Sarah Kliff points to this article from the New England Journal of Medicine which argues that the health care sector is growing faster than any other because health care workers are less productive than laborers in most parts of the economy:

Part of the problem is the outdated health care administrative system, its scant use of information technology and fee-for-service reimbursement structure that encourages unnecessary care. As the article notes, if the health care sector is to improve its labor productivity, “we will need to redesign the care delivery model much more fundamentally to use a different quantity and mix of workers engaging in a much higher value set of activities.” The health system will have to limit “time-wasting, low-value activities; increasing our use of technology, data, evidence, and teams; increasing standardization to avoid rework; and relying on evidence-based personalized care to avert complications.”

The Affordable Care Act invests in all of these areas through payment innovations, comparative effectiveness research, and health information technologies. In fact, economists estimate that health care system modernization could help lower administrative costs and consequently reduce the annual growth in health care spending. It’s still unclear if these efficiencies will work in a sector that’s as labor-intensive as health care or if policy makers and providers will adopt the changes to ensure that we create the right kind of jobs to help improve inefficiency and reduce the nation’s health care costs.

Earlier this month, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) introduced The Heartbeat Informed Consent Act which would require all abortion providers to “make the heartbeat of the unborn child visible and audible to its mother as part of her informed consent.” Bachmann’s bill may be a shameless pander to evangelical voters, but abortion foes are already planning a much more ambitious campaign to propose Bachmann-style “heartbeat” bills in all 50 states:

A nationwide coalition of anti-abortion groups said Wednesday it is preparing to push legislation in all 50 states requiring that pregnant women see and hear the fetal heartbeat before having an abortion.

The effort follows the introduction of similar legislation at the federal level by Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. [...]

The informed-consent bill that’s being pushed in the 50 states would require abortion practitioners to make the fetal heartbeat audible and visible to pregnant women before an abortion. It’s being backed by the National Right to Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List and Family Research Council Action.

This year, Ohio considered the most radical “heartbeat bill” in the country. The bill outlaws abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — before many women even know they’re pregnant. There is no exception in the bill for rape, incest, or mental health of the woman. The Ohio bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate and is expected to be taken up again this fall.

Ohio’s heartbeat bill is unlikely to survive a legal challenge and is so extreme that it has actually divided the anti-abortion community in Ohio, the home state of International Right to Life founder Jack Willke. Ohio Right to Life has withheld its support for the legislation, arguing that it could not withstand judicial scrutiny.

But while some of the anti-abortion groups may be divided over how radical they want their heartbeat bills to be, their ultimate mission is the same, said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. “Let’s be clear, they all want to take away a woman’s ability to make personal, private decisions by outlawing abortion.”

Today’s news that HHS will not administer CLASS — the Affordable Care Act’s long term care program — is already being touted by conservatives as emblematic of the law’s failure. The first “gimmick” in a long line of “budgetary tricks” that will ultimately sink reform. But it is nothing of the sort.

Kathleen Sebelius’ decision to end the program is yet another example of the success of one of the law’s safety clutches (this one was actually introduced by former Republican Sen. Judd Gregg). The ACA prohibits the Secretary from instituting CLASS unless the program can sustain itself without tax payer funding for 75 years. Sebelius and her team concluded that it the program wouldn’t attract healthier applicants and as a result pay out more than it would take in. That it was suspended at this point is a better example of the administration’s fiscal restrain and economic stewardship than its failure.

And by the way, critics are misunderstanding what this announcement really means. The administration’s conclusion that a voluntary program results in an unsustainable death spiral is actually and indictment of those who want to repeal the individual mandate and a point of vindication for advocates who argue that the mandate is necessary to maintain the ACA’s coverage expansions and affordability.

Kaiser Family Foundation’s Drew Altman points to polling data which finds that employers don’t believe that they have the tools necessary to effectively control health care spending. “Not more than about a quarter of employers felt any one strategy was ‘very effective,’ and they were divided on virtually every cost-containment strategy they were asked about”:

For example, 22% said consumer-driven health plans were “very effective,” and 19% said they were “not at all effective.” Similarly, 18% said tighter managed care restrictions were “very effective,” while 26% said they were “not at all effective.” The “winner” this year seems to be disease management, garnering the most employer confidence, with 26% calling it “very effective” and 19% calling it “not at all effective.” [...] Many firms also offer wellness programs, and in an answer to a different question, slightly more than half think those programs help to lower costs to some degree.

Look:

Well, there goes the theory that the private market has all the answer for controlling health care spending and the belief that there is any one silver bullet (sorry GOP, tort reform alone won’t do it) for bringing down costs. The fact of the matter is, we still don’t know which strategies will stop health care from eating up a greater portion of our GDP or how best to implement them. So, moving forward, it would behoove everyone to keep all cost control options on the table and work within the existing law to experiment with ways to slow the annual growth of health care. The nation’s future depends on it.

Foregoing any interest in getting America back to work, House Republicans continued their campaign against women’s health yesterday by passing the “Protect Life Act.” Known as the “Let Woman Die” act to women’s health advocates, the radical measure would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to reject any pregnant woman seeking an abortion in any circumstance, even if it is necessary to save her life.

On the House floor before the vote, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) — who revealed earlier this year that she had to have an abortion for medical reasons — rebuked Republicans for a bill that “goes to the farthest extreme in trying to take women down, not just a peg, but take them in shackles to some cave somewhere.” Republicans are basically saying, “‘‘Oh, except for a woman who is in need of an abortion, or except for a woman who is bleeding to death who happens to be pregnant. Or except for a woman who is miscarrying,’” she declared. “It’s absolutely misogynist.”

But North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx (R) was having none of it. This bill “takes away no protections from women in this country,” she insisted. “It takes away no rights. It is not extreme.” Declaring herself to be foremost defender of women’s rights, Foxx countered that pro-choice advocates are actually misogynists because “fifty percent of the unborn babies being aborted are females”:

FOXX: For my colleagues across the aisle who say this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have. But fifty percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those that promote the killing of unborn babies. That’s where the misogyny comes in.

Watch it:

The bizarre logic of Foxx’s misogyny argument is not even in the vicinity of fact. The majority of abortions in the U.S. occur around the 10th week, well before gender is definitively known. There is no data — let alone evidence — to back up her claim.

But her claim that “nobody has ever fought more for the rights than I have” throws facts straight out the window. As Raw Story notes, Foxx voted against women’s health bills at least nine times in her congressional career, including a vote against funding for Planned Parenthood — an organization with the chief purpose of providing cancer screenings and sexually transmitted disease tests and treatment to low-income women. Along with lowering costs and free preventive care, the health care law also prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage women “due to pre-existing conditions, such as cancer and having been pregnant.” Foxx, however, believes such health reforms pose a greater danger than “any terrorist.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told Republicans that a vote for this bill is a vote “to say that women can die on the floor of health care providers.” And Foxx is fighting for women to have that chance.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber claimed former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is being “dishonest” when he says he didn’t have to raise taxes in order to pay for Massachusetts’ 2006 health care reform law. During an interview with MSNBC’s Al Sharpton Thursday night Gruber — who advised both Romney and President Obama on health reform — explained that Romney “didn’t have to raise taxes because the federal government picked up half the cost and because there was already a tax sitting around that Gov. Dukakis had put in that Romney just grabbed and rededicated for his purposes.” Watch it:

Indeed, the Massachusetts law is financed with federal funding and higher taxes on individuals who fail to purchase coverage and large businesses that didn’t offer insurance. The state also increased its cigarette tax and continued to rely on a safety net surcharge on insurers and hospitals.