Progress Illinois

The latest from the 2010 U.S. Senate race ...

Yesterday afternoon, Rep. Jan Schakowksy announced her endorsement of State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the Democratic primary.  When they rolled out Rep. Luis Gutierrez' backing a week earlier, the campaign used the occasion to highlight Giannoulias' position on the need for stronger financial regulation.  This time, the topic was health care.  From a release:

"Alexi Giannoulias is the best candidate to retain President Obama's seat because he has the courage to take on powerful interests and stand up for Illinois families," Schakowsky said. "He supports health-insurance reform that will reign in the soaring costs of premiums and protect families from losing coverage during these difficult economic times." [...]

"Jan and I believe in a simple proposition: if you pay your premiums your insurance company should cover you - no exceptions, no caps, no limits," Giannoulias said. "Mark Kirk disagrees. He believes in protecting insurance companies, not protecting people."

Giannoulias has now racked up endorsements from five of the state's congressional Democrats (Reps. Bill Foster, Mike Quigley, and Phil Hare are also supporting him). Meanwhile, Cheryle Jackson is the only other candidate in the race to receive backing from members of Congress (Reps. Bobby Rush and Danny Davis).  

Elsewhere on Sunday, Giannoulias skipped a debate held in Rockford, which Jackson, David Hoffman, and Jacob Meister all attended.  ABC 7 has a report on their comments regarding Afghanistan. (All three "expressed deep doubts ... about sending more troops.) 

In other news, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a clever web ad today hitting GOP frontrunner Mark Kirk for his shifting positions on Sarah Palin. Watch it:

Continue reading »

There aren't many lawmakers in Washington who have worked as hard as Rep. Jan Schakowsky to protect the reproductive rights of women. So it was with a lot of pain that the Northside Democrat ultimately swallowed a last-minute amendment to the historic health care reform bill limiting elective abortion coverage from both private and public insurers on the health insurance exchanges.

Women's groups across the nation, including Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women, said yesterday they would oppose any final health package that includes the abortion ban. Schakowsky is ready to join them. Greg Sargent has the scoop:

"If left as is the health care reform bill would be the largest repeal of anti-choice laws in nearly four decades,” Schakowsky said in a statement emailed my way. “I will continue to work with the Senate and the Conference Committee to make the bill acceptable, but cannot and will not support health care reform that blatantly discriminates against women."

Schakowsky is clearly mad about how the process evolved. Yesterday, on WTTW's Chicago Tonight, she explained her frustration with pro-lifers in Congress who moved the goal posts at the last minute. Watch an excerpt (in which she also pushes back against the GOP's efforts to restrict access to undocumented workers):

Continue reading »

The president's top domestic policy priority is one step closer to being made  law. As you've read elsewhere, the full House passed its final health care reform bill late Saturday night by a slim 220-215 margin. Although 39 Democrats eventually voted against the bill, none of Democrats hailing from President Obama's home state -- including Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster -- dissented.

While not perfect, the package approved by the House would dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 36 million people currently uninsured would gain access to health care. The bill, which includes an employer mandate and a "level-playing field" public option, is also deficit neutral over the next 10 years and would impose a whole host of important consumer protections.

Unfortunately, House leadership had to strike a Faustian bargain to gain the support of conservative pro-life Democrats, including Reps. Dan Lipinski and Jerry Costello. Included in the legislation was an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupack (D-Michigan) limiting elective abortion coverage from both private and public insurers on the health insurance exchanges. Lipinski, who made clear this summer that he "strongly opposed any bill that's going to have public funding for abortion," even spoke in favor of the amendment on the floor minutes before the vote took place, earning praise from the Family Research Council for his efforts.

What Lipinski forgot to mention was that House tri-committee bill does not threaten the Hyde Amendment, which forbids Medicaid from using any federal money to pay for an abortion procedure. And in practical terms, it will have a devastating effect on working women. Ezra Klein explains:

If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive [it] from their employers.

Continue reading »

Rep. Jan Schakowsky -- chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Health Care Task Force -- has not been shy about her support for a public option, pledging to vote against any bill that did not include one. She's also gone on the record in recent weeks insisting that the government-run plan will survive the final months of health care reform negotiations. The North Side Democrat reiterated that belief today at a press conference in D.C., reports Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined Schakowsky at the podium and echoed that sentiment, noting that the fight is not about the inclusion of a public plan but rather how it negotiates rates. "The question is: which form will it take?," Beutler quotes Pelosi saying.

As the health care battle comes to a head on Capitol Hill, this is an encouraging message from two of the most powerful women in Washington.

Here is the latest news from the health care reform battle -- both in D.C. and here in Illinois.

Young People Demand Reform

Republicans looking to downplay the health care crisis in America often portray the population of uninsured young people as a collection of free riders: they can afford to purchase coverage but purportedly choose not to. Rep. Mark Kirk will probably repeat the argument at his latest town hall in Northbrook this morning. But that talking point isn't supported by the facts. Of the 13 million people (28 percent) in their twenties living without insurance, just 10 percent are college graduates and 5 percent have incomes above $60,000 a year. That's a major reason why young people are the age group most supportive of reform.

