Think Progress

GOP Lawmakers Complain About Revised Mammogram Guidelines While Opposing Requirements For More Tests

On Wednesday, a group of women GOP lawmakers held a press conference to denounce a new recommendation by the federal Preventive Services Task Force that women receive mammograms less frequently. “This is how rationing begins,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “This is the little toe in the edge of the water.”

“Women in particular may lose a great deal of clout in decision making,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). “We don’t know how far government will go in this bureaucracy,” she added, noting that they “want to empower women” and “want to have all the data on the table so individuals can make the best decision they can.”

On MSNBC this afternoon, Dr. Nancy Snyderman took Blackburn to task for getting the “public health message lost in the politics.” “Now, there’s nothing that came out of this panel recommending rationing,” said Snyderman. “Just a prudent use of screening tests.” When Blackburn tried to claim that the guidelines meant “bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow,” Snyderman pointed out that Blackburn was acting as a “bureaucrat” standing between patients and “the best possible evidence”:

BLACKBURN: It is troubling also that another of our colleagues has said many times, we. And that we means bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow.

SNYDERMAN: But you’re one of those bureaucrats. You’re my bureaucrat!

BLACKBURN: But I’m not, no. And you see, I don’t think a bureaucrat should be between a patient and a doctor. See, I don’t want to be that bureaucrat.

SNYDERMAN: Excuse me, I think that’s exactly where you are right now.

Watch it:

As the Washington Independent’s Mike Lillis notes, the concern of the congresswomen about rationed mammograms is especially ironic considering that they oppose legislation that “would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.”

Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance Company Denial

One of the worst abuses of the private health insurance industry is its practice of denying claims to pay for necessary care for patients. This practice has become so rampant in the industry that a recent study by the California Nurses Association found that a whopping 21 percent of all insurance claims filed in the first half of 2009 in the state of California were denied by insurers.

As the story of six-year-old Madison Leuchtmann of Franklin County, MO, demonstrates, even children are victims of this insurance company abuse. Madison was born with bilateral atresia, which means she lacks ear canals in both ears. In order to hear, she wears a special device on a headband that allows her to make out sounds. Despite her disability, Madison is at the top of her kindergarten class and is slowly learning to read.

Yet Madison, due to her growth, will soon require a new hearing implant to be able to recognize sounds. Her hearing and speech therapist warns that “if she doesn’t get her implants by age seven, she’s not going to be able to blend her words. … She won’t be able to hear herself [talk].” Madison’s pediatrician, Dr. Randall Clary, also insists that without the implant, the girl may never be able to hear again.

Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued “one denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!” Dr. Clary also told Fox 2 that he sees these sort of denials “on a weekly basis.” Watch Fox 2’s report:

The United States is the only developed country without a universal, cradle-to-the-grave health care system. In no other developed country would a girl be on “the verge of never hearing again” because a for-profit insurance company decided that its bottom line was more important than keeping a child from going deaf.

Ollie North Launches New War Against ‘Cap And Tax,’ ‘Bird Eating Machines,’ And The ‘Myth Of Global Warming’

Lt. Col. Oliver North (Ret.) has launched a new war against the “cap and tax” plans of President Barack Obama and the “socialists in Congress.” North — when not serving as a Fox News correspondent — runs the Freedom Alliance, an organization supposedly dedicated to “defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense.” In a mailing acquired by ThinkProgress, North pleads for “your most-special and generous donation” to fight the “‘cap and tax’ scheme and the myth of global warming.” North warns that if “Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress” establish a system to limit global warming pollution, it will be “at our nation’s peril!”

Never mind the fact that there is no proof of man-made global warming.

Never mind the fact that Europe's "Cap and Tax" policies have failed to lower greenhouse gases.

Never mind the fact that the world has actually been cooling for the last ten years.

And never mind that there is no evidence that greenhouse gases have anything to do with global warming in the first place.

No sir! None of this matters to Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress.

Because what they really want is to control your life and mine . . .

. . . and we allow them to succeed at our nation's peril!

North goes on to attack windmill farms as “virtual bird eating machines.” The attached “petition to President Barack Obama” claims that the “dirty little secret” of global warming “is that it is a scam designed at increasing the wealth of frauds like Al Gore and nations like Red China at America’s expense.”

In reality, the “scientific evidence is clear,” as the American Association for the Advancement of Science said in 2006, that “global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” In reality, the European Trading System has worked, and Europe is on track to easily beat its 2012 Kyoto Protocol commitments. In reality, the last ten years are the hottest decade in history. In reality, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said, climate legislation will allow us to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.”

But none of this matters to Ollie North and his conservative compatriots.

In the mailing, North notes that he “served in the United States Marine Corps for 22 years.” He does not, however, mention that he was convicted by a jury for illegally selling weapons to Iran during the Reagan administration.

Download the Freedom Alliance mailing and petition.

‘Death Panels’ Hypocrisy: RNC Health Insurance Provider Promotes End-Of-Life Counseling

Over the summer, one of the GOP’s loudest complaints against health care legislation was a provision offering senior citizens Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life counseling. Republicans claimed it would create so-called “death panels” or urge seniors citizens to die. RNC Chairman Michael Steele “endorsed this type of rhetoric, and on July 28, the RNC put out research document claiming that the government would “dictate” Americans’ “end-of-life care.”

But ThinkProgress has noticed that Cigna, the RNC’s health insurance provider, also urges beneficiaries to think about end-of-life services. Cigna’s website has a page called “Care at the End of Life,” which covers topics such as how to talk with “loved ones” about “end-of-life choices” and whether to stop life-prolonging treatment:

It’s unclear whether the RNC’s insurance plan covers these end-of-life consultations, and neither Cigna nor the RNC replied to inquiries from ThinkProgress. But nevertheless, the RNC’s insurance provider has posted information on its website advising beneficiaries about the complicated questions that accompany decisions at the end of someone’s life.

There is nothing objectionable about this planning, which has been endorsed by Democrats, Republicans like Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and the AARP. But this type of advice is exactly what the GOP fear-mongered about this summer. As FactCheck.org explained:

What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia.

Recently, the RNC has been urging lawmakers to support the anti-choice Stupak amendment, which would not only ban women on the federal exchange from using federal funds for abortion, but could bar employer-sponsored plans from offering the coverage. However, Politico reported this week that the RNC health care plan under Cigna has coverage for elective abortion services. Upon hearing the news, the RNC quickly opted-out of the abortion coverage, although its money is still indirectly subsidizing other women’s abortions.

If end-of-life counseling is so scary, will the RNC also call up Cigna and object? Or will it admit that there’s nothing wrong with these services and all the protests this summer were nothing more than political posturing?

(HT: TP reader Jason S.)

Casey Hints He Will Oppose The Stupak Amendment

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette is reporting that Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), a pro-life leader in the Senate, will likely oppose the Stupak abortion amendment. Casey’s office issued a press statement clarifying that the Senator supports preserving the status quo on abortion coverage:

Senator Casey has been a vocal supporter of health care reform and voted for the HELP Committee bill in July. He supports the public option to increase competition and reduce costs. And he is offering amendments to improve health care for children. Senator Casey thinks that health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976.

He continues to work with his colleagues in the Senate and with the White House to ensure that the Senate health care reform bill protects existing federal and state conscience protections, existing state abortion laws and contains strong language to prohibit federal funds from being used to fund abortions. He voted for amendments in the HELP Committee that would maintain neutrality on abortion. Until Senate bill language is released it is premature to discuss next steps.

The existing abortion language in the Senate bill maintains the status quo by ensuring that federal dollars can only be used to pay for abortions when the pregnancy threatens life of mother or results from rape or incest. Only private premiums could be used to pay for so-called ‘elective’ abortions.

Democrats believe that pro-life advocates would not be able to muster the requisite 60 votes to pass a more restrictive amendment that would make it difficult for many private plans to provide abortion coverage. “If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said during a recent interview with the Huffington Post. “And I believe in our Senate we can hold it.” On Monday, President Obama also indicated that he wanted to preserve the status quo on abortion coverage.

Casey’s statement, while promising, does not guarantee that the Senator won’t vote for a bill that includes stricter abortion restrictions. During the Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee’s (HELP)’s mark-up, Casey provided the only Democratic vote to at least four anti-choice amendments, all of which ultimately failed. One such amendment — offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — closely resembled the Stupak provision.

If the Senate bill retains its current abortion compromise, it’s likely that the conference report will include similar language. Already, 41 House Democrats have sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), vowing to vote against the final conference report if it contains the Stupak amendment.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Hume Corrects O’Reilly’s False Claim That ‘Folks Don’t Want’ The Public Option: It’s Actually ‘Kind Of Popular’

Last night on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly and analyst Brit Hume discussed the prospects for the Senate passing a health care reform bill. After struggling with the terminology for the “public option,” O’Reilly ultimately concluded that “all the polls say” that “the folks don’t want it.”

Hume, a regular Fox News misinformer, surprisingly corrected O’Reilly, noting that Americans actually support the public option:

O’REILLY: They call it, you know, the public sector. What is the –

HUME: Public option, you mean?

O’REILLY: Public option, whatever. The folks don’t want it. … But it looks to me like they have maybe 55 votes to pass it. And that means they could be filibustered and never come up for a vote.

HUME: That’s what it looks like right now. The public option, actually some polls show that the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but it is kind of popular. But that depends on how the poll question is raised. … We don’t need to go into all that right now.

Watch it:

Those trying to derail reform with a public option try to claim that Americans don’t support it. “All the polls now indicate substantial opposition to this particular type of health care reform,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said last night on Fox. But Hume is right. Americans do support the public option, as recent polling shows:

– CNN/Opinion Research, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 55 percent support “creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies.”

– Ipsos/McClatchy, Oct. 30 – Nov. 1: 51 percent support the “creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies.”

Other recent polls, such as USA Today/Gallup and Washington Post/ABC News, have found majority support for the public option — results that are consistent with other polling on this question throughout the health care debate this year.

Indeed, large majorities in Connecticut support the public option but Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the state’s junior independent senator, has repeatedly said he will filibuster any bill that contains a public option. Like Hume, Lieberman doesn’t want to talk about polling support for the public option either, reportedly saying that poll respondents are simply “confused.”

Armey’s View Of Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions: Someone Who ‘Eats Like A Pig’ And Has Diabetes »

Ensuring that insurers don’t reject any American for health coverage because of a pre-existing condition is a top priority of the public. Republicans have repeatedly said that they also want to make this change, but in the alternative legislation they released, Americans with pre-existing conditions would still be left out to dry.

Today on CNN, FreedomWorks head Dick Armey defended the industry’s discriminatory practices by saying that if you have diabetes because you “eat like a pig,” you don’t deserve coverage:

ARMEY: But now, they [government officials] come along and they say, irrespective of the fact they’ve gone 20, 30, 40 years of their adult life without ever having bought insurance prior to getting a liver inflammation due to their excessive drinking habits or diabetes because they eat like a pig, you must now insure them.

But at what point do we allow the government to order people that you must sell your product to this person or that person, irrespective of any good judgment? We saw what happened in housing when they ordered banks to make loans to people who weren’t qualified. Are we now going to have the same destructive influences in health care because we’re going to order doctors to provide services and so forth?

Watch it:

In reality, these pre-existing conditions that can disqualify people from receiving health insurance often have nothing to do with unhealthy lifestyle choices — and they disproportionately target women. Some pre-existing conditions are having a Caesarean-section pregnancy, being a victim of domestic violence, or being a victim of rape. Most individual health insurance markets don’t even cover maternity care. Other pre-existing conditions that insurers have used to either deny people outright or charge exorbitant fees for coverage include being an expectant father, having acne, or being a police officer.

Many Republicans, like Armey, seem unable to grasp that denial based on pre-existing conditions is discriminatory. Last week, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said that insurers are justified in charging women more than men because we’re “all different.” He then compared a woman to a “smoker” and a man to a “non-smoker” to argue that insurers should be allowed to discriminate.

Armey also recently told the New York Times that the “largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured.” (He’s wrong.)

Transcript: More »« Less

House Passes Historic, Bipartisan Health Reform Legislation

Moments ago, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act by a vote of 220-215, with one Republican — Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) — voting for the measure. Once the bill reached the needed threshold of 218 votes, the chamber erupted in applause. Members excitedly counted down the last few seconds of the vote. Watch it:

At the “House Call” tea party protest on Capitol Hill this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) pledged to the right-wing activists: “Be assured not one Republican will vote for this bill.” Cao’s vote must have surprised Cantor.

Cao has previously been touted by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) once as “the future” of the GOP. The White House had reportedly “been in constant contact” with him prior to the vote. “Rahm is going all in to get him,” one aide told Roll Call, referring to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The House also approved, by a vote of 240-194, an amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), which imposed tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. A GOP substitute failed in a vote of 178-258, with a single Republican, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) voting against the legislation.

