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.
So it has come to pass that Elizabeth Edwards has died.
Despite having more things thrown at her than anyone I've ever had the chance to support in my entire political life, she managed to represent, in her very presence, a sense of grace and kindness and concern for those who were looking to have a better life than the one they had now, and I don't know that I could ever live up to the quiet courage she showed as her life came to an end.
And, bless her heart, it appears that she took the time to make sure that her kids knew her, and that she helped them put away enough "past" to, hopefully, ease some of the pain of the future.
But now the time has come to look beyond death, and, John...that's why I want to talk to you today.
This is the fifth part of a series of posts giving recommendations on California's propositions. This post recommends a "yes" vote on Proposition 25, which requires a majority vote in the legislature to pass a budget.
Proposition 26 will be the subject of the next post in this series.
The Structural Problems in California's Budget Process...
Proposition 25 is the most important proposition being proposed this year. While Proposition 25 may not exactly ignite passion in the hearts of voters, it is far more important for California's future than the much-debated Propositions 19 and 23.
To understand why this is so, one needs to take a look at the structure of California's budget.
The fertile mind of Jeff Roby has lately come to openly ruminate about a DUMP OBAMA movement. This diary poses the open question as to what main points a DUMP OBAMA manifesto should make. What should a 5 minute elevator speech sound like? If you casually mentioned to a co-worker that you joined a DUMP OBAMA movement, and they asked you "Why?" or "What's that about?", what would you want to say?
While President Obama signed the final piece of the health care reform bill into law on Tuesday, opponents are not taking the defeat lying down. This week's prize for the most bizarre objection to health care reform goes to Glenn Beck's guest host Doc Thompson who alleged that a tax on tanning salons is racist. Andy Kroll of Mother Jonesexplains:
Filling in for Glenn Beck on his radio show, conservative radio host Doc Thompson recently made the stunningly outrageous claim that a tax on indoor tanning salons, as included in the health care reform bill, is racist. Such a tax, Thompson claimed, discriminates against "all light-skinned Americans" because only white-skinned Americans use tanning salons. Never mind the deadly effect tanning beds and the like have on your skin and health, nor the fact that the tax would generate $2.7 billion over ten years to help pay for health care. No, that couldn't have anything to do with why the tax was included in the health care bill.
Governors vs. AGs
Christina Bellantoni of TPM Election Central reports that various Republican state attorneys general are clashing with their Democratic governors over plans to challenge health care reform in court. When Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox (R) joined an anti-reform lawsuit, Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) reminded everyone that "no one in the executive branch has authorized [Cox] to take this position." The lawsuits are a good way to grab media attention, but Cox and his fellow AGs may end up with egg on their faces if these challenges actually go to court.
Reform and the Constitution
Some anti-reform activists allege that health care reform is unconstitutional because the government doesn't have the right to force people to carry health insurance (aka the "individual mandate"). On, The Breakdown podcast, Chris Hayes of the Nation interviews Gillian Metzger a professor of constitutional law at Columbia who explains why the constitutionality of health care reform is "pretty much a no-brainer." Another Nation contributor, Aziz Huq, puts it this way: "Among constitutional scholars, the puzzle is not how the federal government can defend the new law, but why anyone thinks a constitutional challenge is even worth making."
SEIU Sues Dissident Local
Speaking of lawsuits, Carl Finamore of Working In These Times is covering a major court battle in California between two large health care unions. The 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union is suing the former elected officers, staff and organizers of its third-largest national affiliate, United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW). The 26 defendants defected from SEIU to form a new union, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which is also being sued. The conflict started a few years ago when national SEIU decided to remove 65,000 health care workers from a UHW local without the local's consent. Finamore sees this lawsuit as a test of the principle of local self-governance: can SEIU sue a dissident local into submission?
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.
Unless you live under a rock or in Antarctica, you will by now know this week, President Obama signed the healthcare reform bill into law.
As a fellow liberal, I am very happy to hear this news. But, in the past week, the news has been jumping on every opportunity to downplay the accomplishment, or play up the Republican rhetoric that the majority of Americans don't agree with the bill.
A recent Washington Post article has the spread at 46 to 50, the majority opposing the bill. But upon further reading, you can see that the margin of error is at 3 points, meaning the poll isn't conclusive. (The percentage for people in support of the bill could be from 43-49%, and the percentage against is anywhere from 47-53. These numbers overlap.)
