The same County Attorney who neglected to advise against Ward Nelson to participate in the vote to fill the council vacancy as a nominee also neglected to advise the Council of any potential legal obstacle to the County Executive appointing Ward should the decision go to him.
Well, I stumbled onto at least one potential obstacle.
Whoever is appointed to the seat for District 1, position B, takes that office the day of the appointment. That appointment must take place within 30 days from when the seat became officially vacant. The deadline for this vacancy is December 26.
If Ward Nelson is appointed to fill that vacancy, he would become the District 1, position B county councilor that day.
Nelson’s term as District 1, position A on the Council doesn’t end until January 11, 2010.
This caused me to wonder how Ward Nelson could hold two positions on County Council at the same time.
I asked that question on a thread in the Politics blog that Sam Taylor valiantly runs at the Herald’s website. Sam himself suggested that Ward Nelson could resign the District 1, position A seat and be appointed to the District 1, position B seat. The seat Ward Nelson vacates will be occupied by Kathy Kershner when she is sworn in next January. And Robert is your uncle, and Fanny is your aunt.
And it's only a few weeks. So what's the big deal?
No matter how much fancy footwork is applied the fact remains that if Ward Nelson is appointed to the seat Bob Kelly vacated, there will be less than seven people populating the County Council for more than 30 days. That’s not my legal opinion. That’s math.
If an appointment to fill a vacant council seat will result in the creation of another vacant council seat, does that appointment satisfy the requirements of the Whatcom County Code?
Does the County Executive have the legal authority to exceed the 30 day time limit by “shuffling” Council members between vacant seats? If so, what are the limits of that legal authority?
I thought the goal of filling a council vacancy was to end up with no vacancies on the council.
What political genius hatched this plan to nominate Ward Nelson?
Wile E. Coyote did a better job of planning how he would catch the Roadrunner.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Glenn Beck declared "Misinformer of the Year"
Media Matters declares Glenn Beck "Misinformer of the Year."
The truth squading site chose Beck for what it calls a series of inaccurate attacks on President Obama and Democrats, including leveling the "death panel accusation" that won Sarah Palin Politi-Fact's "Lie of the Year" award.
Key Health Care Reform Vote taken in Senate
The key Senate vote to limit debate took place shortly after 1 a.m in a harshly partisan atmosphere. The timing was necessary to allow for Republican debate in order to pass the legislation by Christmas Eve.
The 60-40 vote is the exact margin needed to shut down a threatened Republican filibuster. 58 democrats, and 2 independents pulled together against unanimous Republican opposition.
Here's a video clip from MSNBC -- Senate Health Care Debate Videos from CSPAN can be found here: http://www.c-span.org/Health-Care-Senate-Debate.aspx
CNN Senate health care bill clears key hurdle: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.senate.vote/index.html
HR 3590 Text for the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’: http://www.democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
Manager's Amendment: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf
Congressional Budget Office letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10870/12-20-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction1.pdf
The 60-40 vote is the exact margin needed to shut down a threatened Republican filibuster. 58 democrats, and 2 independents pulled together against unanimous Republican opposition.
Here's a video clip from MSNBC -- Senate Health Care Debate Videos from CSPAN can be found here: http://www.c-span.org/Health-Care-Senate-Debate.aspx
CNN Senate health care bill clears key hurdle: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.senate.vote/index.html
HR 3590 Text for the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’: http://www.democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
Manager's Amendment: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf
Congressional Budget Office letter: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10870/12-20-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction1.pdf
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Councilor Sam Crawford is falling all over himself to pass "feel-good" legislation
If Sam Crawford has his way --- county council will be taking another look at restricting the council's ability to increase property taxes in 2010. I guess Councilor Crawford doesn't trust himself (or his newly elected seat mates) to make responsible decisions about tax increases without passing a "feel good" ordinance.
Apparently, the lack of a real political agenda for Whatcom county forces guys like Crawford to cling to worn out ideas until all the life has been squeezed out of them.
Earlier this year, former KGMI talk show host Brett Bonner introduced a mini-initiative requiring voter approval for any tax increase over 1 percent. (Never mind that the language is already codified in state law). Bonner claimed that his mini-initiative would also restrict the council's ability to use banked capacity. A county attorney disagreed and drafted a memo to Councilor Crawford and Councilor Fleetwood stating that the mini-initiative was illegal. But "illegal" doesn't matter when your passing "feel good" legislation. The only thing that is important is the perception created by the council adopting the ordinance.
Banked capacity allows local governments to levy less than the maxium increase in property taxes allowed under law without losing the ability to levy higher taxes later, if necessary. The legislature adopted banked capacity back in 1986 to encourage taxing districts to be more fiscally conservative without being penalized for not taking the maximum levy. (It allows taxpayers to pay less than they would if the taxing district takes the maximum levy each year).
In the past, other communities, like Port Townsend, have adopted ordinances establishing a requirement to obtain voter approval before it could use banked property tax capacity. But it was a "feel good" law. Six years later, the new council repealed the ordinance because the ordinance was only a local requirement and was not required by state law.
With local ordinances like the one proposed by Bonner and Crawford, voter approval is considered "advisory only," and final authority to set tax levies, including banked capacity, remains vested by the state legislature in local government. Ordinances adopted by one council are not binding on future councils, and an existing or future council is free to amend or appeal the ordinance at any time.
Hence, Mr. Crawford, and his newly elected conservative seat mates, Mrs. Kershner and Mr. Knutzen, appear to be quite anxious to waste local tax dollars on frivolous ordinances as soon as they are sworn in to office.
According to Sam Taylor at the Bellingham Herald, Mr. Crawford also wants to take a second look at allowing more self-inspections by homeowners with septic tanks. In fact, just this past year, the county began sponsoring classes to provide homeowners the skills they need to do self-inspections, that is, after the tank has been inspected at least one time by a professional inspector.
I don't have a problem with Crawford's (originally Brenner's) proposal, as long as the ordinance contains a hefty fine ($5,000 and up) to punish home owners that neglect to report malfunctioning septic tanks to the county. After all, $250 to $300 for a one time septic inspection is cheap in compared to what many home owners in urban areas pay for sewer service (and related fees) annually.
And, I'm confident that the new council members will do everything within their power to make sure urban water and sewer bills go through the roof as they adopt weak zoning laws that permit expensive sprawl.
Under our existing system, tax dollars subsidize new development, rather than improving our existing communities. Sprawl costs our cities and counties millions and millions of dollars for new water and sewer lines, new schools, and increased police and fire protection. Those costs are not fully offset by the taxes paid by the new users or impact fees. Instead, poorly planned development forces higher taxes on existing residents like you and me.
That is our reality - now that we have two new pro-developer officials about to join the council. So, forgive me if I cast a jaundiced eye at Crawford and Bonner when they complain about a $6 dollar tax increase for a homeowner with a house worth $300,000 for local water-related projects, like stormwater management.
A federally financed research project Cost of Sprawl concluded that we (taxpayers, not developers) can no longer afford sprawling development and that failure to force more dense development America in the next quarter-century would impose more than $225 billion in additional costs.
Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and consumers, have to pay for in public infrastructure and other services. One must admit that it is ironic that the tea party crowd is pie eyed over federal bail outs but doesn't blink when developers ask them to adopt liberal Growth Management plans that will cost us millions.
So much for fiscal conservatism and watching the taxpayer's backs!
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter who we elect, we can never seem to find or create a legislative body (city or county) that is not addicted to "growth" as a means of generating new "tax dollars." Never mind that studies across the nation demonstrate that sprawl can bankrupt local governments.
Just once in my lifetime, I would like to see someone elected who understands the necessity of building a stable economic framework for our community that is not wholly dependent on sprawling growth.
Additionally, I can't help but wonder why local conservatives are so vehmently opposed to paying for water-related projects in Whatcom county?
It's commonly understood that sprawl increases the risk of flooding. Development pressures lead to building on floodplains (check out Sumas and Everson) and the destruction of wetlands and forests, that prevent flooding.
In the last eight years, floods in the United States killed more than 850 people and caused more than $89 billion in property damage. Much of this flooding occurred in places where weak zoning laws allowed developers to drain wetlands, deforest hillsides and build in floodplains.
Someone has to be responsible for the additional storm water runoff generated from all those new homes the county permitted. If not the county, then who?
It sure isn't going to be the developers!
Please click title of post or here to read the article written by Sam Taylor in Sunday's Herald. (I would have posted a response on the Herald, but the Herald's comment feature was down yesterday).
Source documents:
Sprawl Guide: Problems with Sprawl (Costs to Local Government) Sprawl Problems: Costs to Local Government. Urban sprawl is a burden on local government because it forces limited resources to be allocated to the creation of new infrastructure ...
www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/prob_tax.html
The Cost of Sprawl (1974 Executive Summary) http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/costs_of_sprawl.pdf
Paying for the cost of Sprawl - Using Fair-Share Costing to Control Sprawl http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/sprawl.shtml
By Ken Snyder and Lori Bird 1998
Residential sprawl development costs more to service with public
infrastructure than it pays in revenues. As municipalities raise taxes (or go into debt) to cover the costs ...
www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/Sprawl_brochure.pdf
See also a 2001 report by the USDA's Economic Research Service, Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land (then download Chapter IV of the report for information on the tax impacts of different land use policies).http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer803/
Apparently, the lack of a real political agenda for Whatcom county forces guys like Crawford to cling to worn out ideas until all the life has been squeezed out of them.
Earlier this year, former KGMI talk show host Brett Bonner introduced a mini-initiative requiring voter approval for any tax increase over 1 percent. (Never mind that the language is already codified in state law). Bonner claimed that his mini-initiative would also restrict the council's ability to use banked capacity. A county attorney disagreed and drafted a memo to Councilor Crawford and Councilor Fleetwood stating that the mini-initiative was illegal. But "illegal" doesn't matter when your passing "feel good" legislation. The only thing that is important is the perception created by the council adopting the ordinance.
Banked capacity allows local governments to levy less than the maxium increase in property taxes allowed under law without losing the ability to levy higher taxes later, if necessary. The legislature adopted banked capacity back in 1986 to encourage taxing districts to be more fiscally conservative without being penalized for not taking the maximum levy. (It allows taxpayers to pay less than they would if the taxing district takes the maximum levy each year).
In the past, other communities, like Port Townsend, have adopted ordinances establishing a requirement to obtain voter approval before it could use banked property tax capacity. But it was a "feel good" law. Six years later, the new council repealed the ordinance because the ordinance was only a local requirement and was not required by state law.
With local ordinances like the one proposed by Bonner and Crawford, voter approval is considered "advisory only," and final authority to set tax levies, including banked capacity, remains vested by the state legislature in local government. Ordinances adopted by one council are not binding on future councils, and an existing or future council is free to amend or appeal the ordinance at any time.
Hence, Mr. Crawford, and his newly elected conservative seat mates, Mrs. Kershner and Mr. Knutzen, appear to be quite anxious to waste local tax dollars on frivolous ordinances as soon as they are sworn in to office.
According to Sam Taylor at the Bellingham Herald, Mr. Crawford also wants to take a second look at allowing more self-inspections by homeowners with septic tanks. In fact, just this past year, the county began sponsoring classes to provide homeowners the skills they need to do self-inspections, that is, after the tank has been inspected at least one time by a professional inspector.
I don't have a problem with Crawford's (originally Brenner's) proposal, as long as the ordinance contains a hefty fine ($5,000 and up) to punish home owners that neglect to report malfunctioning septic tanks to the county. After all, $250 to $300 for a one time septic inspection is cheap in compared to what many home owners in urban areas pay for sewer service (and related fees) annually.
And, I'm confident that the new council members will do everything within their power to make sure urban water and sewer bills go through the roof as they adopt weak zoning laws that permit expensive sprawl.
Under our existing system, tax dollars subsidize new development, rather than improving our existing communities. Sprawl costs our cities and counties millions and millions of dollars for new water and sewer lines, new schools, and increased police and fire protection. Those costs are not fully offset by the taxes paid by the new users or impact fees. Instead, poorly planned development forces higher taxes on existing residents like you and me.
That is our reality - now that we have two new pro-developer officials about to join the council. So, forgive me if I cast a jaundiced eye at Crawford and Bonner when they complain about a $6 dollar tax increase for a homeowner with a house worth $300,000 for local water-related projects, like stormwater management.
A federally financed research project Cost of Sprawl concluded that we (taxpayers, not developers) can no longer afford sprawling development and that failure to force more dense development America in the next quarter-century would impose more than $225 billion in additional costs.
Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and consumers, have to pay for in public infrastructure and other services. One must admit that it is ironic that the tea party crowd is pie eyed over federal bail outs but doesn't blink when developers ask them to adopt liberal Growth Management plans that will cost us millions.
So much for fiscal conservatism and watching the taxpayer's backs!
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter who we elect, we can never seem to find or create a legislative body (city or county) that is not addicted to "growth" as a means of generating new "tax dollars." Never mind that studies across the nation demonstrate that sprawl can bankrupt local governments.
Just once in my lifetime, I would like to see someone elected who understands the necessity of building a stable economic framework for our community that is not wholly dependent on sprawling growth.
Additionally, I can't help but wonder why local conservatives are so vehmently opposed to paying for water-related projects in Whatcom county?
It's commonly understood that sprawl increases the risk of flooding. Development pressures lead to building on floodplains (check out Sumas and Everson) and the destruction of wetlands and forests, that prevent flooding.
In the last eight years, floods in the United States killed more than 850 people and caused more than $89 billion in property damage. Much of this flooding occurred in places where weak zoning laws allowed developers to drain wetlands, deforest hillsides and build in floodplains.
Someone has to be responsible for the additional storm water runoff generated from all those new homes the county permitted. If not the county, then who?
It sure isn't going to be the developers!
Please click title of post or here to read the article written by Sam Taylor in Sunday's Herald. (I would have posted a response on the Herald, but the Herald's comment feature was down yesterday).
Source documents:
Sprawl Guide: Problems with Sprawl (Costs to Local Government) Sprawl Problems: Costs to Local Government. Urban sprawl is a burden on local government because it forces limited resources to be allocated to the creation of new infrastructure ...
www.plannersweb.com/sprawl/prob_tax.html
The Cost of Sprawl (1974 Executive Summary) http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/costs_of_sprawl.pdf
Paying for the cost of Sprawl - Using Fair-Share Costing to Control Sprawl http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/sprawl.shtml
By Ken Snyder and Lori Bird 1998
Residential sprawl development costs more to service with public
infrastructure than it pays in revenues. As municipalities raise taxes (or go into debt) to cover the costs ...
www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/Sprawl_brochure.pdf
See also a 2001 report by the USDA's Economic Research Service, Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land (then download Chapter IV of the report for information on the tax impacts of different land use policies).http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer803/
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Apexnerd questions County legal recommendation that allowed Ward Nelson to vote on Council Applicants
Good legal advice is expensive, but not as expensive as bad legal advice.
On December 8, 2009, while County council was considering appointment of a new County Council member from among twenty four applicants, Ward Nelson was nominated by another Councilor as an additional applicant for consideration.
At this point, Council asked the County attorney if allowing Ward to vote on the applicants was a conflict of interest. The County attorney responded that it would not be appropriate for Ward to vote for himself. At no point did the Attorney address the obvious and related issue of whether it was appropriate for Ward to vote for the other applicants. The Council proceeded with the roll call vote. And as they proceeded, the Council unwittingly waltzed themselves into an ethical minefield.
If the County Attorney had told the Council about the part of the Whatcom County Code that reads:
No county official may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others. (WCC 2.104.043 A)
...then Council might have acted differently.
If the County Attorney had dug deeper and told the Council about the part of the Code that reads:
Any county elected official shall remove him or herself from hearing any quasi-judicial matter where, in the judgment of that official, his or her impartiality might be reasonably questioned... (WCC 2.104.060)
...then Council also might have acted differently.
Instead, the County Council took action with the legal advice it had, rather than the legal advice it needed.
The Council handed Ward Nelson the one thing that none of the other twenty four nominees had. A vote. Privileges don’t get much more special than that. Nelson exercised that special privilege twenty three times. Giving Ward Nelson and the rest of the County Council the benefit of the doubt that there was no abuse of the privilege, it is still a fact that he got very different consideration than the other twenty four nominees as a direct result of his position as a county official.
The bad legal advice given to County Council has taken an already divisive situation and rendered it so toxic that if it were a physical object, it would now be a bio-hazard and Mr. Kremen wouldn’t be allowed near it without wearing a haz-mat suit from the movie Outbreak.
The price of this bad legal advice may well be severe damage to public confidence in Whatcom County government, at a time when our community is already polarized over decisions looming in the future.
State law appears to offer some protection the County Council from its self-inflicted ethical wound:
In the event of a challenge to a member or members of a decision-making body which would cause a lack of a quorum or would result in a failure to obtain a majority vote as required by law, any such challenged member(s) shall be permitted to fully participate in the proceeding and vote as though the challenge had not occurred, if the member or members publicly disclose the basis for disqualification prior to rendering a decision. Such participation shall not subject the decision to a challenge by reason of violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine. (RCW 42.36.090)
So, the roll call vote itself could arguably withstand a serious legal challenge. This bad legal advice is unlikely to cost the County its ability to fill the vacant seat in a timely manner.
State law offers little more than cold comfort to the twenty four non-voting nominees.
Regardless of how the matter of the vacant seat is resolved, it is important to prevent a mistake from becoming a precedent. In the future, County Council must not allow a sitting Councilor to be nominated for a vacant seat and then vote on who is appointed to that seat.
It would help if the attorneys retained by the County would deliver advice that actually prevents the appearance of impropriety rather than contributes to it.
Even in the light of bad legal advice, let there be no crocodile tears for Ward Nelson. His decision to participate in this vote as a nominee was an aggressive, risky play. Of his own free will and at his own discretion, he confidently explored the ethical limits of the authority of his office. Then he tripped on bad legal advice and stumbled beyond those limits. He could have declined the nomination. He could have recused himself from voting on all of the other twenty four nominees, instead of just one. He didn’t. Like a hero in a Greek tragedy, he became a victim only to his own hubris.
And in the fashion of all tragic heroes of antiquity, Ward Nelson offered the following ironic final words at that meeting:
“I just want to remind everybody that still remains on the Council... it’s not your money... it’s not your land... and it’s not your government.”
To which the chorus offers a response:
“It’s not your special privilege, Lord Nelson ...and that’s not your vacant seat.”
Comments are welcome!
On December 8, 2009, while County council was considering appointment of a new County Council member from among twenty four applicants, Ward Nelson was nominated by another Councilor as an additional applicant for consideration.
At this point, Council asked the County attorney if allowing Ward to vote on the applicants was a conflict of interest. The County attorney responded that it would not be appropriate for Ward to vote for himself. At no point did the Attorney address the obvious and related issue of whether it was appropriate for Ward to vote for the other applicants. The Council proceeded with the roll call vote. And as they proceeded, the Council unwittingly waltzed themselves into an ethical minefield.
If the County Attorney had told the Council about the part of the Whatcom County Code that reads:
No county official may use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others. (WCC 2.104.043 A)
...then Council might have acted differently.
If the County Attorney had dug deeper and told the Council about the part of the Code that reads:
Any county elected official shall remove him or herself from hearing any quasi-judicial matter where, in the judgment of that official, his or her impartiality might be reasonably questioned... (WCC 2.104.060)
...then Council also might have acted differently.
Instead, the County Council took action with the legal advice it had, rather than the legal advice it needed.
The Council handed Ward Nelson the one thing that none of the other twenty four nominees had. A vote. Privileges don’t get much more special than that. Nelson exercised that special privilege twenty three times. Giving Ward Nelson and the rest of the County Council the benefit of the doubt that there was no abuse of the privilege, it is still a fact that he got very different consideration than the other twenty four nominees as a direct result of his position as a county official.
The bad legal advice given to County Council has taken an already divisive situation and rendered it so toxic that if it were a physical object, it would now be a bio-hazard and Mr. Kremen wouldn’t be allowed near it without wearing a haz-mat suit from the movie Outbreak.
The price of this bad legal advice may well be severe damage to public confidence in Whatcom County government, at a time when our community is already polarized over decisions looming in the future.
State law appears to offer some protection the County Council from its self-inflicted ethical wound:
In the event of a challenge to a member or members of a decision-making body which would cause a lack of a quorum or would result in a failure to obtain a majority vote as required by law, any such challenged member(s) shall be permitted to fully participate in the proceeding and vote as though the challenge had not occurred, if the member or members publicly disclose the basis for disqualification prior to rendering a decision. Such participation shall not subject the decision to a challenge by reason of violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine. (RCW 42.36.090)
So, the roll call vote itself could arguably withstand a serious legal challenge. This bad legal advice is unlikely to cost the County its ability to fill the vacant seat in a timely manner.
State law offers little more than cold comfort to the twenty four non-voting nominees.
Regardless of how the matter of the vacant seat is resolved, it is important to prevent a mistake from becoming a precedent. In the future, County Council must not allow a sitting Councilor to be nominated for a vacant seat and then vote on who is appointed to that seat.
It would help if the attorneys retained by the County would deliver advice that actually prevents the appearance of impropriety rather than contributes to it.
Even in the light of bad legal advice, let there be no crocodile tears for Ward Nelson. His decision to participate in this vote as a nominee was an aggressive, risky play. Of his own free will and at his own discretion, he confidently explored the ethical limits of the authority of his office. Then he tripped on bad legal advice and stumbled beyond those limits. He could have declined the nomination. He could have recused himself from voting on all of the other twenty four nominees, instead of just one. He didn’t. Like a hero in a Greek tragedy, he became a victim only to his own hubris.
And in the fashion of all tragic heroes of antiquity, Ward Nelson offered the following ironic final words at that meeting:
“I just want to remind everybody that still remains on the Council... it’s not your money... it’s not your land... and it’s not your government.”
To which the chorus offers a response:
“It’s not your special privilege, Lord Nelson ...and that’s not your vacant seat.”
Comments are welcome!
Senator Murray Urges Colleagues to Focus on Helping Families, Not on Number of Pages in Bill
Senator Patty Murray D-WA, tells story of WA woman's struggles under the current system, explains how reform plan will help her and those in similar situations .
Audio Details Watch
(Washington, D.C.) – On December 17, U.S. Senator Patty Murray made a speech on the floor of the Senate highlighting the benefits of the comprehensive Senate health insurance reform bill to Washington state families and small business owners. Murray recounted a story told to her by Doreen Kelsey from Spokane, to demonstrate to her colleagues the urgent need for health insurance reform that will bring families stable, affordable health insurance coverage.
Senator Muray discussed the problems that Doreen and her family have encountered with the current health care system, and then detailed the ways that the reform plan would help Doreen, her family, and the millions of Americans facing similar struggles.
During her speech, Senator Murray displayed a picture of Doreen standing behind a stack of appeals, letters, forms, and denials she received from her insurance company. Murray told her colleagues that these are the number of pages they should be concerned with, not how many are in the bill.
Key excerpts from Senator Murray’s speech:
“I come to the floor today on behalf of small business owners, parents, senior citizens, those with pre-existing conditions, those with insurance whose premiums are skyrocketing, and those without insurance who spend their nights praying they don’t get into an accident or fall ill.”
“I have watched day after day after day as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come down to this floor. They’ve made outrageous claims. They’ve hauled out reams of paper – and stacked copies of the Senate bill on top of copies of the House bill to try and turn a serious debate into a sideshow. But if my colleagues on the other side want to focus on pages? Fine, let’s focus on pages.”
“Behind me is a photo of Doreen Kelsey. And in front of Doreen is a stack of papers. Those are hundreds upon hundreds of pages of forms, rejection letters, appeals and denials from her insurance company”
“I ask you and our colleagues on the other side to take a look at this photo of Doreen sitting next to hundreds of pages of correspondence and appeals and fights with her insurance company. Those are the pages we should be talking about.”
“So whenever my colleagues come down and complain about the number of pages in a health reform bill that helps families and businesses lower costs, I want them to think about the number of pages right here – pages that have caused the Kelseys unimaginable heartache – and have come between them and the health care they have paid for.”
“Now is the time to end the politics, end the partisanship end the obstruction, and come together to focus on what is important and bring families and businesses the insurance reform they have been asking for.”
The full text of Senator Murray’s speech follows:
“Mr. President, I come to the floor today on behalf of over ten thousand constituents from my home state of Washington who have sent me letters and emails over the past six months to tell me their stories and struggles with our health care system. And I come to the floor today on behalf of the thousands more who don’t have the time or resources to write to me and ask for help – but who are struggling as well.
“Mr. President – I come to the floor today on behalf of small business owners, parents, senior citizens, those with pre-existing conditions, those with insurance whose premiums are skyrocketing, and those without insurance who spend their nights praying they don’t get into an accident or fall ill.
“Mr. President these are people who are worried about keeping their jobs or making a mortgage payment, and for whom the cost of getting sick, being dropped from their plan or opening their mail to see yet another premium increase is just too much to bear. And Mr. President, those are the people who deserve a real debate – and a real plan – not distortions or silly distractions like conversations about how many pages are in this health care bill. What’s more important than the number of pages is the help within those pages – for businesses and families across the country.
“Mr. President I have watched day after day after day as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come down to this floor. They’ve made outrageous claims. They’ve hauled out reams of paper – and stacked copies of the Senate bill on top of copies of the House bill to try and turn a serious debate into a sideshow.
“But if my colleagues on the other side want to focus on pages? Fine, let’s focus on pages.
“Mr. President, behind me is a photo of Doreen Kelsey. And in front of Doreen is a stack of papers. Those are hundreds upon hundreds of pages of forms, rejection letters, appeals and denials from her insurance company.
“Pages that have taken hours and hours to fill out and that have stood between Doreen’s husband, and the care he desperately needed.
“I met Doreen at a roundtable I hosted in August in Spokane, Washington. Doreen is self-employed and isn’t able to purchase her own health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Luckily, she and her family have health insurance coverage through her husband Tony’s employer.
“Doreen and Tony thought their family had good insurance coverage – but when he asked for a colonoscopy they soon discovered the lengths to which insurance companies will go to deny, delay, and dispute the care that families, like the Kelseys, assume are included in their coverage.
“Their insurance carrier told them that before they would pay for this preventative care it would have to be approved by a primary care physician.
“After being delayed for a month because of this requirement, the colonoscopy ultimately confirmed their fears – a diagnosis of stage four colon cancer.
“Diagnosis in hand, the Kelseys were determined to beat this terrible disease together, but rather than focusing on fighting cancer - they were forced to fight their insurance company.
“Doreen told me that although they had faithfully paid their premiums throughout their working lives, now that Tony desperately needed life-saving treatment, it was a constant struggle to get the company to pay for even routine care.
“They weren’t asking for anything new – or experimental – just the kind of care that a lifetime of paid premiums should entitle them to.
“The Kelseys assumed what most Americans with good health insurance coverage assume – that while their insurance may be expensive, it will be there for them when they need it.
“Mr. President, Doreen and her family – like many American families and businesses – have come to find out that in our current health insurance system, stability is sometimes nothing more than an illusion.
“With each procedure, the Kelseys faced a new fight. More paperwork, another appeal.
“At one point, Doreen told me that she had to appeal all the way to the State Insurance Regulator just to get a corrected ‘Explanation of Benefits’ form from her insurance company. And they had to borrow thousands of dollars to pay doctors while their claims were tied up in what seemed like an endless appeals process.
“The Kelsey’s insurance now costs more than their mortgage. And they constantly worry that Tony’s employer could drop the coverage.
“Thankfully, Tony has been successfully battling his cancer. And Doreen has been successfully battling the insurance company. But this isn’t how the system should work. And when we pass the bill we are debating today – it won’t be.
“So, let me tell you – and the Kelseys – how this bill will help them.
“First of all, our bill ends insurance company discrimination for pre-existing conditions – so Doreen would be able to purchase insurance on her own and wouldn’t have to depend on her husband’s employer.
“Doreen would also have access to a number of different plans through an Exchange where insurance companies would compete for her family’s business. Our plan would inject competition into the insurance market, lower costs, and give families like Doreen’s more choices.
“Our plan also makes it illegal for insurance companies to drop people when they get sick – so Doreen and Tony wouldn’t have to worry about losing their coverage at the moment they need it most. And since we know that preventive care is critical to saving lives – and saving money on health care costs long-term – our bill ensures free preventive services under all insurance plans.
“It also invests in prevention and public health to encourage innovations in health care that prevent illness and disease before they require more costly treatment. This would have allowed Tony to get a colonoscopy when he first needed it and allowed him to start treatment sooner.
“We also know that families deserve the security and stability of knowing that if they or a loved one gets sick, they won’t be forced into bankruptcy paying for the costs.
“Our bill restricts the arbitrary limits that insurance companies currently place on the amount of coverage that families receive.
“It caps the total amount that insurance companies can make people pay out-of-pocket on co-pays and deductibles. And it eliminates the lifetime limits insurance companies can impose on coverage.
“In addition to putting in place these consumer protections that will give families the stability and security they deserve – our bill also lowers the cost of care so that Americans like Tony and Doreen won’t have coverage that costs as much as their mortgage.
“We do this by putting place premium rate reviews to track increases and cracking down on excessive insurance company overhead costs.
“When our bill passes, insurance companies will no longer be able to hike up Doreen’s premiums to pay for a bureaucracy that they will then put to work battling her claims. And we provide sliding scale premium tax credits for families who still can’t afford coverage – which would help 450,000 Washington state residents purchase the coverage they need.
“Mr. President, the bill before us today – which my colleagues have sitting on their desks – will help families like the Kelseys.
“Rather than talking about the number of pages in the bill – I hope our colleagues on the other side actually read it and talk about what’s in it.
“Because right now – instead of debating the merits of bringing down costs, or protecting families from losing their coverage when they get sick, our colleagues are actually spending time complaining that this bill has too many pages.
“Mr. President, I ask you and our colleagues on the other side to take a look at this photo of Doreen sitting next to hundreds of pages of correspondence and appeals and fights with her insurance company.
“Those are the pages we should be talking about. And the Kelseys are the people we should be talking about.
“So whenever my colleagues come down and complain about the number of pages in a health reform bill that helps families and businesses lower costs, I want them to think about the number of pages right here – pages that have caused the Kelseys unimaginable heartache – and have come between them and the health care they have paid for. Those are the numbers we should be focusing on.
“The fourteen thousand who are losing coverage every day are the numbers we should be focusing on.
“The fifty-one million who have no insurance are the numbers we should be focusing on.
“Not the numbers of pages in this bill.
“Mr. President, now is the time to end the politics, end the partisanship end the obstruction, and come together to focus on what is important and bring families and businesses the insurance reform they have been asking for.
“Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor
E-mail Senator Murray
Audio Details Watch
(Washington, D.C.) – On December 17, U.S. Senator Patty Murray made a speech on the floor of the Senate highlighting the benefits of the comprehensive Senate health insurance reform bill to Washington state families and small business owners. Murray recounted a story told to her by Doreen Kelsey from Spokane, to demonstrate to her colleagues the urgent need for health insurance reform that will bring families stable, affordable health insurance coverage.
Senator Muray discussed the problems that Doreen and her family have encountered with the current health care system, and then detailed the ways that the reform plan would help Doreen, her family, and the millions of Americans facing similar struggles.
During her speech, Senator Murray displayed a picture of Doreen standing behind a stack of appeals, letters, forms, and denials she received from her insurance company. Murray told her colleagues that these are the number of pages they should be concerned with, not how many are in the bill.
Key excerpts from Senator Murray’s speech:
“I come to the floor today on behalf of small business owners, parents, senior citizens, those with pre-existing conditions, those with insurance whose premiums are skyrocketing, and those without insurance who spend their nights praying they don’t get into an accident or fall ill.”
“I have watched day after day after day as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come down to this floor. They’ve made outrageous claims. They’ve hauled out reams of paper – and stacked copies of the Senate bill on top of copies of the House bill to try and turn a serious debate into a sideshow. But if my colleagues on the other side want to focus on pages? Fine, let’s focus on pages.”
“Behind me is a photo of Doreen Kelsey. And in front of Doreen is a stack of papers. Those are hundreds upon hundreds of pages of forms, rejection letters, appeals and denials from her insurance company”
“I ask you and our colleagues on the other side to take a look at this photo of Doreen sitting next to hundreds of pages of correspondence and appeals and fights with her insurance company. Those are the pages we should be talking about.”
“So whenever my colleagues come down and complain about the number of pages in a health reform bill that helps families and businesses lower costs, I want them to think about the number of pages right here – pages that have caused the Kelseys unimaginable heartache – and have come between them and the health care they have paid for.”
“Now is the time to end the politics, end the partisanship end the obstruction, and come together to focus on what is important and bring families and businesses the insurance reform they have been asking for.”
The full text of Senator Murray’s speech follows:
“Mr. President, I come to the floor today on behalf of over ten thousand constituents from my home state of Washington who have sent me letters and emails over the past six months to tell me their stories and struggles with our health care system. And I come to the floor today on behalf of the thousands more who don’t have the time or resources to write to me and ask for help – but who are struggling as well.
“Mr. President – I come to the floor today on behalf of small business owners, parents, senior citizens, those with pre-existing conditions, those with insurance whose premiums are skyrocketing, and those without insurance who spend their nights praying they don’t get into an accident or fall ill.
“Mr. President these are people who are worried about keeping their jobs or making a mortgage payment, and for whom the cost of getting sick, being dropped from their plan or opening their mail to see yet another premium increase is just too much to bear. And Mr. President, those are the people who deserve a real debate – and a real plan – not distortions or silly distractions like conversations about how many pages are in this health care bill. What’s more important than the number of pages is the help within those pages – for businesses and families across the country.
“Mr. President I have watched day after day after day as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come down to this floor. They’ve made outrageous claims. They’ve hauled out reams of paper – and stacked copies of the Senate bill on top of copies of the House bill to try and turn a serious debate into a sideshow.
“But if my colleagues on the other side want to focus on pages? Fine, let’s focus on pages.
“Mr. President, behind me is a photo of Doreen Kelsey. And in front of Doreen is a stack of papers. Those are hundreds upon hundreds of pages of forms, rejection letters, appeals and denials from her insurance company.
“Pages that have taken hours and hours to fill out and that have stood between Doreen’s husband, and the care he desperately needed.
“I met Doreen at a roundtable I hosted in August in Spokane, Washington. Doreen is self-employed and isn’t able to purchase her own health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Luckily, she and her family have health insurance coverage through her husband Tony’s employer.
“Doreen and Tony thought their family had good insurance coverage – but when he asked for a colonoscopy they soon discovered the lengths to which insurance companies will go to deny, delay, and dispute the care that families, like the Kelseys, assume are included in their coverage.
“Their insurance carrier told them that before they would pay for this preventative care it would have to be approved by a primary care physician.
“After being delayed for a month because of this requirement, the colonoscopy ultimately confirmed their fears – a diagnosis of stage four colon cancer.
“Diagnosis in hand, the Kelseys were determined to beat this terrible disease together, but rather than focusing on fighting cancer - they were forced to fight their insurance company.
“Doreen told me that although they had faithfully paid their premiums throughout their working lives, now that Tony desperately needed life-saving treatment, it was a constant struggle to get the company to pay for even routine care.
“They weren’t asking for anything new – or experimental – just the kind of care that a lifetime of paid premiums should entitle them to.
“The Kelseys assumed what most Americans with good health insurance coverage assume – that while their insurance may be expensive, it will be there for them when they need it.
“Mr. President, Doreen and her family – like many American families and businesses – have come to find out that in our current health insurance system, stability is sometimes nothing more than an illusion.
“With each procedure, the Kelseys faced a new fight. More paperwork, another appeal.
“At one point, Doreen told me that she had to appeal all the way to the State Insurance Regulator just to get a corrected ‘Explanation of Benefits’ form from her insurance company. And they had to borrow thousands of dollars to pay doctors while their claims were tied up in what seemed like an endless appeals process.
“The Kelsey’s insurance now costs more than their mortgage. And they constantly worry that Tony’s employer could drop the coverage.
“Thankfully, Tony has been successfully battling his cancer. And Doreen has been successfully battling the insurance company. But this isn’t how the system should work. And when we pass the bill we are debating today – it won’t be.
“So, let me tell you – and the Kelseys – how this bill will help them.
“First of all, our bill ends insurance company discrimination for pre-existing conditions – so Doreen would be able to purchase insurance on her own and wouldn’t have to depend on her husband’s employer.
“Doreen would also have access to a number of different plans through an Exchange where insurance companies would compete for her family’s business. Our plan would inject competition into the insurance market, lower costs, and give families like Doreen’s more choices.
“Our plan also makes it illegal for insurance companies to drop people when they get sick – so Doreen and Tony wouldn’t have to worry about losing their coverage at the moment they need it most. And since we know that preventive care is critical to saving lives – and saving money on health care costs long-term – our bill ensures free preventive services under all insurance plans.
“It also invests in prevention and public health to encourage innovations in health care that prevent illness and disease before they require more costly treatment. This would have allowed Tony to get a colonoscopy when he first needed it and allowed him to start treatment sooner.
“We also know that families deserve the security and stability of knowing that if they or a loved one gets sick, they won’t be forced into bankruptcy paying for the costs.
“Our bill restricts the arbitrary limits that insurance companies currently place on the amount of coverage that families receive.
“It caps the total amount that insurance companies can make people pay out-of-pocket on co-pays and deductibles. And it eliminates the lifetime limits insurance companies can impose on coverage.
“In addition to putting in place these consumer protections that will give families the stability and security they deserve – our bill also lowers the cost of care so that Americans like Tony and Doreen won’t have coverage that costs as much as their mortgage.
“We do this by putting place premium rate reviews to track increases and cracking down on excessive insurance company overhead costs.
“When our bill passes, insurance companies will no longer be able to hike up Doreen’s premiums to pay for a bureaucracy that they will then put to work battling her claims. And we provide sliding scale premium tax credits for families who still can’t afford coverage – which would help 450,000 Washington state residents purchase the coverage they need.
“Mr. President, the bill before us today – which my colleagues have sitting on their desks – will help families like the Kelseys.
“Rather than talking about the number of pages in the bill – I hope our colleagues on the other side actually read it and talk about what’s in it.
“Because right now – instead of debating the merits of bringing down costs, or protecting families from losing their coverage when they get sick, our colleagues are actually spending time complaining that this bill has too many pages.
“Mr. President, I ask you and our colleagues on the other side to take a look at this photo of Doreen sitting next to hundreds of pages of correspondence and appeals and fights with her insurance company.
“Those are the pages we should be talking about. And the Kelseys are the people we should be talking about.
“So whenever my colleagues come down and complain about the number of pages in a health reform bill that helps families and businesses lower costs, I want them to think about the number of pages right here – pages that have caused the Kelseys unimaginable heartache – and have come between them and the health care they have paid for. Those are the numbers we should be focusing on.
“The fourteen thousand who are losing coverage every day are the numbers we should be focusing on.
“The fifty-one million who have no insurance are the numbers we should be focusing on.
“Not the numbers of pages in this bill.
“Mr. President, now is the time to end the politics, end the partisanship end the obstruction, and come together to focus on what is important and bring families and businesses the insurance reform they have been asking for.
“Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor
E-mail Senator Murray
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Shrimp on a Treadmill
Translate this page
html java script
counter
Latte's Favorite Quote
Civility in Public Discourse
Share
Blog Archive
Posts
