health care reform bill

Weekly Pulse: Uncovered Abortions, Toxic Mani-Pedis, and Kagan's a Go

by: The Media Consortium

Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 17:30

Weekly Pulse: Uncovered Abortions, Toxic Mani-Pedis, and Kagan's a Go

by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger

Last week, the Obama administration preemptively caved to the anti-choice lobby by declaring that new high-risk insurance pools, a byproduct of recent health care legislation, will not cover abortions, even if states or patients pay for that coverage with their own money. Under health care reform, states must create high-risk insurance pools for people with preexisting conditions. These pools will be phased out in 2014 when the new insurance exchange comes online.

 
There's More... :: (0 Comments, 559 words in story)

Weekly Pulse: Uncovered Abortions, Toxic Mani-Pedis, and Kagan's a Go

by: The Media Consortium

Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 15:32

by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger

Last week, the Obama administration preemptively caved to the anti-choice lobby by declaring that new high-risk insurance pools, a byproduct of recent health care legislation, will not cover abortions, even if states or patients pay for that coverage with their own money. Under health care reform, states must create high-risk insurance pools for people with preexisting conditions. These pools will be phased out in 2014 when the new insurance exchange comes online.

As you may recall, the Nelson amendment to the health care reform bill says that the federal government can't pay for abortion coverage in the exchanges, but it doesn't mention the high-risk pools. There is no overarching ban that would preclude federal funds for abortion coverage in the high-risk pools. The Obama administration's ruling is purely a lack of political courage. In fact, as Jessica Arons explains at RH Reality Check, the pool rules are even stricter than Nelson's rules for the exchange.

Hey, you! Outta the high-risk pool!

The Nelson amendment was hailed as a compromise because it gave women the option of buying their own abortion coverage. Now, the Obama administration has taken that option away from women in high-risk pools. This is especially troubling because high-risk pools are supposed to help people with chronic medical conditions-who might be more likely to need an abortion. That means that more women with diabetes and cancer will have to pay out of pocket for abortions to preserve their health.

Michelle Chen of ColorLines accuses the Obama administration of selling out women of color to avoid the wrath of the anti-choice lobby. She predicts that women of color will be disproportionately affected by these restrictions because they are more likely to end up in the high-risk pools in the first place.

Nail in the Coffin

In the latest of a series of videos on occupational health and safety, Brave New Films shines a spotlight on toxic chemicals in the nail salon industry. Currently, there are almost no federal regulations on what manufacturers can put in professional beauty products. The nail care industry is booming. There over a hundred thousand manicurists in California alone, most are female, and a large percentage are Vietnamese immigrants. Salon workers breathe a toxic soup of chemicals, many of which have never been tested on humans. Brave New Films is circulating a petition calling on Congress to protect workers by supporting safe cosmetics legislation.
youtube]

 

Kagan gets the nod

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court by a vote of 13-6. The outcome of Tuesday's vote was never in doubt. Many were mildly surprised to see that Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) voted in Kagan's favor. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly predicts that the vote will ensure that Graham will get a conservative primary challenger. But Benen also doesn't see what all the fuss is about.

[...] I still find the right's outrage over Graham to be pretty silly. He's voting for a qualified Supreme Court nominee? The horror! Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed on a 96 to 3 vote when her nomination was sent to the floor. How many of those Republicans were threatened with primary challenges because of it?

This post features links to the best independent, progressive   reporting about health care by members  of The Media Consortium.  It  is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse  for  a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on  Twitter. And for the best   progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care  and  immigration issues, check out The Audit,  The Mulch,   and The   Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of  leading independent media outlets.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Weekly Pulse: What Would Jesus Insure?

by: The Media Consortium

Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:43

By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger

Christian groups are trying to create a run around health care reform by setting up alternative, unregulated religious health care bill collectives-and movement conservatives are cheering them on.

Religious right-watcher Sarah Posner reports on so-called Christian health care-sharing ministries in the American Prospect. Health-sharing ministries (HCSM) bill themselves as godly alternatives to health insurance. HCSM are groups of Christians who promise to cover each other's heath care costs. About a hundred thousand people nationwide belong to these collectives. The Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries and its army of lobbyists convinced Senate lawmakers to exempt HCSMs from health care reform's individual mandate.

Obliterating patient privacy

According to Posner, anti-reform conservatives are talking up these groups because they see them as a way to undermine the individual mandate. But if you think HCSM are a convenient loophole to avoid paying for insurance, think again. Posner describes the criteria for joining Samaritan Ministries International (SMI), one of the largest HCSM:

"To join the HCSM, applicants must agree to a statement of faith that they are a 'professing Christian, according to biblical principles' set out in Romans 10:9-10 and John 3:3. They must agree to adhere to guidelines that include no sex outside of "traditional Biblical marriage," no smoking or drugs, and mandatory church attendance.

SMI members pay their own health care costs out of pocket and seek reimbursement from the group. What about privacy? In order to get reimbursed, they have to publish their health care "needs" in a monthly newsletter and hope someone sends cash. Lifetime benefits are capped at $100,000. Members waive their right to sue for any reason. SMI won't cover treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, addictions, or the pregnancies of single mothers.

It doesn't take a genius to see that this free-for-all won't end well. You can't just start a quasi-health insurance scheme in your garden shed and expect it to work out. Real insurance companies are subject to oversight to make sure that they have enough money on hand to cover their claims. Who knows what HSCM are doing with people's money? These outfits have all the disadvantages of private insurers and none of the benefits. Members are a single major illness away from bankruptcy.

Bartering for health care?

Speaking of wacky alternatives to health insurance, Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) main Republican challenger, Sue Lowden, insists that patients can pay for their health care via a barter system, as Rachel Slajda reports for TPMDC. Great! How many chickens for an appendectomy?

Medicare expansion doesn't equal bankruptcy

At Mother Jones, Kevin Drum debunks the latest right-wing myth about health care reform, that Medicare expansion will bankrupt the states. States pay part of the cost of Medicare, so it's true that any expansion of the program will cost the states some money. However, the talking point is that the expansion will push state budgets to the breaking point. That's false.

Drum explains that the health care reform bill exempts states from the extra cost until 2016. Even after that, the costs to the states will be minimal:

"[Health care reform] won't cost states an extra dime through 2016, by which time our recession will presumably be over, and even after that states will only pay for a tiny fraction of the increased costs. As CBPP points out, states will pay about 4% of the total costs of Medicaid expansion over the next ten years. This represents an increase in overall state Medicaid spending of slightly over 1%."

Abortion and 'convenience'

Jessica Valenti of Feministing has been taking on manipulative, anti-choice ads in the New York City subway. These ads are sponsored by an anti-abortion group. They feature various distraught-looking models staring wistfully into space. The tagline is "Abortion Changes You." The message is that if you have an abortion, you will be a guilt-racked wreck for the rest of your life. Some feminist with a wry sense of humor and a little glue pasted in another sentence on the ad (pictured above): "Now I can go to college and fulfill my dreams."

Anti-choice blogger Lori Ziganto was scandalized by the anonymous culture jammer's message. She sneered at the idea that women's lives and hopes actually matter: "Want to go to college, but there is a pesky baby growing inside of you? Abort! A life is far less important than your co-ed fun and career plans, right?"

Valenti's response: "It isn't that anti-choicers don't understand why women get abortions - it's that they care so little about women's lives that any reason given to obtain an abortion is seen as "convenient." Some things that are convenient: Providing for your existing children. Going to college. Having enough money to eat, pay rent, keep the electricity on. Not dying."

HSCMs and the subway ads are part of an enormous rift in contemporary politics: Opponents of health care reform say that they're defending freedom, but in reality, they're advocating control.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive  reporting about health care by members  of The Media Consortium. It  is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse  for  a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best  progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and  immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch,  and The  Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of  leading independent media outlets.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Sen. McCaskill: the Abortion Prohibition is on the Insurance Plans not on Individuals

by: debcoop

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 15:38

Senator McCaskill is sadly wrong on what the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibits.  Even if she were right, it would still be a wound to the rights of women in this country. Even if the original Stupak amendment passed which only included the public option,  not the entire exchanges,  that would still have been the biggest blow for women since the original Hyde amendment.  Which has always been a vindictive piece of legislation aimed at the most vulnerable among us.  

The Hyde amendment is now a festering sore that has suppurated which will deprive American women of all kinds from the poor to middle and even upper class womwn, access to an essential reproductive rights.  

But the Senator's understanding is a misunderstanding of great proportions.  She is wrong.  The prohibition is not on individuals in the exchanges who buy plans but on the plans which GET subsidies.

Senator McCaskill said via the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."

The majority of America now gets coverage from their employers who will be allowed to purchase on the exchanges.  

But she is very, very wrong on the mechanism for prohibiting abortion coverage.. She has it backwards.  Her misunderstanding is convenient perhaps because it allows her to proceed under the assumption that few people will be affected. Maybe that makes it better in her mind.

She is wrong.  Millions of women --now without insurance and even those now with it in the private market will be affected.  In a few years all women will be affected as employers are allowed to enter the exchanges.  No abortion coverage for anyone at all.

See David Dayen at Firedoglake

http://news.firedoglake.com/20...

The federal subsidies affect the plan, not just the individuals in the plan.  It is not just the individual who has subsides that can't get abortion coverage.  It is that any subsidy from anyone taints the entire plan. So any plan that gets subsidies from anyone at all can not offer abortion coverage.

There's More... :: (10 Comments, 656 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox