e-mail: dems.orovalley@gmail.com

Helping the Obama Campaign $10 at a time.

Give Obama a Congress that will work with him!

The Obama Campaign needs to know you are with them. Click on this link and donate $10, you will be on the National Campaign's weekly e-mail reports list. Opportunities abound for grass-roots volunteers, a small donation puts you on the supporters list.

````````There is NO doubt, the Republicans in control of the Legislature, and all of state government in Arizona have funded Corporate Tax Dodges, Tax Cuts and special Corporation legislative favors on the backs of school children and with extreme reductions in funding for Public Education. The children of Arizona are expected to do with less educational opportunities so the elected GOP officals can pay back their wealthy campaign donors. ```````````````````````

Andrei Cherny, Arizona Democratic Party Chairman “Arizona Republicans hold all the power, and they’ve used it for all the wrong things. The result is that jobs are nowhere to be found, schools are forgotten, and our communities are silenced. We won’t stand for it, and we will hold them accountable in 2012 so Arizona can get back on the right track.”

Thursday, July 26, 2012

The Democrats of Oro Valley Monthly Meeting, Monday, August 13, 2012

The Democrats of Oro Valley Monthly Meeting, Monday, August 13, 2012
DOV will host Nancy LaPlaca, Policy Advisor to AZ Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman.

Her presentation will focus on Arizona's Solar Future. Nancy's expertise includes electric, gas and water utilities and solar energy. Nancy was a congressional staffer for Mo Udall and Karan English; clerk for the AZ Court of Appeals; program manager for the AZ Supreme Court; and private sector management consulting. Nancy has a Bachelor of Fine Arts and a law degree from ASU.

The event is scheduled at the Oro Valley Library in the large meeting room. The library is located at the corner of La Canada and Naranja Drive. The meeting is open to the public at no cost and begins at 7:00 PM. Contact: Mike Dayton 742-3774

For more information, please visit www.demsov.org

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Is the Rosemont Mine Worth It?

Is the Rosemont Mine Worth It? 

By now, everyone has heard of the proposal to put an open-pit copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains. In addition, you’re probably aware of the amount of money Rosemont/Augusta is spending in the community to try to persuade us all that the mine is a good thing for our future. At the same time you may know that many jurisdictions and elected officials oppose the mine. Both of our members of Congress, Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords oppose it as do Pima County, Santa Cruz County, the City of Tucson, the Town of Sahuarita, the Town of Patagonia, the Green Valley Council, and the Tohono O’odham Nation. Of course, the Town of Marana and the Town of Oro Valley recently changed their positions. Marana changed from opposing the mine to being neutral to supporting it, while Oro Valley went from opposition to neutrality.  

So, the crux of the matter is, in this time of economic stress: Are 406 jobs worth the environmental and economic damage that will be caused? We know that 406 jobs would represent less than three-tenths of one percent (.3%) of total employment in Pima and Santa Cruz counties. We also know that Roche Pharmaceutical, with 500 jobs, just opened in Oro Valley without causing any impacts worth mentioning.  

GAYLE HARTMANN is president of the Save the Scenic Santa Ritas Association, a coalition of southern Arizona homeowner, business, environmental, and recreational organizations. She has worked as an archaeologist and archaeological editor at the Arizona State Museum, U of A, and for environmental consulting firms in Tucson. She has also been the editor of Kiva: The Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History. Gayle served on the Pima County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Steering Committee of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. She also served on the Board of Trustees of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Gayle has lived in Tucson for 43 years.

DOV newsletter September 2011

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Five Obamacare Myths



July 15, 2012
New York Times

Five Obamacare Myths




ON the subject of the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare, to reclaim the name critics have made into a slur — a number of fallacies seem to be congealing into accepted wisdom. Much of this is the result of unrelenting Republican propaganda and right-wing punditry, but it has gone largely unchallenged by gun-shy Democrats. The result is that voters are confronted with slogans and side issues — “It’s a tax!” “No, it’s a penalty!” — rather than a reality-based discussion. Let’s unpack a few of the most persistent myths. 
     
OBAMACARE IS A JOB-KILLER. The House Republican majority was at it again last week, staging the 33rd theatrical vote to roll back the Affordable Care Act. And once again the cliché of the day was “job-killer.” After years of trying out various alarmist falsehoods the Republicans have found one that seems, judging from the polls, to have connected with the fears of voters.
Some of the job-killer scare stories are based on a deliberate misreading of a Congressional Budget Office report that estimated the law would “reduce the amount of labor used in the economy” by about 800,000 jobs. Sounds like a job-killer, right? Not if you read what the C.B.O. actually wrote. While some low-wage jobs might be lost, the C.B.O. number mainly refers to workers who — being no longer so dependent on employers for their health-care safety net — may choose to retire earlier or work part time. Those jobs would then be open for others who need them.
The impartial truth squad FactCheck.org has debunked the job-killer claim so many times that in its latest update you can hear a groan of weary frustration: words like “whopper” and “bogus” and “hooey.” The job-killer claim is also discredited by the experience under the Massachusetts law on which Obamacare was modeled.
Ultimately the Affordable Care Act could be a tonic for the economy. It aims to slow the raging growth of health care costs by, among other things, using the government’s Medicare leverage to move doctors away from exorbitant fee-for-service medicine, with its incentive to pile on unnecessary procedures. Two veteran health economists, David Cutler of Harvard and Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, have calculated that over the first decade of Obamacare total spending on health care, in part by employers, will be half a trillion dollars lower than under the status quo.
      
OBAMACARE IS A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Let’s be blunt. The word for that is “lie.” The main thing the law does is deliver millions of new customers to the private insurance industry. Indeed, a significant portion of the unhappiness with Obamacare comes from liberals who believe it is not nearly federal enough: that the menu of insurance choices should have included a robust public option, or that Medicare should have been expanded into a form of universal coverage.
Under the law, to be sure, insurance will be governed by new regulations, and supported by new subsidies. This is not the law Ayn Rand would have written. But the share of health care spending that comes from the federal government is expected to rise only modestly, to nearly 50 percent in 2021, and much of that is due not to Obamacare but to baby boomers joining Medicare.
This is a “federal takeover” only in the crazy world where Barack Obama is a “socialist.”
      
THE UNFETTERED MARKETPLACE IS A BETTER SOLUTION. To the extent there is a profound difference of principle anywhere in this debate, it lies here. Conservatives contend that if you give consumers a voucher or a tax credit and set them loose in the marketplace they will do a better job than government at finding the services — schools, retirement portfolios, or in this case health insurance policies — that fit their needs.
I’m a pretty devout capitalist, and I see that in some cases individual responsibility helps contain wasteful spending on health care. If you have to share the cost of that extra M.R.I. or elective surgery, you’ll think hard about whether you really need it. But I’m deeply suspicious of the claim that a health care system dominated by powerful vested interests and mystifying in its complexity can be tamed by consumers who are strapped for time, often poor, sometimes uneducated, confused and afraid.
“Ten percent of the population accounts for 60 percent of the health outlays,” said Davis. “They are the very sick, and they are not really in a position to make cost-conscious choices.”
      
LEAVE IT TO THE STATES. THEY’LL FIX IT. The Republican alternative to Obamacare consists in large part of letting each state do its own thing. Presumably the best ideas will go viral.
States do have a long history of pioneering new ideas, sometimes enlightened (Oregon’s vote-by-mail comes to mind) and sometimes less benign (see Florida’s loopy gun laws). Obamacare actually underwrites pilot programs to reduce costs, and gives states freedom — some would argue too much freedom — in designing insurance-buying exchanges. But the best ideas don’t spread spontaneously. Some states are too poor to adopt worthwhile reforms. Some are intransigent, or held captive by lobbies.
You’ve heard a lot about the Massachusetts law. You may not have heard about the seven other states that passed laws requiring insurers to offer coverage to all. They were dismal failures because they failed to mandate that everyone, including the young and healthy, buy in. Massachusetts — fairly progressive, relatively affluent, with an abundance of health providers — included a mandate and became the successful exception. To expand that program beyond Massachusetts required ... Barack Obama.
      
OBAMACARE IS A LOSER. RUN AGAINST IT, RUN FROM IT, BUT FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE DON’T RUN ON IT. When Mitt Romney signed that Massachusetts law in 2006, the coverage kicked in almost immediately. Robert Blendon, a Harvard expert on health and public opinion, recalls the profusion of heartwarming stories about people who had depended on emergency rooms and charity but now, at last, had a regular relationship with a doctor. Romneycare was instantly popular in the state, and remains so, though it seems to have been disowned by its creator.