In latest "Real People Demand Health Reform" video, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and United Action for Power and Justice talk to three young people who aren't well-served by the current system. Watch it:

Continue reading »

Could the insurance industry's approval of Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) watered-down health care bill help galvanize support for a public option? Illinois' own Rep. Jan Schakowsky thinks so. Appearing on Fox Chicago Sunday this past weekend, she told host Jack Conaty that the rally on health insurance stocks last week -- following the introduction of Baucus' bill, which does not include a public plan -- perfectly illustrates who stands to benefit from that proposal. And Schakowsky says that only strengthens progressives' argument in favor of more robust reform.  Watch it (relevant portion begins at the 2:40 mark):

CONATY: Is the public option in health care reform still alive in Washington?

SCHAKOWSKY: I think it's more alive now. After Sen. Baucus introduced his bill, if you look at the stock market, the value of insurance companies soared. It spiked right up because they see this is a perfect deal. How about it? You mandate that everyone get insurance. And then you don't have any competition for the private insurance companies. That's nirvana for them and for the stockholders as well.

So we absolutely need to have some real competition in these uncompetitive markets.  And I think a public option certainly is the way to go.

Think Progress' Igor Volsky took note of the insurance industry's enthusiasm for Baucus' proposal last week and added some additional context. "[S]ince the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option," he wrote, "health insurance stocks have been on the rise."

Progressives should do all they can to highlight the correlation between watered-down reforms and insurance industry enthusiasm.

Continue reading »

For those interested in health care reform, the word of the week is "trigger." Trying to find a compromise on the controversial public option that's politically palatable to both liberals and moderates, Sen. Olympia Snowe -- currently the only Republican interested in finding common ground with the Democrats -- has been pitching the idea. How would it work? Essentially, health care legislation would establish certain benchmarks for affordability. If private insurers could not find a way to lower premium costs for enough people in geographically distinct markets by a still-undetermined deadline, a public option would be introduced into the health insurance exchange. (The New Republic's Suzy Khimm has a good rundown here.)

On MSNBC earlier today, Illinois' own Rep. Jan Schakowsky made clear that she isn't too fond of the idea, reiterating her support for a "a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation, no triggers."

There are good reasons to be skeptical of the trigger approach. For one, to modify their behavior, insurance companies would need to feel threatened by the looming public option, something that isn't likely if the legislation envisioned by Snowe is ultimately implemented. As Ezra Klein notes today, "I've not yet seen a proposal for a trigger where the trigger is set sufficiently low and the public option it would create would be national, rather than state-by-state."

That brings us to our second problem: special interests. Robert Reich explains how insurance companies could use the grace period to blow holes through the trigger instead of working to lower costs:

Continue reading »

While a progressive leader and a vocal supporter of health care reform, Rep. Jan Schakowsky has in recent months failed to join some of her Illinois colleagues in pledging to vote against any reform package that does not include a public insurance option.  Today, however, she released her strongest statement to date, declaring "I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan":

"Many Members of Congress -- including myself -- will not support a health insurance reform bill that does not break the strangle hold of private insurance companies on our health care system.  That requires that consumers have a choice of a robust public health insurance plan.  I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation, no triggers.  I believe Congress will pass and the President will sign such a bill this Fall."  

Schakowsky's statement comes on the heels of President Obama's announcement that he plans to scale back and simplify certain contentious aspects of the health care package.  Schakowsky appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show yesterday to discuss that news and the prospects for meaningful reform this fall.  During the segment, she also derided the "he said/she said" media coverage that has allowed so many misleading claims about the Democratic plan to go unchallenged.  Watch it:

Here's another clip from Rep. Jan Schakowsky's health care town hall meeting in Niles last night.  As you'll see, an audience member asks her to explain the difference between health care and health care coverage. Schakowsky's answer is on point, as she tells two stories that illustrate how Americans can be covered by a private insurer, but still be locked out of receiving affordable care. Watch:

The New York Times editorial board recently highlighted the issue of the underinsured (such as the farmer Schakowsky cites):

The Commonwealth Fund estimates that 25 million Americans who had health insurance in 2007 had woefully inadequate policies with high deductibles and restrictions that stuck them with large amounts of uncovered expenses. Many postponed needed treatments or went into debt to pay medical bills.

And to learn more about rescission -- the reprehensible insurer practice described in Schakowsky's second anecdote -- check out this post from July.

We attended Rep. Jan Schakowsky's health care town hall meeting in Niles last night where over 2,000 people showed up, packing a high school auditorium and spilling onto the sidewalk outside.  There was a real variety of opinion expressed during the 90-minute meeting, with opponents and supporters of the Democrats' health care reform proposal both well-represented.  

One of the more disturbing moments, however, came right after the first line of Schakowsky's brief introductory speech: "You know, Ted Kennedy had said that this was the great issue of his life," she began.  That initial remark was met with applause and also a surprisingly large number of ... boos.     

That's right: Less than a week after the Massachusetts senator passed away and two days after his funeral, a good number of those in attendance felt it necessary to boo at the mention of his commitment to expanding health care access.  Watch it:

Stay classy, guys.

We'll be posting several other notable videos from the meeting as the day progresses.  In the meantime, check out the Tribune article as well as this great video produced by the Daily Herald and largely shot outside the auditorium, where protesters from both side of the debate gathered. 

Follow us on Twitter.  Receive our daily email update.  Subscribe to our RSS feed.