mandate

Weekly Pulse: #DearJohn, Does Banning Abortion Trump Job Growth?

by: The Media Consortium

Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 17:30

by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger

With millions of Americans out of work, House Republicans are focusing in on real priorities: decimating private abortion coverage and crippling public funding for abortion, as Jessica Arons reports in RH Reality Check.

In AlterNet, Amanda Marcotte notes that the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,  or H.R. 3, also  redefines rape as "forcible rape" in order to determine whether a patient is eligible for a  Medicaid-funded abortion. Under the Hyde Amendment, government-funded  insurance programs can only cover abortions in cases of rape and incest,  or to save the life of the mother. Note that the term "forcible rape" is  legally meaningless. Supporters of the bill just want to go on the  record as saying that a poor 13-year-old girl pregnant by a 30-year-old  should be forced to give birth.

Feminist blogger Sady Doyle has launched a twitter campaign against the bill under the hashtag #dearjohn, a reference to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Tweet to let him know how you feel about a bill that discriminates against 70% of rape victims because their rapes weren't violent enough for @johnboehner, append the hashtag #dearjohn.

Everybody chill out

A federal judge in Florida ruled the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional on Monday. However, as political scientist and court watcher Scott Lemieux explains at TAPPED, the ruling is not necessarily a death blow to health care reform:

[T]his ruling is less important than the controversy it will generate might suggest.   Many cornerstone programs of  the New Deal were held unconstitutional by lower courts before being  upheld by the Supreme Court.        This ruling tells us nothing we didn't  already know: There is a faction of conservative judges who believe the  individual mandate is unconstitutional.        Unless this view has the  support of five members of the Supreme Court -- which I still consider  very unlikely -- it won't matter; Vinson's reasoning would have a much  greater impact if adopted by the Court, but for this reason it is even  less likely to be adopted by higher courts.

In a follow-up post, Lemieux explains the shaky legal reasoning behind Judge Robert Vinson's decision. The judge asserts bizarrely that being uninsured has no effect on interstate commerce. That premise is objectively false. Health insurers operate across state lines and the size and composition of their risk pools directly affects their business.

Given the glaring factual inaccuracies, Judge Vinson's decision may be overturned by a higher court before it gets to the Supreme Court.

Scamming Medicare

Terry J. Allen of In These Times win's the headline of the week award for an article entitled "Urology's Golden Revenue Stream."  She reports that increasing numbers of urologists are investing  millions on machines to irradiate prostate cancer in the office. The  doctors can bill Medicare up to $40,000 per treatment, but they have to  use the machines a lot to recoup the initial investment. So what does this mean for patients? Allen  explains:

Rather than accessing centralized equipment and  sharing costs,  physicians are concentrating their own profits by buying  expensive  in-practice technologies that pay off only if regularly  used. One result  is overtreatment, which is driving up health care  costs, exposing  patients to unnecessary radiation and surgeries, and is  frequently no  better than cheaper approaches.

One third of Medicare patients with prostate cancer undergo the expensive IMRT therapy, as the procedure is known. In 2008, Medicare shelled out over a billion dollars on a treatment that has not shown to be any better for patients than less expensive therapies.

Obstetric fistula in the developing world

Reproductive Health Reality Check is running a special series on the human rights implications of obstetric fistula. Fistula is a devastating complication of unrelieved obstructed labor in which the baby's head gets stuck in the birth canal and presses against the soft tissues of the pelvis. If labor goes on long enough, the pressure will starve the pelvic tissues of blood, and they will die, creating a hole between the vagina and the bladder, and/or between the vagina and the rectum. Fistula patients face lifelong incontinence, chronic pain, and social ostracism.

The condition is virtually unknown in the developed world, where women with obstructed labor have access to cesarean delivery. However, an estimated 2 million women, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa   and Asia, have untreated fistulas with an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 new cases occurring each year. Without reconstructive surgery, these women will be incontinent for life.

Sarah Omega, a fistula survivor from Kenya, tells her story. Omega sustained a fistula when she delivered her first child at the age of 19. She suffered for 12 years before she finally obtained the surgery she needed. As Agnes Odhiambo explains in another installment in the series, fistula is a symptom of a dysfunctional health care system. Women suffer needlessly because they can't get access to quality health care.

The most likely victims of fistula are the most vulnerable members of their respective communities. Early childbearing increases a woman's risk of fistula. Pregnant rape victims may face even greater barriers to a safe delivery, thanks to the social stigma that accrues to victims of sexual violence in many societies. (Not to mention any names, House Republicans...)

Preventing and repairing obstetric fistula is a major human rights issue. The U.S. should make this effort a high priority for foreign aid.

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)

Health Insurance Mandate vs the Constitution

by: davidswanson

Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 16:36

Does the United States Constitution allow Congress to force people to purchase a product (health insurance) from a private corporation, and fine them or tax them if they refuse?  The answer is a matter of debate, but there is little dispute that such an act of Congress would be unprecedented.

Sheldon Laskin, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Baltimore Law School who has argued that the Constitution forbids such a move, describes the new and dangerous can of worms it would open up:

There's More... :: (1 Comments, 760 words in story)

Recipe For a Mandate

by: Daniel De Groot

Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 18:00

It is fair to say that 2008 is shaping up to have the necessary ingredients for a Democratic mandate, but such things are never certain so it would be good to put some thought into what needs to happen for a broad mandate for progressive change.

The first thing to understand is that a mandate is a phenomenon of mass psychology and not any kind of empirical or solidly quantifiable event.  It is the result of the individual beliefs of some critical mass of voters believing there is a mandate which will then move the whole zeitgeist in the media, and then in congress too.  The exact size and nature of that threshold is difficult to guess, but the key ingredient is that there has to be a widespread belief in a mandate, in addition to the requisite levels of support and enthusiasm for the agenda.  

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 1669 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox