In the midst of the whole “Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life” kerfuffle, a cute little ditty of a video was dug up by the Up with Chris show on MSNBC. Filmed at a January campaign stop, it shows Mitt Romney insisting that people on welfare need to experience “the dignity of work” in order to receive public assistance.

Video: Mitt Romney says welfare recipients need the “dignity of work”.

As I watch this video, I am angry beyond words. I believe Romney was talking about TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) recipients, not people who are on SSI or Medicaid like me, but it doesn’t really matter. There is an unbelievably pervasive prejudice against people who receive any form of public assistance, whether it is TANF, unemployment benefits, food stamps, SSI, Medicaid or any other “entitlement”. People on welfare are looked down on. They need to learn the “dignity of work”. They are lazy.

Image: Political cartoon depicting two elephants. Mom is reading bedtime story to her daughter: “Once upon a time there was a wicked Welfare Queen who had the power to destroy entire economies with one AFDC check…” (Image via Autographed Letter Signed)

Yes, “lazy”. The construction worker who has been out of work for nine months and is collecting unemployment benefits so he can pay the mortgage on his family’s home is lazy. The single mom who can barely make ends meet working two low-wage jobs and depends on food-stamps to help feed her kids is lazy. The millions of kids who, for whatever reason, qualify for Medicaid are lazy. And of course, people like me, who have catastrophic illnesses or injuries and aren’t able to work, are lazy.

I’m not sure why, but there is a general anger towards anyone who receives public assistance. Sometimes I think it is jealousy. The Ugly Green Monster makes the haves (those who are able to work and support themselves) envy the have-nots (those who can’t), insisting the latter group is somehow getting a bigger or better piece of the piece than anyone else. The Ugly Green Monster couldn’t be more wrong. Think about it: would you prefer to have the satisfaction of doing meaningful work, earning a comfortable salary, paying your own rent/mortgage/groceries/clothing/tuition/extras and putting money away for retirement, OR would you rather be forced to live on approximately $700/month in SSI benefits?

Even though it is impossible to live high off the fat of everyone else’s labor on an income of approximately $8400 per year, there is widespread resentment towards modern-day welfare queens (and kings) like me. This anger can’t be chalked up to misplaced envy alone. We should have a culture of goodwill in this country, where everyone understands the importance of caring for the general welfare because none of us know when we’re going to need the public safety net. Instead, way too many people are infuriated by the notion that part of their paycheck goes to support people like me (or hungry families on food stamps or pregnant moms on Medicaid, etc). They don’t see themselves contributing financially to the common good but rather “sacrificing” some of their income for other peoples’ benefit.

Rather than a culture of goodwill, we have a culture of animosity towards anyone who receives public assistance. This hatred leads us to believe that people on “welfare” are “lazy” and don’t deserve help. But that’s just not true. The social safety net is there for all of us. We are all just a pink slip, medical catastrophe or financial disaster away from needing it.

Who will the “lazy” one be then?

I generally try not to say anything negative about specific doctors, clinics or hospitals in any printed format, including online, because let’s face it: those folks have better lawyers than I do and they could sue the pants off of me, even though every word I’ve said is true (to the best of my knowledge and recollection).

Still, l had something happen at a doctor’s appointment recently that I think needs to be talked about. It doesn’t matter who the doctor was or where the clinic was. It doesn’t even matter whether the doctor was a man or a woman. It’s a long story, but I was treated very poorly and I actually walked out of the appointment. The doctor was rude, abrasive and extremely condescending. S/he acted as if s/he didn’t want to treat me, as if my case was too complicated and time consuming.

I believe I was discriminated against because I have Medicaid for my health insurance. After I left, I couldn’t figure out why a doctor would treat a patient that badly and the best explanation I can come up with is that s/he wasn’t getting paid enough to make my case worth her/his time and energy.

In other words, the Medicaid reimbursement rates in our area must be pretty low and if a doctor is driven by profit, taking a case like mine would not be cost-effective. This concerns me, not just on a personal level, but on a national level as well. 1 in 10 women receives her health coverage through Medicaid. For low-income women, this statistic is even higher: 1 in 5 women have Medicaid. These numbers are only expected to rise as approximately 17 million people will be enrolled in Medicaid as health care reform is enacted over the new few years.

Increasing Medicaid enrollment without boosting doctors’ reimbursement rates leaves poor and disabled women open to discrimination and abuse.

I worry that even if a doctor does accept patients with Medicaid, some patients with complicated cases will be turned away by doctors who don’t want to treat them. If they are lucky enough to find a doctor, they may be forced to accept substandard care or facilities. During the health care debate last winter, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) called Medicaid:

a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us, or any of our families, would ever want to be a part of for our health care.”

After thinking about it, I can see that I’ve had the best experiences with Medicaid providers who were part of large clinics and/or hospitals. It always seems to be the independent contractors – the little guys and gals at private clinics – who either refuse to treat me or have a lousy bedside manner when they do.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) even admits that it doesn’t pay for some doctors to take the cheap Medicaid patients on:

Medicaid payment is often very low. Low payment rates discourage provider participation in Medicaid… Rural areas usually do not have sufficient patients to fully support a doctor’s practice.

The HHS website I linked above goes on to list suggestions for how the Health Resources and Services Administration can use Medicaid funding to improve rural health care for Medicaid patients but at the end of the day, money talks: Congress will have to increase the reimbursement rates so doctors can afford to treat Medicaid patients. As feminists, we need to push Congress to do this so women and girls on Medicaid (and Medicare) receive the best health care possible.

Driving home from that doctor’s appointment a few weeks ago, I was angry and upset, not only for me but also for the millions of other women who are currently on Medicaid or will be soon. Regardless of our income level or what insurance we have, we all deserve dignity, respect and first-class health care.

So in case you haven’t heard, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is retiring from Congress when his term expires in January. When the news broke this morning, feminists rejoiced. (Republicans and Tea Party activists are ecstatic, too, but that’s another story, one that other people are much more qualified to talk about.)

Personally, I am thrilled Stupak is retiring, but unlike many feminists, I see this as more than a victory for women and reproductive rights. It is a victory for the people that Stupak was elected to represent: the residents of Michigan’s 1st Congressional District. (After this, I’ll refer to 1st Congressional District as CD1.) CD1 encompasses the entirety of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and several counties in the Lower Peninsula. (Apparently, the mitten part is called the Lower Peninsula. Who knew?) He was not elected to represent the residents of the C Street house, the religious organization known as The Family, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops or the anti-choice movement.

Obviously, Stupak was and is free to vote according to his conscience and convictions. Since we live in a democracy, that is one of our founding principles. Another one of our founding principles is a representative government. When Stupak became the de facto leader of the anti-choicers in the House and nearly killed health care reform over the issue of abortion, he was no longer representing the CD1. Stupak put the needs if the “pro-life” movement ahead of his own constituents.

CD1 residents didn’t need an anti-abortion activist to advocate for them in the health care debate. They needed their member of Congress. The 118,000 seniors on Medicare who live in CD1 needed a representative working to close the so-called “donut hole” that can sometimes cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a month. 324,000 women needed him to make sure that maternal and preventative health care is covered. Since the district is extremely rural, with the largest town having a population of 20,916, residents across the CD1 needed him to work on improving Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates for rural doctors and providing other much needed assistance to rural medical providers.

In short, Bart Stupak failed residents of the 1st Congressional District. They deserve better. Whether his successor is a Democrat or Republican, I hope they get it.

##

During Saturday’s debate on the cloture vote, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said the proposed health care reform bill is:

“arrogant in its dumping of 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us or any of our families would ever want to be a part of for our health care.”

Here’s the video:

I have Medicaid. It is not a “medical ghetto”. Without Medicaid, I would not be walking or talking today. I would not be typing this sentence. I would not be able to swallow food or get dressed by myself.