But beyond petty arguments of numbers, it is hard to deny that this is, in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, a big, fucking deal (see below video). This is the first real upheaval of the system... ever. It's the culmination of years of work spanning back to Hillary Clinton's crusade during her husband's presidency.
At the end of the day, 32 million more Americans will have health insurance, and the bill will reduce our national deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years.
What's not to love? Those facts are what is important.
Despite the possibility that a slim and debatable majority of Americans don't agree with the bill, this IS A GOOD THING.
A national health insurance reform bill is on the brink of passing and all is well on Capitol Hill.
But that doesn't mean too much for the rest of the country. Much of the country still wants more than a public-option-free, far-from-single-payer, band-aid-like bill to fix our broken health care system. One writer states, from the interesting vantage point of Australia, where they do have universal health care:
But Australia has something that America lacks: a universal public system that provides basic medical services for all.
Here, thanks to Medicare, you can be cared for in a public hospital without going broke regardless of your health insurance status...But the political compromise [Barack Obama's] been forced to adopt fails to address the morbidity at the heart of the system.
It's taking the disease and trying to turn it into the cure.
The solution, the real health care reform that we've been asking for since Teddy Roosevelt's time, lies with the state single payer movement. And, at least here in Pennsylvania, we're moving full speed ahead. All that this bill means for us is that we'd better move fast if we want real health care reform any time soon.
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
I was supposed to begin the long-delayed series of PTSD stories I've been planning, but before we begin, I need to tell y'all about something that just happened in my house.
For us it wasn't a matter of life or death, but it is the kind of story that explains, perfectly, why we need to reform the health care system we have today-and for that matter, it's also a great explanation of why a single-payer system would be a giant step forward for everyone in this country, whether you're insured today or not.
It's also hilarious and sad and frustrating, all at the same time-which makes today's story a pretty good allegory for the current American way of doing health care.
So follow along, have a good laugh...and at the same time, take a minute to consider what could be, and how much less irritating things should be.
In my mind, this bill constitutes one of the Obama administration's most important accomplishments.
To understand why, provided hereafter is an explanation of what the bill does. In recent years, the cost for college has increased tremendously, to the point where total expenses exceed per capita American income. Therefore the federal government encourages banks to loan money to students. These loans are guaranteed and subsidized by the government.
Earlier today Aetna announced that it would be laying off 650,000 of it's customers in 2010. Were these deadbeat customers who didn't pay their premiums? No. They simply used their medical plans. See, when you actually use your insurance, it costs your private insurance provider money and this gets in the way of revenue. Aetna chairman and CEO Ron Williams put it this way "We view 2010 as a repositioning year, a year that does not fully reflect the earnings potential of our business.". They key word in his sentence being business of course. I have no problem with any business in America making money. I just have a problem with the lives of Americans having dollar signs on them.
There are roughly 300 people living in the United State today.
There are roughly 45 million people on Medicare today.
There are roughly 200 million people with many types of other insurance today
There are roughly 45 million uninsured people.
I'd like to be clear from the very beginning that I believe that health care is a moral covenant and therefore should be a right not a privilege. It should not be something required by law but provided by law. There is only one way to ensure that all people in America have access to the care they need - a government system.
I know that there are many people who disagree with me for many reasons. But if government was truly incompetent as they suggest then all the services they depend on would have ceased to exist long ago. Last I checked my water still comes out of the tap, the trash gets picked up, the police keep pulling me over, and the military protect me pretty darn well!
So let's focus what government does well - Collect revenue, hire people, and deliver services. I'd simply like to expand single payer health care to forty million more people. Expand you say? Yes...Medicare is single payer and I'd like to open it up to some additional patients.
I recognize that it would be impossible for our toothless congresspersons to do what is easiest and simply take some whiteout and remove the "over 65" from the Medicare law. Then we'd all have healthcare in about five minutes. So I propose a compromise that provides coverage for all and pays off their sugar daddies at the same time!
Let's agree on some basic concepts: 1. Everyone has the right to see a doctor or get emergency medical care. 2. Everyone will need a specialists at some point. 3. Some will want elective procedures.
1: GP/ER
I'm guessing that they'd rather not be in the primary care business anyway since that is the front lines. They actually have to provide actual services and give them the opportunity to vie for your business!
Medicare should be opened up to all citizens for general medical visits, prescriptions and ER visits free of charge. This might seem like a costly change but preventative care is the silver bullet. The leading reason why most people wind up with delimitating sickness is because they avoid initial doctors visits in the first place. General Practitioner visits are low costs and are important to triage more severe illnesses. This would also help prevent the spread of disease as people who are more likely to see a Doctor are more likely to get shots and get treated when they are sick. Providing prescriptions and emergency room services will be a life line to millions. It will also cut the cycle of medical bankruptcy and the problems that hospitals are having making ends meet.
2: Specialists
Insurance coverage could be purchased from a Health Insurance Exchange choosing from an addition to Medicare benefits or any one of several private alternatives to add a "Specialists Benefit". This would be necessary to see any doctor who is not a primary care physician. It would be important to make sure that all doctors (at least in a geographic region) to accept all insurance carriers by law. Because this would be required, there would be sliding scale affordability credits issued for lower income levels. I'm willing to be that this would be a very popular service since it would include things like Chiropractors, Physical Therapists, Mental Health, and Alternative Medicine.
3: Elective
Nearly 9 million people in the US had cosmetic surgery in 2003. Private insurance companies should be able to provide additional coverage for elective procedures like liposuction or cosmetic surgery with a cap on spending and deductibles. Who amongst us hasn't dreamt of a little nip and tuck but it wasn't covered under your insurance plan? There could be different levels of coverage like there is in auto plans and a requirement that the patient be in the plan for a certain amount of time before using the benefit.
We have a moral crisis in this country. Millions of Americans, insured or not, need reform to guarantee that when they need access to the best medical care possible they not only receive it, they won't mortgage their families future to do so. We can no longer ask people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We can no longer expect for-profit private insurance companies to adequately cover all Americans. We also must acknowledge that our system of government is way too entrenched to allow either liberal or conservative solutions to win out. Therefore we must come together and take from both.
Aetna's actions today prove that there is no way to continue without reform. Healthcare should no longer be "for profit". I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Apparently not, in the latest concession to the insurance industry, Blue Dog Democrats and other conservative interests who seem to have long held the whip hand on healthcare reform.
In July, the House Labor and Education Committee approved an amendment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich that would exempt states that enact Medicare for all/single payer bills from the onerous limitations contained in the federal ERISA law governing employer sponsored health plans.
Since then a rogues gallery of Fortune 500 corporate interests and insurance lobbyists have put a lot of pressure on the House leadership to strip the Kucinich amendment from final bill going to the House floor.
In the middle of heated policy debates, projections of cost to industry and government fly thick and fast. If costs to citizens are mentioned, it's usually in their capacity as taxpayers, as though they weren't otherwise part of the economy. A couple examples from the global warming policy arena put this into sharp relief in a way that emphasizes the urgency of providing affordable health coverage to every American.
First, there's David Roberts' explanation (... with puppies!) of how the Congressional Budget Office undercounts the benefits of lower energy costs from efficiency. Their method counts the promotion of energy efficiency as a cost to the taxpayer, but not a savings to the ratepayer, as though you can make an absolute separation between people who pay taxes and people who pay utility bills.
That may make sense from the CBO's perspective, but not from the perspective of electricity-using members of the public trying to figure out whether new energy legislation benefits them.
Originally published at OurFuture.org, the blog for the Campaign for America's Future.
Several recent polls have focused on national support for a public option, usually showing that support to be at levels that would translate to hefty electoral margins even greater than those the Democrats secured in 2008. However, we don't have a direct, but a representative democracy.
While the House has passed multiple health reform bills supporting national health care sentiment, the Senate has been especially resistant to including a public opinion in the final bill. In large part, this is likely the result of low-cost media markets in small states allowing corporations to disproportionately effect the outcome of their elections and often countermand even the will of the state's voters, whose contributions and lobbying efforts can be more easily, and cheaply, overwhelmed.
But to the extent that public opinion matters, and I would hope it does, it's harder to argue with its measure as expressed by actual vote totals than it is to argue with polls.
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
STATE BLOGS