Former Blue Cross Blue Shield ‘Spokesjerk’ Cuts Ad In Favor Of Health Reform

The House is nearing a vote on health care legislation that is expected to be very close. At this critical juncture, a former Blue Cross Blue Shield spokesperson is doing what he can to help pass reform.

Actor and comedian Andy Cobb, who used to be the spokesman for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, has teamed up with Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films project “Sick for Profit” to produce a new ad in favor of health care reform. In the ad, Cobb calls himself a former “spokesjerk” for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and says that his job was to “sell you the worst product in American history: private health insurance.” Cobb calls attention to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) for his significant contributions from the health care industry, and asks him to vote in favor of health care legislation with a public option. Watch it:

This morning, Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviewed Cobb. He told her, echoing remarks from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), “This is the time when we have to say, ‘Which side are you on? The insurance companies or the American people?’ And for too long I’ve been on the wrong side of that.”

GOP Health Plan Would Allow For ‘Sweatshop Insurance’

Under the Republican health care alternative filed in the House, young and healthy individuals can purchase policies from insurers that don’t abide by local benefit or rate standards. The Republican bill allows the health insurer to choose a “primary state” “whose covered laws shall govern the health insurance issuer” and sell policies to people in other states without adhering “to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of the state.”

Over at MYDD, Bruce Webb calls the provision, “Sweatshop Insurance.” This bill goes far beyond merely “stripping states of power over insurance rates and conditions,” he notes. It “explicitly expands the definition of ‘State’ to include not just D.C. and Puerto Rico, which makes some sense in context, but adds BY NAME the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Jack Abramoff’s favorite client-the Northern Marianas home of the ‘Made in the USA’ Chinese-owned close to slave labor sweatshops.” From pages 121-122 of the bill:

In 2001, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands famously hired corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff to enlist his support in stopping “legislation aimed at cracking down on sweatshops and sex shops in the American territory.”

“Given the record of corruption in the N. Marianas,” Webb writes, “and the willingness of various Caribbean and Atlantic Island nations to let themselves be used as off-shore banking and tax shelter entities, you can bet Aetna and WellPoint are slavering at the prospect of ‘basing’ their plans out of a PO Box on some tropical nation.”

Despite Rhetoric About Preexisting Conditions, Boehner’s Health Care Plan Doesn’t Bar Denials

While leading GOP opposition to health care reform over the past few months, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has simultaneously insisted that Republicans believe in helping Americans with preexisting conditions get health care. Currently, “in 44 states, it’s legal for health insurers to deny coverage to people who have previously been sick, or charge them more for treatment.”

“And so there are a number of things that Republicans believe are essential,” Boehner told NPR in September. “We believe that making sure that people who have preexisting conditions have access to affordable health insurance.” On Fox News last week, Boehner said that Republicans wanted to focus on helping “those with preexisting conditions“:

BOEHNER: Most of the 36 million that they say they’re going to cover already have access to some type of government program, or even their employer program, or have chosen just not to have health insurance. When you really boil this down, there are about seven or eight million people in America, those with preexisting conditions, those who are what I would describe as the working poor, and some early retirees who have a difficult time getting health insurance. We can help those people get health insurance and still bring down the cost of health insurance for the 85 percent of Americans who have it and think they pay too much for it.

Watch it:

But when Boehner previewed the House Republicans’ alternative health care plan for reporters yesterday, he admitted that the GOP’s proposal “will not prevent insurance providers from barring clients based on preexisting conditions.” “We do encourage more states to have high-risk pools,” said Boehner, which he called “a place where people with preexisting conditions will have an opportunity to get affordable health insurance.”

Roll Call points out, however, that “most states have such pools, but they often are much more expensive than regular insurance and have had only limited success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured.” President Obama and the Senate Finance Committee have also embraced increased funding for high risk pools, but only as a stop gap until 2013, when insurers would be prohibited from denying people coverage based on preexisting conditions under their legislation.

Sebelius: Public Should Ignore Beck On H1N1 Vaccine And ‘Talk To Somebody With A Little Scientific Background’

In recent weeks, pundits with little knowledge of public health have been warning the public to stay away from the H1N1 flu vaccine. Fox News host Glenn Beck recently said that the vaccine may be “deadly,” adding, “You don’t know if this is gonna cause neurological damage like it did in the 1970s.” Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed that H1N1 warnings are “a bunch of typical government panic and hype” and even HBO’s Bill Maher stated that you’d be an “idiot” to get the vaccine.

Last night in an interview that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responded to these skeptics, saying the public should listen to “doctors and scientists,” not pundits:

SEBELIUS: Well, I tend to like to get my health advice from doctors and scientists. And that’s what we would urge people to do. I think it’s advisable to ask questions, to figure out — as a parent or a pregnant woman, or somebody with an underlying health condition, what the facts are, but probably not get your facts from — with all due deference — TV commentators. Maybe talk to somebody with a little scientific background and a medical degree about what actually is your risk and your opportunity to be safe and secure.

Watch it:

In fact, 60 Minutes spoke to the deans of the top 10 U.S. schools of public health, and found that “[a]ll of them endorsed the vaccine.” Bruce Gellin, director of the national vaccine program, said that after three weeks, “he has received fewer than 200 reports, mostly about muscle aches, stomach aches and sore arms.” Out of 10 million doses, he hasn’t yet found “any serious side effects related to the vaccine.” While, as Sebelius pointed out, it’s important to ask questions and raise concerns about vaccines, the World Health Organization has said that flu vaccines are “among the safest” that exist, and it hopes that “everyone who has a chance to get vaccinated does get vaccinated.”

Specter Would Support Using Reconciliation To Pass Health Care As A ‘Last, Last, Last Resort’

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that he would consider joining a GOP filibuster of the Senate’s health care reform bill if it contains a public option. “If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage,” Lieberman said.

Later, during a conference call with progressive bloggers, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) was asked if, given Lieberman’s position, he would support using the reconciliation process to pass health care reform with a public option, which would require a mere simple majority for passage. Specter said that he might eventually but added that he thinks the Democratic caucus will get 60 votes:

SPECTER: Well as I have said I would consider that as a last, last, last, resort. I think that the institutional safeguard of 60 votes is a very important one. … [M]oving away from that institutional 60 votes is something I think would be a last, last, last resort. You might have to fight fire with fire when there are so many filibusters. The number is now 81. And a lot of nominations are being blocked and action is being blocked. …

On the issue of fighting fire with fire, maybe so, but I think that we are not going to come to this. I think we can muster the 60 votes and not have to face the reconciliation.

Q: Senator if I have this correctly, as a last resort, you would not oppose using reconciliation…

SPECTER: As a last, last, last, resort I would consider it, yeah.

Specter later said that Lieberman is “not going to want to see reconciliation used,” adding, “I think it’s gonna work out.” Listen here:

In fact, the top two Democrats in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), have not taken reconciliation off the table in order to pass health care reform. “Sure, it’s always an option,” Reid said on Monday. “The failsafe on this is reconciliation,” Durbin said, but added, “I hope we don’t reach it because you can only do a limited amount of things on reconciliation.”

Lieberman Says He’ll Filibuster Health Care Reform If Public Option Remains

Earlier this month, when blogger-activist Mike Stark asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if his opposition to the public option meant that he would filibuster a health care reform bill that included one, Lieberman was non-committal, saying “we’ll see” while also warning that there’s a “danger in doing too much.”

In remarks to reporters today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) moved closer to siding with Republicans and actively blocking reform. Lieberman gave a wishy-washy response, stating that while he was “inclined” to vote to allow health care reform legislation to be debated on the Senate floor, he would “vote against cloture” if “the bill stays as it is now.” TPMDC has Lieberman’s comments:

“I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined — I haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined — to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.”

Lieberman claims that he wants to “vote for health care reform this year” and that the public option is a sticking point for him. But he also opposed the Baucus bill, which did not contain a public option. Last week, he told NPR, “If I decide in the end the bill that is about to leave the Senate is gonna do more harm than good, then I won’t vote for cloture at that point.”

ThinkProgress previously produced a report titled “Joe Lieberman: The Progressive Who Lost His Way.” View it here.

Webb Says He’ll Vote For Cloture On Health Care Reform Bill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will announce this afternoon that he plans to include a public option in the Senate health care reform bill and that it will allow states to opt out, “even though he’s currently short several votes” of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

Yesterday on CNN, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the public option with an opt out provision “an interesting concept” but pointedly refused to endorse it. He said the “best approach” would be “to have not-for-profit insurance companies.” However, Webb also said that he will not let his personal views get in the way of the Senate having an up or down vote on the public option:

WEBB: One thing that I did say to the leader is that I will vote to proceed forward to debate. That doesn’t mean that I will necessarily at this time commit myself to voting for the result of that debate.