Medicaid is a good program. It paid for two more weeks of inpatient rehabilitation at the Spinal Cord Injury Center at Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, WI, than United HealthCare would have. Those extra two weeks are the reason I’m walking today.

Medicaid paid for as much outpatient physical, occupational and acquatic therapy as I needed when I got home. United HealthCare would have only paid for twenty sessions each per year. Without Medicaid, I would not have been able to go to physical therapy 2-3 times a week for eleven months, occupational therapy 2 times a week for six months and aquatic therapy once a week for five months.

Medicaid has paid for all of my doctors’ appointments. I have been able to see all of the specialists I needed, no questions asked.

Medicaid has kept me alive and put me back on the road to recovery. It is not a “medical ghetto”. It is a vitally important (and yes, imperfect) safety net for millions of Americans.

Senator Alexander, you would be lucky to have Medicaid.

On Saturday night, my joy and relief at the health care reform bill being passed in the House of Representatives was quickly wiped out by the fury being expressed on Twitter and elsewhere by feminists and progressives over the Stupak amendment. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, the amendment “bans abortion coverage even if women pay for it with their own money in the public option or private plans in the insurance exchange.”

This is obviously a big deal. In a press release, FMF’s president Ellie Smeal said:

“Millions of poor and middle class women will be denied abortion coverage. Millions more may lose abortion coverage because currently some 85% of private plans now have such coverage.”

I agree the Stupak amendment is terribly, terribly wrong. It is, as Ms. Smeal said, “an unacceptable, giant step backward for women.” Still, abortion cannot be allowed to derail health care reform. This is far too important to me and millions of other women – and men. Health care reform is about life and death. Out-of-control premiums and medical bills are forcing families to choose between buying groceries for their kids, paying the mortgage or obtaining life-saving medical treatment and prescription drugs.

Health care reform is not about abortion. Bart Stupak and the other “pro-life” members of Congress should be ashamed of themselves for hijacking what may be the most important piece of legislation of our time. This is truly a matter of life and death.

Abortion cannot be allowed to derail health care reform. Still, there is another issue that has been overlooked in the outrage over the Stupak amendment. According to the Kaiser Foundation, 9.5 million women are currently on Medicaid. The federal standard for Medicaid requires abortion coverage only in situations where the mother’s life is in danger or in the case of rape or incest. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia only provide this level of coverage while seventeen states exceed federal requirements, funding “all or most medically necessary abortions”.

If abortion doesn’t derail the bill and we actually get health care reform passed, Medicaid’s ranks will expand to include 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, including millions more women.

What about poor women? Don’t we deserve abortion coverage as part of our reproductive rights? Where is the outrage for us? It seems like the feminist movement has simply forgotten about the poorest and sickest of women, those who are most likely to be in need of abortion services. Indeed, many women enroll in Medicaid because they are pregnant and uninsured. Our society has created a safety net for low-income women when they get pregnant but that safety net is full of knots and hard to break free of.

Medicaid’s income limits keep women mired in poverty. StateHealthFacts.org reports that 52.3% of non-elderly families receiving Medicaid have at least one full-time worker, which means that worker is working full-time but doesn’t have health insurance through their job. In order to keep their Medicaid, they cannot earn more than the FPL eligibility limits for their state. If they do earn more than the limits, they risk losing their health insurance.

Furthermore, 47.8% of the non-elderly on Medicaid work part-time or not at all. These people are not eligible for employer-sponsored plans and will probably be unable to afford any plans in the new insurance exchange. They will be stuck on Medicaid. Without abortion coverage.

It has been extremely frustrating and infuriating to watch the uproar over the Stupak amendment. It feels like the feminist movement has forgotten about the poor, sick and disabled women who are on Medicaid and only have access to abortion services under the Hyde Amendment.

Those of us on Medicaid deserve the same reproductive rights that everyone else is entitled to. We are not second-class citizens. We’re women.

I posted a link to this transcript in my Saturday Link-Love but I wanted to post the actual text of my conversation with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) from last Thursday. As you may recall, I was part of the BlogHer conference call on health care along with some other great bloggers. Reading the transcript back, I’m a little embarrassed at how incoherent I was. Okay, I’m more than a little embarrassed, but I was really emotional. Moreover, I was hesitant and nervous about challenging a Republican member of Congress, even over the telephone.

Here’s what I want to point out: I asked Rep. Lummis if there was any way she could support the current health care reform bill. She never answered that question and instead reverted to her Republican talking points. It seems to me that if Republicans really are in favor of health care reform like they profess to be and aren’t just playing politics, they would realize that health care reform is happening. They would be demanding a chair at the negotiation table and arguing for what was best for their constituents, not their campaign financiers.

The other notable point from the conversation is that after I talked about how Medicaid and disability are demonized, Rep. Lummis went on to tell me I shouldn’t be ashamed of being on the program. Rep. Lummis barely skipped a beat before going on to say that Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and she refuses to burden her daughter and grandchildren with these unsustainable government programs. I’m sure she didn’t realize she was doing it, but Rep. Lummis was doing the exact “demonizing” I was talking about: Making me feel like I am contributing to our national economic downfall by being a recipient of an “entitlement” program. She nearly brought me to tears.

Anyways, here’s my portion of the call:

Operator: Thank you. And the next question coming from the line of 455-L. Please proceed.

(Danine): My name is (Danine) and I am calling from (assumption). I have a complicated medical history and I currently on – I’m so sorry – on Medicaid and I want to get off of those programs, be kind of quite frankly, Medicaid and disability are demonized and treated, you know, every time you talk about an entitlement program, you know, well, they’re demonized.

But I absolutely have to have health insurance. I have a condition called (hydrocephalus) and I have a shunt in my head that relieves the pressure from my brain and every single day of my life, I have to be able to afford health insurance and healthcare.

And I – in order to get off of SSI and Medicaid, I need to be able to – I’m working towards self-employment – and I need to be able to afford health insurance.

And with all due respect and I mean this incredibly, the reality is is that our greatest chance for – I don’t – I can’t – the reality is is that I probably won’t be able to afford private insurance in the current environment and my best option is probably – I’m sorry – but it’s probably in with this healthcare reform as the Democrats are proposing it.

Is there any possible way that you can support their policies or get on-board with healthcare reform in 2009? I need healthcare reform. I need something because the day that I don’t have health insurance, that could be the day that my shunt breaks and I need emergency brain

It’s a life – I think it was literally started – no, I’m sorry. I don’t remember which person said it. That’s the day that I could – that’s the day that – it’s a life and death thing and I’m sorry, but it’s very, very personal for me.

And I need my legislative Congress people to help. I’m not trying to put you on the spot, but…

Cynthia Lummis: No, you’re not putting me on the spot and I appreciate your dilemma. I want you to know how proud I am of America that Medicaid is there for you and you should not feel the least bit apologetic about the fact that Medicaid is serving you to help you with a condition that is highly debilitating and that really affects your quality of life.

That’s why it’s there so please take advantage of it. You are exactly the person that it was meant for. In the case that your condition were to improve to the extent that you could leave the availability of Medicaid, there would be tax credits in Republican plans for low-income people.

Of course the high-risk pools if you still can’t get coverage would be available to you. There is in Republican bills the opportunity for insurance to be purchased across state lines so in states like my state of Wyoming which has a very small population and health insurance cannot be pooled across state lines, bills would allow for Wyoming to participate in much bigger pools.

And the people of Wyoming could band together either through their church or their trade associations or states themselves to provide larger pools of people who can share the burden and lower the cost of health insurance, especially for those of us as I said that are in areas of very small populations.

So by all means, keep your Medicaid, keep healthy to the extent that those medications are helping you have a higher quality of life and don’t be the least apologetic about participating in Medicaid. That’ what it’s there for.

Now the problem I have with the bill that the Speaker rolled-out today is that it forces on states unfunded mandates to expand Medicaid. Where are the states going to get the money to do that?

In California, there would estimates that it could cost California $8 billion a year to expand Medicaid according to the Speaker’s bill. California is already awash in debt. They can’t add $8 billion to the state’s debts in order to cover programs that Congress mandates on them that they can’t afford to pay for.

So the problem I have with the Speaker’s bill and with these government-run programs that Democrats are advocating is that they are not paid for so it will just create a situation just like we’re going to face with Medicare down the road and that is that Medicare will eventually go broke because it is going to be paying out more in benefits than people are paying in.

And with those kinds of unsustainable government programs that promise a lot but are unpaid for, we are burdening our children and grandchildren with paying for us and for our needs without regard to what our children and grandchildren will face in the future.

And I’m opposed to saddling my child and her children with debts that I incur. I need to make sure that while I’m here in Congress, I am being responsible to the next generation and doing the best job I can for us in this generation.

That’s why I encourage you to stay on Medicaid to the extent that you are able to and when your situation improves to the extent that you are able to afford insurance, take advantage of the tax credits. Take advantage of state high-risk pools and thank you and, you know, I hope your condition improves and thank you for your question.

(Danine): I have one quick question. How is Medicare and Medicaid more – how is Medicaid more financially solvent and this is – I’m not being just (cold), I actually want to know?

Cynthia Lummis: What was your question again?

(Danine): Is Medicaid more financially solvent than Medicare?

Cynthia Lummis: Well, Medicaid is – they’re both in trouble. They’re both in trouble in the long run because they’re paying out more in benefits than they take in and every year more of the federal budget is going to pay for entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the states are responsible for of course picking-up a share of Medicaid so it’s also having a big impact on state budgets.

(Danine ): Okay. Thank you.

Read the rest of the transcript here

Happy Halloween! Hope your Saturday is treating you well. Here are a few of the week’s best links:

First, a little horn-tootin’. I am humbled and honored to be included on this list of 50 Eye-Opening Women’s Studies Blogs, along with some of the great feminist blogs on this list. Check it out!

Ashley at the Small Strokes blog has a new project: This is What a Beautiful Bride Looks Like, which features pictures of real brides. Here’s a description of the site, in Ashley’s own words:

As an engaged woman who loves her body, I am sick and tired of seeing ads for “Wedding Weightloss” routines and images of 100% “perfect,” unattainable brides! Here, I hope to collect some pictures of brides with REAL beauty! To submit a photo, e-mail samsanator(at)gmail(dot)com

On Thursday, I participated in a Conference Call with Rep. Cynthis Lummis (R-WY). BlogHer has now posted the full transcript of the event, including my Q&A with the congresswoman.

Finally, here’s a little Halloween fun for ya. The fab team at Bitch Media has put together an awesome list of Feminist Halloween Costumes. I love the idea of going as one of Jem and the Holograms.

This morning I did yet another BlogHer conference call on health care reform. This one was with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Did you catch the “R” after her name? Yep, she’s a Republican and vehemently opposed to “The Speaker’s Bill” as she put it. I’ll do a quick recap of the call, but long story short, there’s not a snowball’s chance in you-know-where that Congresswoman Lummis will vote “aye” on the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

At the beginning of the call, Rep. Lummis told Republicans are in favor of health care reform. They would just do it differently. She said she didn’t know what the rush was and that Republicans want to “borrow the best of the bills” to reform the system one step at a time. She also said the current health care system services 85% of Americans “very well” so we should focus our energy on trying to help the other 15%.

Rep. Lummis’ proposals for piecemeal reform including high-risk insurance pools that are (supposedly) available in every state. She also wants to establish a tax credit so individuals can buy private insurance policies that would be portable even if they lost their job. Her third idea was to allow consumers to buy insurance policies across state lines.

Rep. Lummis said she was “terribly concerned” about “The Speaker’s Bill” (doesn’t it sound evil?) because it shifts many costs to the states by expanding Medicare.” That’s a direct quote. (Hence the quotation marks.) I’m pretty sure she meant to say “Medicaid” as the bill does expand Medicaid. Nothing recent is coming up on Google for “expand Medicare”.

Here are the calls:

• Loralee, of the LooneyTunes blog, asked Rep. Lummis to elaborate on her ideas for expanding the high-risk pools. The congresswoman told Loralee she is co-sponsoring HR 3400, which would provide more funding for high-risk pools so individuals could buy into the plans at a lower rate. This would be paid for with unused stimulus funds (which apparently aren’t needed for any of the bridges that are falling down.)

• Jaelithe, a blogger for MOMocrats.com, told Rep. Lummis “there is a rush” for health care reform. People like her step-father, who has diabetes, are going without health insurance and life-saving medicine, such as insulin. (Which is kind of important to diabetics). Jaelithe asked Rep. Lummis if there was anything explicitly prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions in HR 3400, her go-to bill. To my recollection, Rep. Lummis didn’t really answer that. Instead, she told Jaelithe her step-father could join the high-risk pool in his state. What Rep. Lummis apparently doesn’t know is that high-risk pools are still pretty darn expensive for the average citizen, especially if you’re poor.
• Nancy from the Sunlight Foundation asked how Rep. Lummis felt about transparency, at which point, I mentally blocked out so I could figure out what question I wanted to ask
• Next up, Yours Truly: I was really emotional so I’m sure this came out crazy and incoherent but I told Rep. Lummis that I have a rare medical condition and that I am on SSI/Medicaid. I don’t want to be on disability because honestly, it’s demonized. I know I said that twice. (The shaming of people on disability, Medicaid and other “entitlement” programs is a post for another day.) I told her I want to get off those programs very badly and am working towards self-employment but I need affordable health insurance. I need health care reform. With all due respect, the only way that’s going to happen this year is with the Democrats’ plan. I asked her if there was any way she could support the Democrats’ billWithout taking a breath, Rep. Lummis did not answer my question. Well, actually, she did – by not answering it.

  She started immediately listing her Republican talking points about how they would do health care reform: tax credits, high-risk pools and let people buy insurance across state lines. I actually started rolling my eyes while she was talking. She never once said anything about how she could work to find a compromise with the Democrats which means she can’t. Or won’t.

  Also, Rep. Lummis basically told me not to apologize for being on Medicaid and that I was the reason the system was there. I had nothing to be ashamed or guilty about. However, seconds later, she told me both Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and we are saddling our children and grandchildren with back-breaking debt.How am I not supposed to feel guilty about that debt every time I go to the doctor or receive my monthly check via direct deposit? Or how about when Sen. Judd Gregg goes on MSNBC and basically pitches a fit about how health care reform is another entitlement program that will bankrupt future generations, like he did less than an hour before I spoke to Rep. Lummis?

  Needless to say, I was not impressed with Rep. Lummis.

• I was, however, very impressed with Erin Kotecki Vest who some of you may know as @QueenOfSpain on Twitter. Erin asked Rep. Lummis if she was in favor of expanding Medicare and Medicaid after listening to talk about how wonderful she thought Medicaid was for people like me (more on that in a moment). Rep. Lummis said she was glad I was able to take advantage of Medicaid but said it would be “inaccurate” to say she supports the program as it is. “I’m glad that the safety net is there for the last caller,” she told Erin, referring to me. Still, she said she is an advocate for reforming Medicare. “We must ferret out waste, fraud and abuse.”

Can we please ferret the Republicans out of this debate? I appreciate the bipartisanship that the Sunlight Foundation and Blogher tried to introduce to this conversation but at this point, isn’t the GOP irrelevant? I want to pretend they are, at least, because John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s influence on Joe Lieberman is driving me up the freakin’ wall. If this health care house of cards comes falling down because Joe Lieberman, who was elected vice-president of the United States by the majority of the people in this country in 2000, decides to kill it, I just don’t know what I’ll do.

I just don’t.

UPDATED: 6:09 PM CST

For the record, in case that statement about “what I’ll do” if Joe Lieberman filibusters health care reform sounded weird or could in any way be construed as threatening, let me be clear: The only thing I’ll do is say bad words when no one’s listening so I can pretend I’m still a lady. Or I’ll engage in grassroots lobbying by emailing, faxing and telling my story. Nothing else. Yep, I’m kinda paranoid that anything I write online is considered published and could be traced back to me someday so there. I’ve covered my butt.

This afternoon I had the pleasure of participating in a BlogHer conference call on health care reform with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Sen. Merkley gave a brief statement on the goals of health care reform, saying that it will have an exchange to allow individuals and small business to buy health insurance as part of a large pool. In addition, there will be insurance reforms and investments in wellness and prevention.

After that, Sen. Merkley took questions from members of the BlogHer community. I got to ask the first question, which I have to admit was a teensy bit cool. Here’s what I asked, kinda-sorta verbatim to the best of my recollection:

“I had a spinal cord injury in 2005 and was paralyzed from the neck down. I regained my mobility but I still have a lot of health problems. I’ve been on disability and Medicaid since then. I am hoping to work my way to self-employment but I need affordable health insurance in order to do that. My guess is that the public option will be my best bet. We’ve heard Sen. Reid say that they’re talking about talking about the public option. So what is the status of the public option?”

Sen. Merkley told me that my situation is a good example of why we need health care reform. He said I would benefit from insurance reforms, such as not being denied coverage to a pre-existing condition. He explained I would be able to go to the new insurance exchange, where I could choose from a variety of difference insurance plans, including “hopefully a public option.” Sen. Merkley told me he is working very hard for a public option. “I think the odds are very good”, he said, speaking of the likelihood of a public option being in the final bill.

Looking back at my notes now, I wish I would have asked a follow-up question. I wish I would have asked what the public option would actually do. Who would be eligible? How much would co-pays, premiums and deductibles be? Would there be networks of preferred providers?

Oh well. Maybe I’ll get chance to ask another lawmaker that question. I hope so.

On to the next question: Audrey from Maine, asked why tort reform wasn’t a bigger part of the current push for health care reform. Sen. Merkley explained that tort reform, which has already been done in some states, has not substantially reduced the cost to citizens. In fact, it seems to have had about a 1% (yikes!) impact on the cost to citizens. Furthermore, he said tort reform would take away citizens’ fundamental right to sue for gross negligence.

Audrey also asked why there isn’t a bigger emphasis on health care savings accounts in the current debate. Sen. Merkley replied that most working Americans aren’t able to put money into a health care savings account. “It may be a nice addition to reform… It doesn’t get to the heart of the problem,” he said.

Susan, from Madison, WI, noted the lack of bipartisanship in the current debate on health care, particularly on the public option and wondered what issues Democrats and Republicans are able to find some consensus on. Sen. Merkley said there was bipartisan support for investments in wellness and prevention, disease management, growing the health care workforce and providing incentives to employees to stay healthy.

Sen. Merkley said the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans is over the public option. Republicans believe in a for-profit health care system but “I couldn’t disagree more,” he said. He explained that he wants a system dedicated to healing people not to profits and shareholders.

Susan asked the senator what it would take to bring bipartisanship back to the issue of the public option. Sen. Merkley explained that some of the compromises currently being discussed might help, such as the opt-out idea, where states can opt-out of the public option if their governor or state legislatures decide to do so.

The final question came from Karalee in California (sorry if I got your name wrong, Karalee). Her family is uninsured and her son was just diagnosed with diabetes. Karalee asked if health care reform is passed, what will fill in the gaps for families like hers until the legislation goes into effect in 2013?

In my opinion, this is one of the best questions of the day (besides mine, of course). Sen. Merkley agreed saying, “It’s an excellent question. Unfortunately, I don’t have an excellent answer.” He went on to say that he has been asking these exactly questions on Capitol. He thinks that states should be allowed to set up their public options and insurance exchanges earlier than 2013 if they’re ready. Stay tuned, he said, because debate on this issue is still underway.

With that, the conference call wrapped up. Thank you, BlogHer and Sen. Jeff Merkley!

This morning, I was lucky enough to participate in a BlogHer conference call with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The topic was health care reform and Speaker Pelosi had plenty to say.

In her opening remarks, Ms. Pelosi expressed optimism that health care reform legislation will get passed. “I’m very enthusiastic about where we are on this legislation,” she said. She said women have much to gain from health care reform:

• Insurance companies won’t be able to charge women more than men. (Women currently pay as much as 48% more)
• It will be illegal to count pregnancy, C-sections and domestic violence as pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies who participate in the health insurance exchange will be required to have maternity care. (It’s unclear to me if all insurance companies will be required to do so.)
• There will be assistance to individuals and families who earn up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to help buy health insurance.

The first question came from Audrey in Maine, who said her family was facing foreclosure on their home due to huge medical bills. Audrey asked if it was really possible that insurance premiums wouldn’t go up for people in private plans?

Ms. Pelosi explained that there were several provisions in the House bill for Audrey’s situation. There will be no discrimination for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies couldn’t drop coverage if you get sick. There will be no co-pays for prevention and wellness. There will be yearly and lifetime caps on what you pay out of pocket. If you have a disability or chronic medical condition like Audrey, there will be a cap on what you pay. Ms. Pelosi told Audrey that her case is exactly why the current system needs reform.

The next question came from a woman in Chicago, who happened to be waiting at the DMV. (I didn’t catch her name, sorry DMV lady!) The caller was extremely concerned about the expansion of government into the health care system. “It strikes fear in my heart,” she said, asking Ms. Pelosi to help calm her fears. “We are not doling out health care. We are helping people pay for health insurance,” Ms. Pelosi replied. Ms. Pelosi went on to say that health care reform would be paid for by reducing fraud and waste in the current system. She also insisted the public option has to pay for itself and be “actuarial sound,” which I freely admit is an accounting term that’s way over my head.

Heather from Los Angeles, who has a blood clotting disorder that makes her pregnancies high-risk, asked if there would be any “gray area” on pre-existing conditions. Absolutely not, Ms. Pelosi replied. “There can be no discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.” She reiterated that all insurance companies who want to participate in the insurance exchange will be required to have maternity care and that insurance companies will want to operate in the exchange because they will have access to millions of new customers.

On the issue of pre-existing conditions, Ms. Pelosi expressed disbelief and disgust at the discrimination women face by insurance companies. “Can you believe that C-sections and domestic violence are pre-existing conditions?” she asked, incredulously.

A caller from St. Louis asked about the proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Ms. Pelosi said they were going to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse” in Medicare and Medicaid. She said these efficiencies would extend Medicare solvency by another five years. She quoted the AARP as saying the changes to Medicare would make Medicare more efficient.

Throughout the call, Ms. Pelosi talked about the proposed health insurance exchange. “Reform must take place in the exchange… A public option should be in the exchange.” There will be assistance for individuals (and families, I think) making up to 400% FPL and small businesses to purchase health insurance through the exchange.

After nearly every caller, Ms. Pelosi said, “Keep watching what we’re doing. Hold us accountable.” She said the final House bill she be done within a week or two. It will be posted online at least 72 hours before debate begins on the House floor so look for that.

This was a great opportunity to be a part of this conference call so thank you, BlogHer!

Note: This was written off my notes from the conference call. Actual quotes on the transcript on Blogher.com may be slightly different.