Friday, November 08, 2013

Saturday Satire: The Elections Edition…Or Not

Jay Leno: "New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was re-elected by a huge margin. He gave a great speech last night. He said he learned a lot in the last four years – for example, that lap-band surgery doesn't always work."
Conan O'Brien : "The new mayor of New York City is a progressive Democrat with an African-American wife who used to be a lesbian. Or as Fox News reported, the apocalypse is upon us."

Conan O’Brian: "The new mayor is married to a woman who used to be a lesbian. His campaign slogan: 'If I turned her around, imagine what I can do for New York City!'"
"New Jersey re-elected Governor Chris Christie. Or as Christie put it, 'I came back for seconds.'"

Craig Ferguson: "In New Jersey, they re-elected Chris Christie by a HUGE margin. Is there any other way?"
Jay Leno: "There's now growing concern in Iran about the health of 74-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei, the country's supreme leader. He has a chronic illness. You think healthcare is bad in this country, try seeing a doctor under Ayatollah-Care. See how that works."
Jon Stewart: "So, yes, the president was somewhat dishonest about the promise of his healthcare program, but here's the weird part, his opponents have been lying like motherf*ckers about its effects."

Thursday, November 07, 2013

Paul Abrams: Affordable Care Act Insures Against Illness AND Bankruptcy

Wed Nov 06, 2013

We often hear politicians say that tens of millions of families are one bad diagnosis away from bankruptcy.

For once, they are not exaggerating.

Nearly 2 million peopleare expected to become bankrupt this year due to unpaid medical bills.  Without the Affordable Care Act, that would mean that 15% of the country would have declared bankruptcy in the next decade.

Based on 2007 estimates, medical-debt driven bankruptcies account for more than 60% of all personal bankruptcies.    Based upon the trends noted in 2007 compared to 2001,that percentage is likely even higher today. 

Some of those were people who had no insurance.  Whether it was because they did not bother, or could not afford it, or were excluded, is difficult to know.

But, 75% of these bankruptcies were people who actually had insurance.   Their problem is that it was not very good insurance, and so it did not cover enough of their expenses.   Moreover, there was no cap on the amount the individual would have to pay.

So, let us do a thought experiment.   How much would you be willing to pay to guarantee you would not go bankrupt because of illness?   $100/month?   $200/month?   What do you pay for auto insurance so that you are not impoverished by an accident that causes property and/or personal injury, and does not guarantee you against bankruptcy?

Whatever that amount is, one should subtract it from whatever premium one pays for health care under the Affordable Care Act.

Why?  Because the Affordable Care Act provides additional coverage for healthcare expenses, for prevention, for physical examinations, over and above its guarantee against bankruptcy.   So, if one would pay, say, $150/month for bankruptcy protection in case one gets an illness that is expensive to treat, then the rest of the premium insures for other health expenses.

Dianne Barrette, CBS's "victim", who now says she would "jump at the chance for an Obamacare policy", is a case in point.  True, she pays just $54/month today for "health insurance".  But, what does it insure?  Nothing, really.   Just $50 for an office visit, and $15 for drugs.   All other expenses from diagnostic tests to hospital costs to other treatment costs must be paid by her.  On her $30,000/year salary, if she gets sick, she could be sunk.

For another $50/month under the Affordable Care Act, however, her total exposure to medical costs is limited to $6250.  After that the insurance picks up 100% of her costs.  [These are estimates based upon the Kaiser Permanente calculator, lifted from the linked article.]

Or, for another $50/month ($150/month total), she can get office visits, "diagnostic visits" (evaluating specific complaints),  and the first $500 of tests (X-rays, lab tests, etc) covered.   If one is reasonably healthy, and does not think the medical expenses will be great, that is not a bad deal.  Her extra "$50/month" would be largely offset if she had a single MRI or CT-scan, or a battery of lab tests and some routine X-rays.   AND, she would be protected against bankruptcy.  If she were willing to pay $100/month for bankruptcy protection alone, her true cost for healthcare coverage is $50/month.  [Same qualifier as above].

Even the lowest of the bronze plans under the Affordable Care Act sets a cap, and not too high a cap, for the amount an individual needs to pay.   Although they may have high deductibles ($6, $8, $10,000), once that deductible is reached, and the cap is breached, the insurance pays everything else.

Moreover, one cannot be dropped from coverage and thus lose insurance completely.  Nor can one be excluded next year because one had an illness.

In 2007, three-quarters of the personal bankruptcies due to medical expenses were from people who had health insurance.

Starting in 2014, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, that percentage will become zero.

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Tuesday’s Progressive Victories Show That the Tide is Turning

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 by Common Dreams

On Tuesday, Bill de Blasio won a landslide victory to become the mayor of New York City, voters in New Jersey and Seatac, Washington supported minimum wage hikes, and the Illinois legislature voted to legalize same-sex marriage. These are among the progressive victories that swept across the country.

Despite a few setbacks, progressives had much to cheer about, sensing that the tide is turning against the unholy alliance of big business, the Tea Party, and the religious right. Growing protests -- such as the "Moral Monday" movement in North Carolina, militant immigrant rights activism, battles to protect women's health clinics from state budget cuts, strikes by low-wage workers, civil disobedience actions to challenge voter suppression, and student campaigns against global energy corporations -- reflect a burgeoning progressive movement bubbling up from below the surface that is beginning to have an impact on elections.

By far the most impressive symbol of this rising tide is de Blasio's landslide win, which the New York Times called "a sharp leftward turn for the nation's largest metropolis." De Blasio campaigned on a bold progressive platform, promising to address the city's widening income inequality, gentrification, and hollowing out of the middle class. De Blasio, the city's public advocate, trounced Republican Joe Lhota (a transportation official and long-time advisor to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani) by a 73 to 24 percent margin. His victory represents a rejection of 20 years of business-oriented municipal policies under Giuliani and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

De Blasio pledged to end the city's racist "stop and frisk" police practices, to expand affordable housing, and to increase pre-kindergarten classes by raising taxes on residents earning over $500,000, subject to approval from the state legislature. After winning a come-from-behind victory in the Democratic primary, de Blasio built a powerful grassroots campaign that drew on unions, community organizations, and other progressives. On Election Day, more than 10,000 de Blasio volunteers were turning out voters.

In addition to this overwhelming mandate, the new mayor will have a more progressive City Council to work with. The 51-member Council will have at least 21 new members, many of them supported by unions and the Working Families Party, which also played a big role in de Blasio's victory. The council's Progressive Caucus is likely to double in size from 10 to 20. Council member Brad Lander, a former community organizer, cofounder of the Progressive Caucus, and key de Blasio ally, was re-elected by a wide margin in his Brooklyn district.

Americans' growing frustration with widening inequality, stagnant wages, and persistent poverty can be seen in the mounting momentum to raise wages. Even as New Jersey voters were giving conservative Republican Gov. Chris Christie a second term, they also overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to raise the state's minimum wage by a dollar to $8.25 an hour. The new law includes an automatic cost-of-living increase each year. Last year Christie vetoed a bill to raise the state's minimum wage to $8.50 an hour, so the Democrats in the state legislature pushed back by putting the question to the voters. On Tuesday, it passed with 60 percent of the vote despite opposition from business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, and Christie, who said that raising the wage is "just an irresponsible thing to do."

Three thousand miles away, voters in the Seattle suburb of Seatac, Washington embraced the Good Jobs Initiative' to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour for workers in Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and at airport-related businesses, including hotels, car-rental agencies, and parking lots. At midnight, it was winning 54 to 46 percent, although many mail-in ballots had not yet been counted. The new law, sponsored by labor unions and other progressives, applies to more than 6,000 workers. Washington State's current minimum wage is $9.19, the highest in the nation. Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and challenger Ed Murray (who beat Murray on Tuesday) both supported the Seatac initiative and raised the possibility of doing the same thing in Washington's largest city.

The two minimum wage victories come on the heels of growing activism by low-wage workers around the country, including strikes and other protests by employees at fast-food restaurant chains and Wal-Marts. A year ago, voters in Albuquerque, N.M., and Long Beach, California, raised local minimum wages, adding to the more than 150 cities that have adopted living wage laws. Last month, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation raising the state's minimum wage from $8 to $10 an hour - a bill he had vetoed a year earlier. Activists in Idaho, South Dakota, and Alaska are gathering signatures to put minimum wage hikes on the ballot next year. Their counterparts in Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Hawaii are pushing state legislators to raise the minimum wages in their states, too.

The momentum at the local and state levels is likely to have ripple effects in the nation's capitol, where President Obama has proposed raising the federal wage threshold to $9 an hour and liberal Democrats in Congress have embraced hiking it to over $10 an hour, including an annual cost-of-living adjustment. Unions and other progressives will be using the issue to target Congressional Republicans facing tough re-election campaigns next year, hoping to pressure them to support a minimum wage hike or face the wrath of angry voters. Public opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe that people who work full-time should not earn poverty-level wages.