HOST JOHN KING: If [Reid] needs 60, he has your vote?

WEBB: We need to have the debate.

Watch it:

Last week, an aide to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that Lieberman — who opposes a public option — is also “inclined” to vote for a motion to proceed. Similarly, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) recently said, “I’m not right now inclined to support any filibuster.”

But other Democratic Senators are on the fence. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) — who has gone back and forth on hints of support for the opt out provision — said on CNN yesterday, “I can’t decide about the procedural vote until I see the underlying bill.” A spokesperson for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) said “she will have to see the legislative language and cost first” before voting for cloture. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) has not indicated what his intentions are.

But when asked recently if he would support a GOP filibuster of health care reform, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) replied, “I don’t think you’ll see me or any other Democrats do that.”

Rep. Paul Broun Proposes Bill That Would Privatize Medicare

One of the great success stories of the modern American welfare state has been the Medicare system, which — since 1966 — has provided health insurance for all Americans age 65 and done so much more efficiently than private insurance. While Medicare may be a very popular program today, it was bitterly fought by the right when it was proposed. (Ronald Reagan even produced commercials claiming that the single-payer health care system for the elderly would lead to a dictatorship.)

In an attempt to reclaim the right’s rich tradition of opposing Medicare, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has proposed legislation that would roll back the Medicare system and replace it with a system of vouchers that seniors could use to purchase private insurance:

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun introduced his own health care reform bill last week that would, among other things, privatize the Medicare insurance program for seniors.

Broun’s bill would replace government benefits with vouchers that could be spent on private insurance or put in tax-free medical savings accounts.

“We’ve got to fix Medicare,” he said. “It’s headed in a direction that’s unsustainable.”

While Medicare is facing future budgetary problems, privatization isn’t the solution. Medicare Advantage, the Medicare plan under which the administration of the program is farmed out to private insurance companies, has more than five times the administrative costs of the traditional public Medicare plan.

Earlier this year, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) — who is a strong supporter of extending a program like Medicare to all Americans — introduced an amendment that would eliminate Medicare. Not a single member of Congress voted for Weiner’s amendment, including Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), despite his long-held belief that the program is unconstitutional.

Pawlenty Says He Would Lead A Campaign To Opt Out Of The Public Option In Minnesota

Reports surfaced today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is considering a proposal to include the public option that would allow states to “opt-out” of the program.

Today on ABC’s Top Line, co-host David Chalian asked Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) if he would “opt-out” of the public option for his state if the measure passed. Pawlenty dodged: “Well, I don’t know if we would opt out but I personally would like to opt out because I don’t like government run health care.” But Chalian persisted, and ultimately, Pawlenty said that he would oppose the public option for Minnesota:

CHALIAN: But you would lead a charge in your state to opt out if that was an option available?

PAWLENTY: I think so because I don’t like government run health care.

Watch it:

However, Pawlenty has said that he supports “government run health care” in the past — in fact, just as recently as last September. “I support Medicare and Medicaid,” Pawlenty declared.

Regardless, the Wonk Room’s Igor Voskly notes that the opt out provision won’t lower costs like a stong public option will:

But a state-based approach won’t have the ability to significantly lower health care costs or change delivery patterns. Progressives point to existing state-based employee public options or Medicaid programs that contract out to private insurers and thus don’t provide a meaningful alternative or competition. A state triggered public option, would lead to the same outcome, they argue.

To avoid this scenario, the White House needs to stop sending clarification statements to Sargent and stake out a firm position — they will never find the votes if they don’t whip them. Why not start on higher negotiating ground and embrace the HELP bill’s (relativley) strong public plan.

Pawlenty’s not alone. Unfortunately, Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia, Creigh Deeds, said this week that that as governor, he would “certainly consider opting out” of the public option “if that were available to Virginia.”

Franken Schools Right-Wing Analyst On Medical Bankruptcies In Countries With Universal Care: ‘It’s Zero’

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled “Medical Debt: Can Bankruptcy Reform Facilitate a Fresh Start.” The hearing examined medical bankruptcies in America, and witnesses included CAP fellow Elizabeth Edwards and Kerry Burns, a Rhode Island mother who was forced into “financial ruin” by her late son’s medical bills.