Unfortunately, the benefits of Obamacare do not go wide until 2014, so there are not yet testimonials from enthusiastic, family-next-door beneficiaries. This helps explain why the bill has not won more popular affection. (It also explains why the Republicans are so desperate to kill it now, before Americans feel the abundant rewards.)
Blendon believes that because of the delayed benefits and the general economic anxiety, “It will be very hard for the Democrats to move the needle” on the issue this election year.
He may be right, but shame on the Democrats if they don’t try. There’s no reason except cowardice for failing to mount a full-throated defense of the law. It is not perfect, but it is humane, it is (thanks to the Supreme Court) fiscally viable, and it comes with some reasonable hopes of reforming the cockeyed way we pay health care providers.
Even before the law takes full effect, it has a natural constituency, starting with every cancer victim, every H.I.V. sufferer, everyone with a condition that now would keep them from getting affordable coverage. Any family that has passed through the purgatory of cancer — as mine did this year, with decent insurance — can imagine the hell of doing it without insurance.
Against this, Mitt Romney offers some vague free-market principles and one unambiguous promise: to dash the hopes of 30 million uninsured, and add a few million to their ranks by slashing Medicaid.
If the Obama campaign needs a snappy one-liner, it could borrow this one from David Cutler: “Never before in history has a candidate run for president with the idea that too many people have insurance coverage.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: July 18, 2012

An earlier version of this column referred incorrectly to one consequence of the 2010 health care law. While it is estimated to provide coverage to 30 million Americans who are currently uninsured, the estimate includes both an expansion of Medicaid and additional enrollment in private insurance plans, not only the latter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/keller-five-obamacare-myths.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share&pagewanted=print






Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Best Review of the Affordable Care Act

10 Reasons Most People Like Obamacare Once They Know What's Really In It


By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

Posted on July 4, 2012


There are two Affordable Care Acts. There's the legislation passed by Congress in 2009, and then there's the mythical Affordable Care Act – the perfidious “government takeover” decried and demagogued by so many conservatives (and quite a few liberals). The former is quite popular, the latter gets decidedly mixed reviews.


Don't take my word for it. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found Americans split down the middle, with 41 percent approving of the law, and 40 percent saying they didn't like it (PDF). But then Kaiser asked about 12 specific provisions in the legislation, and found that, on average, 63 percent of respondents approved of the nuts and bolts of Obamacare. Of the 12 measures they tested, only one – the controversial mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty – received the approval of less than half of Americans (35 percent).


Or consider this divide: while only 12 percent of Republicans had a positive view of the law overall, 47 percent, on average, viewed its specifics favorably.


And here's the kicker: Kaiser found that the most popular parts of the law were also the ones most Americans weren't aware of, and vice-versa. Almost everyone knows about the mandate, which most people don't like, but fewer than half of those polled knew about the law's tax credits for small businesses that offer their employees coverage, a provision that eight out of 10 people liked when they heard about it.


None of this should come as a surprise, given the level of mendacity of the law's opponents. If the Affordable Care Act did in fact feature “death panels,” resulted in deep cuts to Medicare, represented a "massive” tax increase and “Sovietized” our healthcare system, nobody would support it. Fortunately, none of that bears any resemblance to reality.


Obviously, the law should be judged on what it actually contains, but according to Kaiser, six in 10 say they don't have enough information about the details to understand how it will impact them personally. So here, in no particular order, are 10 things you may not know about the Affordable Care Act.


1. People Will Be Getting Checks


Call it a crazy hunch, but my guess is that the law will look a lot less tyrannical when people start getting checks in the mail to help pay for their insurance.


Folks making up to four times the federal poverty line will be eligible for subsidies. In 2012, that would mean a family of four making up to $92,200 (it's a bit higher in Alaska) would see some cash.


Those subsidies will come in the form of “advanceable” tax credits, meaning that people won't have to wait until they pay their taxes to get the cash, and they'll be fully refundable, so those who don't pay enough in federal income taxes will get a check in the mail from the IRS.


2. The Richest Americans Are Going to Pay More Taxes


Wealthy investors are outraged, but most people probably don't know that a 3.8% surcharge on investment income – dividends and capital gains -- kicks in this January for everyone with an adjusted gross income of over $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). So those currently enjoying the lowest rate on investments in our nation's history will pay for a decent chunk of the bill.


3. Insurers' Overhead – and Profit Margins -- Are Limited


For the past 18 months or so, insurers have been required to spend 85 percent of the premiums they collect on healthcare (80 percent for individual and small-group plans). If they spend less than that, they have to send their customers a rebate to cover the difference.


Forbes' Rick Ungar called it, “the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time.”


4. Much Ado About the Mandate


With the Supreme Court's ruling last week, the mandate is gone, but the penalty for not carrying insurance remains. If there's one thing Democrats, Republicans and independents agree on, it's that they don't like it.


And they shouldn't. But most people probably don't know just how modest the impact of the mandate really is. According to the Congressional Budget Office, just 1 percent of the population will pay the penalty, which maxes out at 1 percent of one's income.


A lot of conservatives are convinced that jack-booted gummint thugs will round them up and stick them in FEMA camps if they don't pay up. But as Timothy Noah points out, “the health reform law explicitly states (on Page 336): 'In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.'" They can only dock future tax refunds.


5. And Nobody Ever Talks About the Employer Mandate


Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more full-time workers (two part-timers count as one full-timer for this purpose) will have to pay penalties if they don't cover their employees' health insurance. (This provision is a bit complicated -- all the details are here.)


6. Shaves the Deficit


Mitt Romnney says that “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations onto coming generations.”


That message appears to be sinking in. According to Kaiser, a majority of Americans – and a third of Democrats – think the healthcare law will increase the deficit. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, the law will reduce the projected deficit by $210 billion over the next decade.


7. Chicks Will Dig This


Many people are aware of the regulation requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's one of the most popular parts of the whole. But fewer know that, beginning in 2014, insurers won't be able to charge women higher premiums than men.


Also coming in 2014: a ban on insurers placing annual limits on healthcare (lifetime coverage limits were already banned in 2010).


The Kaiser poll found that few people were aware of another popular new insurance regulation: since 2010, insurance companies can no longer charge co-pays or hold you to a deductible for preventive health services.


8. New Dollars for Community Health Centers


Kaiser didn't ask for people's opinions on this one, but it may be one of those under-the-radar provisions that actually ends up helping a lot of people.


Community health centers (CHCs) now serve the primary care needs of about 20 million Americans, and they have a proven track record. But the system is strained and underfunded.


The expansion of Medicaid will help alleviate some of the pressure, and the healthcare law also allocates $11 billion over a five-year period to build new CHCs and upgrade existing infrastructure. Most of the dollars will end up in poorer communities.


A lot of underserved people live in rural America, and the law also provides money to train and place 16,000 primary caregivers in rural communities over a five-year period.


9. Essential Benefits


Starting in 2014, in order for insurers to sell coverage through state-based exchanges – a place where a lot of the newly insured will likely end up – they will be required to cover a package of “essential benefits,” including maternity care, mental healthcare and substance abuse treatment, pediatric care, ambulance rides and hospitalization.


They don't have to if they don't want to participate in the exchanges, yet this measure is, according to many, at the heart of the supposed “government takeover” of our healthcare system.


10. It's Not So Easy to Repeal


There is no doubt that we'll hear lots of Republicans blustering about how they'll repeal Obamacare on day one if they win the White House and the Senate, but it's a lot less clear that they'd actually follow through.


As Igor Volsky notes, unless the Republicans were to win both the White House and a huge number of senate seats, they “can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions.” They also have nothing to replace it with, and would own our screwed up healthcare system for a generation. And they'd lose an issue that fires up the conservative base. They will, however, do their best to gum up the works as the law is implemented.


The takeaway to all of this is that the healthcare law is only going to get more popular as it's provisions kick in. People will see some tangible benefits, and the fearmongering will prove unfounded.


Like the idea of government itself, people are suspicious of the Affordable Care Act as an abstraction, but when it gets to the specifics they tend to like it a lot better.


Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America. © 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/156149/