decision to convert a mandatory coverage group into a raft of state options governing not only the timing of state implementation…but also the degree of implementation a state will choose (i.e., the question of reasonable subcategories of coverage). The estimators never explain the basis for this assumption…The CBO/JCT partial implementation assumptions are open to serious legal questions…But the bottom line is that the choices facing states and the Secretary may be far less flexible than the CBO/JCT staff analysis implies. The judgment of NFIB v Sebelius may allow a state to exclude its poorest residents entirely from coverage, to the ultimate detriment of life and health.” http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/07/31/cbos-updated-affordable-care-act-estimates-resting-on-shaky-assumptions/ In other words—like virtually everything that comes out of the CBO—their report is based on mathematical gimmickry that would earn an F in Economics 101—and ultimately ObamaCare does nothing to ensure protection of the poor.
Apparently there are no objections from our Comrades at the Truth squad about redistribution of wealth, socialism or involuntary servitude as a result of all of these “Fairness” programs.
At least we all agree there.
I’m on Medicare and have a medicare advantage insurer. I take 4 generic scripts and buy a 90 day supply. I’ve been paying $10 per script but my insurer wanted to charge $12 and up the charge on one generic to $30 as apart of Part B coverage. I got the scripts from my doctor and headed to Walgreen’s. They wanted $56, so I took the scripts to Walmart and they charged $40.
The message is “competition works” and older people can make good financial decisions. I think Chris and Romney are right. If we let the government run the whole show, it will be a disaster.
@David Kaye: Under the status quo before Obama Care, the system was happy to deny you health care for a pre-existing condition. Your children had a limited window of coverage and millions had few options, if any, for getting the health care they need. Even as you shop around for better prices, know that government subsidies keep your prescriptions much lower than they would be otherwise. Obama Care closes the donut hole in prescription drug costs as well. Sadly, not everyone has the time, ability or good sense to shop around for better prices. If you like what you have now, watch out for Romney-Ryan Care. Your health Care world will take a turn for the worse…much worse.
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 19, 2012 7:49pm
This just just released! It would seem even the CBO now realizes it’s previous assumptions [see my previous post] were overly optimistic: “As a result of that [Supreme Court] decision, CBO and JCT now anticipate that some states will not expand their Medicaid programs at all—or will not expand coverage to the full extent authorized by the ACA [Affordable Care Act, aka “ObamaCare”]. Such state decisions are projected to increase the number of uninsured” http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43628?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=0
I have read the previous comments, and there are many statements, “facts”, numbers, opinions, hateful expressions, and attempts at debate, but I am wondering what is the solution for the millions that live here, were unfortunate enough not to be born into a family or situation where everyone was healthy, well fed, well insured, and able to acquire both a quality education (that would lead to a careet of financial independence, and personal satisfaction)and independent financial security?
It seems that many who would condider themselves patriots and Christians speak of caring for those less fortunate than themselves, but neither they or the insitutions they worship rarely address the problem and have chronically used their representatives in government to develop laws that allow them to increase their own prosperity at the cost of the indigent and middle class.
So what would you do with the 47% Mr. Schaefer? The seniors, the mentally ill, children born into poverty, those that have lost their employment, homes, and in some cases families due to a financial crises brought on by the super rich and greed. How about people who have worked their entire lives, the backbone of this nation, who are aged out of the market and don’t wish to die like the laborers of the early part of the last century. Destitue and prematurely. Or our veterans and soldiers, with their families? They fall into Romney’s 47%? What should we do with them. Millions of America contribute every day of their lives to the betterment of this country in thousands of ways that don’t involve business, and profits for the individual. It seems an unfair emphasis has been given to business owners, who have the primary goals of lower their expenses, particularly the welfare of their work force, and increasing their profits. If these are the Americans that have “made” this country great, someone better start to rewrite the history books. No they are just profiteers, or as referred to after the civil war, “carpetbaggers?. Selfish, Greedy, and obnoxious.
There was a similiar group in post WWl Germany that brought their party to power, and they tried what they thought was the ultimate solution. Is that possible for you Schaefer, as most of your dialouge is like the republican platform, short on concrete experience and solutions; long on generating fear, anger, hatred, confusion, and the ultimate goal, violence.
Chris: Remember that Obama Care is based on Romney Care in Mass., complete with the mandate and working well. By all accounts, the folks from Mass are happy with their “government-run” healthcare. Just Another Taxpayer pretty much has summed up my sentiments regarding your gross assumptions and questionable statistics.
This just in: Schaefer denounces CBO findings and then tries to bolster his argument using CBO findings? Wha-huh?? Yup- sounds totally Romneyesque to me.
posted by: Christopher Schaefer on September 19, 2012 11:13pm
JustAnotherTaxPayer says : “I am wondering what is the solution for the millions that live here, were unfortunate enough not to be born into a family or situation where everyone was healthy, well fed, well insured, and able to acquire both a quality education (that would lead to a career of financial independence, and personal satisfaction)and independent financial security?” YOUR VERY QUESTION is why I support Wayne Winsley—because he grew up in the poverty of the Cleveland housing projects. So who better to represent the disadvantaged and disenfranchised than Wayne Winsley? He’s not one of the crony elitists whom DeLauro ACTUALLY represents—while she creates a façade of “I feel your pain” caring. Wayne is the first to admit he doesn’t have all the answers. What he DOES know is that constantly expanding government dependency is not working—and is leading to a government bankruptcy that will be the ruination of us all. The poor grow poorer as their numbers increase, our schools are failing, and Americans at all economic levels are losing their financial security. I don’t believe that “an unfair emphasis has been given to business owners”. Where else are jobs going to come from?! “The seniors, the mentally ill, children born into poverty, those that have lost their employment,… our veterans and soldiers” whom you speak of: THESE are the very people Wayne is concerned about—because unless we have a safety-net program that is financially secure—there will be NO safety net: NO Medicare, NO Medicaid, NO Social Security. A year ago, Wayne Winsley was temporarily unemployed and was diagnosed with cancer—and had to use Conn.’s subsidized healthcare plan. So Wayne is acutely aware of the need for a safety net—based on his own personal experience—NOT convoluted “theories”. It is for this very reason that Wayne believes we need a safety-net that is SUSTAINABLE—so it will be there for ALL of us—when we need it. And the impending bankruptcy of these programs is what Rosa DeLauro refuses to deal with. http://winsleyforcongress.org/about.html Your attempt to connect me with post WWI Germany and being “long on generating fear, anger, hatred, confusion, and the ultimate goal, violence” is utterly bizarre, at best: http://youtu.be/UweKvh1EigY