A majority of Americans now also embrace another progressive idea - same-sex marriage. In the past, conservatives tried to increase Republican voter turnout by putting anti-gay marriage measures on state ballots, but that strategy no longer works as public opinion has dramatically shifted in the past few years. On Tuesday, the Illinois state legislature passed a measure to legalize same-sex marriage. Under the legislation, which Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has pledged to sign, gay couples could start marrying in June. Illinois will become the fifteenth state to legalize same-sex marriage, a number that is certain to grow rapidly now that the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

And it is certainly no accident that this week the Senate cleared the way to vote in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to ban discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. On Monday, the Senate voted 61-30 to circumvent a filibuster of the bill, which has been introduced repeatedly since 1994. Reflecting the nation's changing mood, seven Republicans -- Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania -- joined 54 Democrats in voting to invoke cloture in order to advance the bill. Two Senators who support ENDA -- Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- were absent. The Senate is likely to vote on final passage this week. The bill will face higher hurdles in the House, where Speaker John Boehner has reiterated his opposition to ENDA on the absurd ground that it will "cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," but the growing number of Republicans who are now embracing LGBT rights may eventually force Boehner - or his successor - to revise his stance.

In another milestone Tuesday for the gay rights movement, Seattle became the second largest city in the country to elect an openly gay mayor. State Sen. Ed Murray, a gay Democratic state legislator, appeared to be headed for victory in Seattle's mayoral race. With 40 percent of the votes reported, Murray had a large lead -- 56-43 percent -- over incumbent Mayor Mike McGinn. Last year Murray sponsored and led the successful Referendum 74 campaign which legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Both Murray and McGinn are liberals who hold similar views on most issues. Both favor more public transit and universal kindergarten, and both embraced the campaign to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour in neighboring Seatac. McGinn, a one-time Sierra Club activist, was the first big-city mayor to push for divesting Seattle's pension fund money from energy companies that contribute to global warming, a cause that is gaining momentum on many college campuses. Annise Parker, a lesbian, was elected mayor of Houston (America's fourth largest city)) in 2009. Other large cities that have elected gay and lesbian mayors include Providence, Rhode Island and Portland, Oregon.

In Boston, State Rep. Marty Walsh edged City Council member John Connolly to become the city's next mayor. A long-time labor leader, Walsh gained the support from unions and key community and minority activists to win with 52 percent of the vote. As in Seattle, Walsh and Connolly - both liberal Democrats -- agreed on many issues. Walsh 's background as a working class union leader who won his personal struggle to overcome alcoholism helped catapult him to victory. National unions contributed heavily to help elect Walsh, who will become one of the few labor leaders to lead a major city. (Antonio Villaraigosa, a former union organizer, ended his two terms as Los Angeles' mayor earlier this year due to term limits). Walsh will replace Tom Menino, a moderate Democrat who served as Boston's mayor for 20 years but declined to seek a sixth term for health reasons.

In Minneapolis, community organizer and Occupy Homes activist Ty Moore was in a close race for a seat on the City Council. Moore was running as a Socialist Alternative candidate against Democrat Farm Labor Party candidate Alondra Cano, who would be the first Mexican-American to serve on the council. Moore, whose campaign earned the support of SEIU and the Green Party, co-founded the local Occupy Homes movement, which staged sit-ins to prevent banks from seizing foreclosed houses. His campaign focused heavily on stopping foreclosures and raising the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour. By early Wednesday morning, neither Moore nor Cano had reached the required threshold of votes to be declared a winner. Minneapolis uses a ranked-choice voting method, which processes ballots through a series of rounds, in which the lowest ranked candidate (or candidates) is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the next-ranked candidate on those ballots. The final outcome should be announced later this week.
Nobody would call Terry McAuliffe a bold progressive, but progressives and liberals are nevertheless embracing his victory in the Virginia governor's race on Tuesday as one more nail in the Tea Party coffin. The former head of the Democratic National Committee and a close ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, McAuliffe defeated state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, an ultra- right Republican embraced by the Tea Party. Virginia is swing state. Since 1977, it has elected governors from the opposing party of the sitting president. Although Obama won Virginia in both 2008 and 2012, the lower turnout in this year's off-year election was expected to favor Cuccinelli, who had already won statewide office and was a well-known figure. But McAuliffe's campaign was successful in winning over younger (under 45) voters, a majority of women, and moderates, many of whom viewed Cuccinelli as too conservative, according to polls. Cuccinelli was hurt by his extreme right-wing views on birth control, abortion, and divorce, and by the recent Republican-led shutdown of the federal government, which particularly affected the many Virginians who live in the Washington, D.C. suburbs. Even so, McAuliffe barely squeaked by, winning by a 47 to 46 percent margin.

Liberals and progressives have reason to breathe a sigh of relief over McAuliffe's slim victory. Had Cuccinelli won, he would have followed the playbook of Republican governors who have refused to implement the Obamacare program, supported anti-union legislation and cuts to the social safety net, and embraced severe limits on women's reproductive health care, including abortion. In fact, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, along with Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla) - all Tea Party favorites - campaigns for Cuccinelli. Although McAuliffe, who made his fortunate in banking and real estate, was often criticized by progressive for his close ties to business in his role as a Democratic Party fundraiser, he seemed to shift somewhat to the left during the campaign. In a state with a large number of gun owners and where the National Rifle Association has its headquarters (in suburban Fairfax, outside Washington, D.C), McAuliffe came out for strong gun controls and even boasted of his "F" rating from NRA.

McAullife's narrow victory was not the solid defeat for the crackpot Tea Party wing of the Republican Party that Democrats had hoped for. But other races on Tuesday suggest that there's a growing divide within the Republican Party between its business wing and its Tea Party wing, which may soon be gasping for breath in most parts of the country. In a Republican primary contest in Alabama, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobby groups poured huge sums to help former State Bradley Byrne defeat Dean Young, a Tea Party lunatic who last week said in an interview that Obama was born in Kenya. The business and Tea Party wings of the GOP both oppose higher taxes, government regulations on business, and labor unions, but the so-called mainstream corporate Republicans fear that if more Tea Party candidates win GOP primaries, voters will elect more Democrats to Congress and state legislatures. Although there are still many right-wing businesspeople, like the Koch brothers and their ilk, who fund Tea Party candidates, the major business lobby groups, as well as political operatives like Karl Rove, want to defeat the Tea Partyistas before they destroy the GOP's legitimacy. They worry that recent polls show that as many as 40 Republican House members are vulnerable to defeat next November as the party's favorability ratings sink among moderate and independent voters, who blame the GOP for the government shutdown and for the gridlock in Washington. The Democrats, who have 200 seats in the House, need to add 18 members to take back control of Congress' lower chamber.

Although Tuesday's political landscape definitely reflected a surging tide of liberal and progressive victories, business and conservative groups prevailed on two major ballot measures.

In Washington state, voters rejected an initiative that would have required labels on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. Initiative 522 lost by a 54.8 percent to 45.2 percent margin. The pro-labeling campaign was vastly outspent by big business. The anti-labeling No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising with $22 million in donations, almost all of it from out-of-state corporations and lobby groups, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences, and Bayer CropScience.

In Colorado, voters turned down a tax hike that would have provided an additional $1 billion for schools and would have resulted in smaller class sizes, pay raises for teachers, increased support for English-language learners, and full-day kindergarten. The initiative, called Amendment 66, would have changed the state income tax from a flat rate of 4.63 percent to a two-tiered system. The first $75,000 of taxable income would be taxed at 5 percent and everything above that threshold at 5.9 percent. The plan had the support of national teachers' unions and Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. The campaign was a rare case where the teachers unions worked on the same side as corporate philanthropists like Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, who support school privatization. The Colorado initiative included a provision to increase funding for charter schools, a major goal of the network that education historian Diane Ravitch calls the "billionaire boys club." The supporters of the school financing initiative, vastly outspent its opponents, but the measure nevertheless lost by a 66 percent to 34 margin.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Sunday, November 03, 2013

Why the Silence from the Sponsors of the Superior Full Medicare for All?

Published on Saturday, November 2, 2013 by Common Dreams

by Ralph Nader

With the Tea Partiers relentless attacks on each of the troubles besetting Obamacare since its complicated, computer glitch-ridden startup on October 1, 2013, the compelling question is: Why aren’t the Congressional sponsors of H.R. 676 – full Medicare for all with free choice of physician and hospital – speaking out as strongly on behalf of this far superior universal health care coverage?

There are fifty-one members of the House who openly favor the single-payer solution for many good reasons. Legislators behind H.R. 676, such as Reps. Robert Brady (D-PA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Danny Davis (D-IL) know that single-payer insurance with private delivery is by far more efficient, saving $400 billion a year just on administrative simplification.

Physician, scholar and advocate, Steffie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) says that, “complexity is baked into Obamacare.” What does “complexity” mean beyond thousands of pages of legislation and many more pages of regulations? Over forty years ago, Canada’s single-payer system was enacted with a 13 page bill that covers everyone for less than half of the cost per capita than the U.S.’s waste-ridden, profiteering, corrupt medical-industrial complex that drives honest practitioners up the wall. And, the Canadian system produces better health outcomes at this reduced cost.

Unfortunately complexity means endless opportunities for insurance companies to game the system with fine print, tricks, confusing pricing and lobbying to get out of requirements and standards through waivers. Complexity means ongoing confusion for consumers and patients who go into these exchanges, either because they’ve been thrown out of their existing but substandard insurance policies or do not have any insurance.

Every year, these same consumers have to figure out whether their income has changed enough so that they can report any difference to get a higher or lower subsidy.

Moreover, the public insurance option – Obama dropped that even before he was elected, anxious to not antagonize the powerful insurance companies and their allies – is missing. In West Virginia there is only one insurance seller! Other states have either one, two or more companies that will soon begin confusing consumers in different ways.

So far, the young consumers aren’t signing up at anywhere near the number necessary to actuarially balance off the more costly older consumers. The expected signup rate for middle-aged consumers is way behind projections. And the fine print trap doors keep getting discovered week after week.

Contrast this when Medicare was launched in 1966, as Dr. Woolhandler writes: “Using index cards,” (they didn’t have computers then), Medicare,

“enrolled over 20 million people in six months. And because it was a simple system based on Social Security records, you didn’t have hundreds of people programming in the state of Oregon, thousands of different plans, tons of different co-pays, restrictions and deductibles. You had one single payer plan, which is what we need for all Americans to give Americans the choice they want – which is not a choice between insurance company A and insurance company B. They want the choice of any doctor or hospital like you got with traditional Medicare.”

Additional co-sponsors of H.R. 676 know all this. They include Reps. Michael Doyle (D-PA), Donna Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Sam Farr (D-CA), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Al Green (D-TX) Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Michael Honda (D-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX).

All the co-sponsors, including the lead sponsor, Cong. John Conyers (D-MI), know that the great majority of the American people, as well as the majority of physicians and nurses prefer the single-payer, full Medicare – everybody in, nobody out – system. Most doctors want to practice medicine, not bookkeeping with page after page of computerized bills loaded with hospital overcharges and code manipulations. Most Canadians never see a bill.

Other co-sponsors of H.R. 676 know how much fraud is concealed in these complex, inscrutable bills that people and insurers receive. The leading expert on health care billing fraud and abuse, Harvard’s Malcolm Sparrow (author of License to Steal), conservatively estimates that 10 percent of all health care expenditure is drained away by billing fraud. That’s over $270 billion this year!

Additional co-sponsors of H.R. 676 including Reps. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Jim McDermott (D-WA), like their colleagues, know that 45,000 Americans (according to a Harvard Medical School peer reviewed study) die every year because they cannot afford health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time. Nobody dies in Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy and other western countries due to no insurance; because everybody is insured from the moment they are born at half the per capita cost of that in the U.S.

All the co-sponsors, including Reps George Miller (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Richard Nolan (D-MN), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) know that most of their Democratic colleagues favor single-payer, but have not signed on due to their reluctance to embarrass President Obama (who used to favor single-payer) or their avoidance of lobbying hassles from their contributors for a bill they believe has no chance of passing. How’s that for leadership?

So the spotlight has to shine on the lawmakers who have stood publically for H.R. 676, but have not taken on the Tea Partiers and their corporatist backers with this superior alternative. Consequently, the media just reports on the Tea Partiers vocal opposition and nothing on the silent backers of full Medicare for all.

Around the country, there are groups pressing for full Medicare (visit This weekend, the Physicians for a National Health Program, (with over 15,000 physician-members) is meeting in Boston to debate whether they should mount an offensive for full Medicare in the midst of the Obamacare imbroglio. Their revered mentor, Dr. Quentin Young, a former Chicago friend of Obama’s, argues in his new autobiography, Everybody In, Nobody Out: Memoirs of a Rebel Without a Pause, why Obamacare is worse than nothing.

All the H.R. 676 co-signers, including “Bobby” Scott (D-VA), José Serrano (D-NY), Mark Takano (D-CA), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Peter Welch (D-VT), Frederica Wilson (D-FL) and John Yarmuth (D-KY), should press Senators Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer and others to introduce in the Senate a similar single-payer bill to H.R. 676.

Senator Sanders’ office informs me he is finally ready to do so in a couple of weeks. With over 100 Americans dying each day due to lack of insurance, there’s no time to lose.

Please call your members of Congress at 202-224-3121.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.