One of the highlights of the hearing was when Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) questioned Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth about medical bankruptcies. Franken asked Furchtgott-Roth — who claimed that moving towards a European-style system of universal health care would increase bankruptcies — about how many medical bankruptcies there were in countries that have universal health care, like Switzerland and France. Furchtgott-Rott repeatedly told Franken that she didn’t “have that number,” and Franken informed her that the number was actually zero:

FRANKEN: I think we disagree on whether health care reform, the health care reform that we’re talking about in Congress now should pass. You said that the way we’re going will increase bankruptcies. I want to ask you, how many medical bankruptcies because of medical crises were there last year in Switzerland?

FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: I don’t have that number in front of me, but I can find out and get back to you.

FRANKEN: I can tell you how many it was. It’s zero. Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were last year in France?

FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: I don’t have that number, but I can get back to you if I like.

FRANKEN: Yeah, the number is zero. Do you know how many were in Germany?

FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: From the trend of your questions, I’m assuming the number is zero. But I don’t know the precise number and would have to get back to you.

FRANKEN: Well, you’re very good. Very fast. The point is, I think we need to go in that direction, not the opposite direction. Thank you.

Watch it:

Medical bankruptcies are an epidemic in the United States. According to a peer-reviewed study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Medicine, nearly 62 percent of all U.S. bankruptcies in 2007 were due to health care costs — and 78 percent of people who were driven into bankruptcy by their medical bills had insurance.

Patient Denied Care For Her Brain Tumor Says Insurers Want You To ‘Die Now, So We Can Save Money Later’

Yesterday, Dawn Smith — who has a brain tumor her insurer has refused to help treat — traveled from her home in Atlanta, Georgia to request a meeting with H. Edward Hanway, CEO of the health insurance giant CIGNA. She has been a victim of a series of insurance company abuses, and she wanted to give both Hanway and leaders in Congress a message. Hanway refused to meet with Smith, and instead dispatched his Cheif Medical Officer Jeff Kang to listen to her. Kang admitted that CIGNA’s complex claims unit requires serious changes but said his company would not even review the possibility of paying for her care until November.

Smith, a premiums-paying customer of CIGNA, was diagnosed with a type of brain tumor in 2005, then another one in 2007. Although CIGNA covered her brain biospy and some medication payments, she has battled with the insurer for years because of multiple denials of payment for the specialized care she needs to cure the tumors. After paying out-of-pocket for care in one instance, CIGNA nearly doubled her premiums anyway. In early October, a CIGNA representative told her that the co-pay on her anti-epileptic medicine was being hiked by more than $3,000 a year.

With the assistance of MoveOn.org, Smith has launched a nationwide campaign to not only receive the treatments she deserves from her insurance company, but to help reform the entire system and help all Americans gain quality, affordable healthcare. ThinkProgress asked Smith what message she has for Congress:

DAWN SMITH: I would encourage them to hear the stories from their citizens because, you know, a lot of people talk about the cost [to] children of our future, our grandchildren. But, there are grandchildren dying now. There are children dying now. […] I don’t understand how you can justify ‘die now, so we can save money later.’ Because that’s what it is; that’s what it boils down to.

Watch it:

CIGNA has a long history of denying care for its own policyholders. One of the most infamous cases involves Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old who died after CIGNA refused to cover her liver transplant. When Nataline’s mother requested a meeting with CIGNA officials, employees of CIGNA reportedly started heckling her from a balcony above the building’s lobby, with one giving her “the finger.”

Rather than use Smith’s or Sarkisyan’s premium dollars to pay for life-saving medical treatments, CIGNA has poured its cash into lobbying against health reform. Those premium dollars are also spent on two private luxory jets, sky-high CEO compensation (Hanway was paid $25.8 million in 2007 alone), and profits.

Boehner Admits That He’s Now Heard From Supporters Of The Public Option

Earlier this month, House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) explained his strident opposition to a public health insurance option by claiming he had never met an American in support of it. “I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who is in favor of the public option,” Boehner said. “This is about as unpopular as a garlic milkshake.”

Of course, the public option is supported by a majority of the nation, but also by a majority of people in Boehner’s home state of Ohio. Boehner’s comments elicited ridicule, as well as visits to his office by many supporters of the public option. The SEIU has a video of one such visit:

Q: So then now he can’t go on TV and say he’s never heard from real Americans about the public option or healthcare –

BOEHNER STAFFER: I think that if he could go back, he might restate that.

Watch it:

Yesterday at a press conference, Boehner conceded that “we have had several phone calls in favor” of the public option. Listen here: