GOP Lawmakers Complain About Revised Mammogram Guidelines While Opposing Requirements For More Tests
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.”
- Comments
- 41
Senate health bill restores abstinence-only education funding.
Senate health bill restores abstinence-only education funding.
President Obama’s FY2010 budget eliminated funding for abstinence-only education and school districts are increasingly moving away from such programs because they have proven to be ineffective at reducing teen pregnancy. However, Newsweek reports that the recently released Senate health care bill restores some funding for abstinence-only programs, inserted by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which seems to be “a slight concession to the Senate’s social conservatives”:
Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.
If the Senate language survives reconciliation, the Title V program will be extended through 2014. This will not, however, bring abstinence funding back to the levels of the past decade. In 2008, Title V grants accounted for just under 25 percent of the federal abstinence budget (the rest of the budget came from other abstinence-only funding sources not restored in the Senate bill, including Community Based Abstinence Education Grants and the Adolescent Family Life Act).
Funding for comprehensive sex education is also in the bill. Sec. 2953 also provides “$75 million per year through FY2014 for Personal Responsibility Education grants to States for programs to educate adolescents on both abstinence and contraception for prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.”
Six-Year-Old Girl ‘On Verge Of Never Hearing Again’ Due To Insurance Company Denial
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.
Doocy’s fuzzy math: Senate health bill costs ‘close to a trillion dollars.’
Doocy’s fuzzy math: Senate health bill costs ‘close to a trillion dollars.’
Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation which merged the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s bill with the Finance Committee’s bill. According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the joint legislation will cost $848 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. This morning on Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy added the gross total cost of the coverage provisions to the amount by which the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit ($130 billion, but Doocy used an earlier estimate of $127 billion) to argue that the bill would cost taxpayers “close to a trillion dollars.” Watch it:
While expanding coverage to 31 million Americans would cost $848 billion over 10 years, the cost of these coverage expansions would be more than offset by a combination of new revenue and spending changes. After the $848 billion is paid off, the bill invests the remainder — $130 billion — into deficit reduction. Doocy is double-counting the cost of the bill to taxpayers. Imagine the following scenario: you drive to the supermarket and purchase a gallon of $10 laundry detergent with a $20 bill. According to Doocy’s logic, the cost of your detergent is not $10, but rather $30!
Analysis: How the Senate health care bill stacks up with the House health care bill.
Analysis: How the Senate health care bill stacks up with the House health care bill.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) unveiled his comprehensive health reform legislation, which the CBO projects would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured people while reducing the federal deficit by nearly $130 billion over 10 years. The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has produced this helpful chart explaining how the details of the Senate bill compare with the legislation that the House passed earlier this month:
| Senate Bill | House Bill | |
| Costs | Reduce deficits: $130B/10yrs Cost: $848B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: $447B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: $374B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: $27B/10yrs |
Reduce deficits: $139B/10yrs Cost: $894B/10yrs Spends on subsidies: $605B/10yrs On Medicaid/CHIP: $425B/10yrs On Small Employer Credit: $25B/10yrs |
| Insured | Uninsured reduced by: 31M Uninsured in 2019: 24M In Exchanges: 25M | Public Plan: 3-4M In Medicaid: 15M |
Uninsured reduced by: 36M Uninsured in 2019: 18M In Exchanges: 30M | Public Plan: 6M In Medicaid: 15M |
| Revenue | Mandate penalty: $8B/10yrs Free rider penalty: $28B/10yrs New taxes: $238B/10yrs Excise tax: $149B/10yrs Payroll tax: $54B/10yrs |
Mandate penalty: $33B/10yrs Pay-Play penalty: $135B/10yrs New taxes: $572B/10yrs |
| Medicare and Medicaid |
Total savings: $491B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: $118B/10yrs |
Total savings: $426B/10yrs Medicare Advantage: $170B/10yrs |
Reid is expected to call for a “motion to proceed” vote this Saturday, which needs 60 votes. While Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) indicated that he would support Reid’s effort to proceed to the health care debate, a couple of Democrats are still withholding support. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has “remained noncommittal,” while Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said she would announce her intentions today.
Exclusive: Attacks On Health Reform Orchestrated By Yet Another Shadowy Corporate Front Group — ‘CMPI’
Exclusive: Attacks On Health Reform Orchestrated By Yet Another Shadowy Corporate Front Group — ‘CMPI’
The resistance to reforming our nation’s healthcare system has been fueled by entrenched corporate interests. Their deep pockets are funneling money into generating attack ads, funding lawmakers’ campaigns, and hiring lobbyists. These corporate interests are also funding various front groups to make up their own facts and scare the public.
Among the latest corporate front groups orchestrating a campaign of misinformation against health reform, ThinkProgress has learned, is an outfit called the “Center for Medicine in the Public Interest” (CMPI). CMPI was originally a project of the Pacific Research Institute, an older corporate front established in conjunction with Philip Morris to fabricate academic support for the tobacco industry. Some of CMPI’s recent attacks on health reform have included:
– CMPI produced a series of “US Policymaker” interviews about health reform featuring exclusively Republican lawmakers — such as Reps. Louie Gohmert (TX), Bob Inglis (SC), Jack Kingston (SC), Tom Price (GA), Joe Wilson (SC), Michele Bachmann (MN), Paul Ryan (WI); Sens. Jim DeMint (SC), Jim Bunning (KY), David Vitter (LA) — attacking health reform. CMPI also produced a series of videos mocking health reform and the public option.
– CMPI created various video games distorting health reform. They serve as gimmicks to recruit users to sign up for CMPI’s daily anti-reform talking points.
– CMPI launched a website called “Hands off my Health” showcasing the supposed horrors of universal healthcare programs in Canada and the UK. CMPI officials centered a media campaign around Shona Robertson-Holmes, claiming she had a brain tumor the Canadian system refused to treat. However, the Ottawa Citizen reported that CMPI has been exaggerating Holmes’ case, and that she in fact had a benign cyst.
– CMPI helped sponsor anti-Obama tea party protests.
– CMPI has subcontracted GOP consulting firm Political Media to develop a blizzard of online ads attacking health reform. In the weeks preceding the House vote on reform legislation, CMPI ran ads on sites like the Politico, DrudgeReport, WashingtonPost.com, WashingtonTimes.com with an animated sheep stating that the public option is a “baaaaaad idea.” CMPI plans to run many more ads as the Senate begins debate.
The head of CMPI, Peter Pitts — a former Bush administration FDA communications official and director of marketing at the Washington Times — has a long history of using his CMPI title to hawk the interests of corporate clients. The Bioethics Forum has noted that CMPI, which receives drug company money, aggressively defends almost any practice of the pharmaceutical industry. For instance, as Slate reported, Pitts appeared on an NPR special to downplay fears about the side effects of antidepressants like Prozac, but failed to disclose his position as a VP of the PR firm Manning Selvage & Lee, which at the time represented Eli Lilly Inc. (the maker of Prozac), GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer.
In March of this year, Pitts became the head of international corporate PR firm Porter Novelli’s healthcare division. Despite the fact that CMPI’s latest 990 tax form states that Pitts spends 40 hours a week at CMPI, a representative from Porter Novelli told ThinkProgress that Pitts actually works on a day to day basis in his office at Porter Novelli. Asked about how the firm engages in the health reform debate, ThinkProgress was told by Porter Novelli that Pitts is “pretty much our voice.” Porter Novelli specializes in using social networking and other stealth marketing techniques to help drug companies avoid FDA regulations on marketing pharmaceutical products. Since Pitts joined Porter Novelli, CMPI has continued to shill for drug companies.
Although CMPI refused to tell ThinkProgress about its funders, Pitt’s firm Porter Novelli has a financial stake in blocking reform. Porter Novelli is a subsidiary of the global lobbying and communications giant Omnicom Group. Other Omnicom Group subsidiaries include Frank Luntz’s firm Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research — which counts insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield and the Health Insurance Plans of New York as clients — and Clark and Weinstock, a major lobbying firm representing healthcare clients like the health insurance company HealthNet.
Porter Novelli has also created front groups for the insurance industry in the past. In 1998, Porter Novelli managed the insurance industry’s “Health Benefits Coalition” group to kill the Patients Bill of Rights. As former insider Wendell Potter explained, Porter Novelli helped the industry form alliances with right-wing groups like the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, as well as conservative talk radio. Similar to how CMPI is currently working closely with tea party groups to attack “big government healthcare,” Porter Novelli developed a message that the Patients Bill of Rights was part of a “big government agenda” the “Democrat” party failed to pass 1994.
CMPI is among a constellation of mysterious corporate front groups attacking reform. As the Associated Press reported over the weekend, a secretive group called Americans for Quality and Affordable Healthcare has operatives placing anti-health reform columns, booking anti-reform pundits on talk radio, and organizing anti-reform panel discussions. AQAH also refuses to disclose its backers, but it is apparently being managed in part by the North Carolina law firm Moore & Van Allen.
Coburn vows to read the entire health care bill on the Senate floor.
Coburn vows to read the entire health care bill on the Senate floor.
Speaking to reporters last night, the Senate’s top obstructionist, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), said that he would attempt to slow down progress on health care reform by insisting that the 1,000-page-plus health care reform bill be read aloud on the Senate floor. “The American people are going to get to hear this bill read, period,” said Coburn, adding that “he would also block other legislative shortcuts” in an effort to delay the bill, such as requiring “the Senate to use up the entire 30-hour debate period called for after a filibuster has been broken.” According to Roll Call, “earlier this month, Republican leadership aides said Coburn was unlikely to make such a move without the blessing of GOP leaders.”
McCain urges town hall attendees to cut up their AARP membership cards.
McCain urges town hall attendees to cut up their AARP membership cards.
Last week, the AARP, a nonpartisan organization that advocates on behalf of those aged 50 and over, endorsed the House health care bill. “We can say with confidence that it meets our priorities for protecting Medicare, providing more affordable health insurance for 50- to 64-year-olds and reforming our health care system,” AARP vice president Nancy Leamond said. At a town hall meeting in Arizona on Friday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) vowed to “fight with every fiber of my body” to oppose a similar health care reform bill in the Senate. He then claimed that Medicare will actually be “cut” and reportedly urged the town hall attendees to tear up their AARP membership cards:
The 2,000-page bill would mean more regulation and mandates, he said. People wouldn’t be able to keep the coverage they had. It would also increase taxes and the cost of Medicare, he said.
The bill claims to save $500 billion in waste from Medicare, he said.
“I don’t think so,” McCain said. “I think it’s going to cut it.”
He encouraged audience members to cut up their AARP cards and send them back.
‘Death Panels’ Hypocrisy: RNC Health Insurance Provider Promotes End-Of-Life Counseling
‘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.)
Do Anti-Choice Conservatives Like Cantor And Gingrich Provide Elective Abortion Coverage To Their Employees?
Do Anti-Choice Conservatives Like Cantor And Gingrich Provide Elective Abortion Coverage To Their Employees?
Yesterday, the Politico reported that the Republican National Committee provides a health insurance policy to its employees which covers elective abortions. The RNC’s platform considers elective abortions “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.” Reacting to the news today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said, “Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” and that “it will not exist under my administration.”
Conservatives are pressing forward with an effort to use health reform as a backdoor legislative effort to ban abortion coverage in the Exchange — and limit abortion services in existing employer-sponsored plans. However, an analysis of disclosure forms of right-wing organizations and lawmakers reveals that many anti-choice conservative leaders may provide insurance plans with elective abortions to their employees.
For instance, Newt Gingrich, like the RNC, has said he would like to outlaw abortions. According to IRS disclosure forms, Gingrich’s 527 attack organization American Solutions for Winning the Future provides health coverage to its employees through CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield. According to its website, standard Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield policies cover elective abortions unless the employer specifically opts out.
House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), another staunch opponent of reproductive rights, also provides Carefirst Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage to his campaign employees.
Both Gingrich and Cantor’s office have not responded to calls from ThinkProgress inquiring if either employer has canceled elective abortion coverage on their insurance coverage.
Goldman Sachs report concludes insurers would profit from watered-down Senate health bill.
Goldman Sachs report concludes insurers would profit from watered-down Senate health bill.
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Goldman Sachs (in the course of performing “God’s work“) did a report analyzing the impact of health reform on Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Humana. While Stein concludes that insurers would profit from undermining health care reform, the report also points out that a more “centrist” version of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) legislation would lead to the highest “aggregate revenue growth” for the insurance industry:
Should lawmakers further water-down the SFC bill, the industry will stand to profit, the report implies, suggesting that the “bull” case scenario is a reform package that brings in millions of new government-subsidized customers without requiring the industry to pay any new taxes. Industry revenue would grow 6.9% from “more moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan or as a result of changes prior to the major implementation in 2013,” the report states. The report therefore suggests that the insurance industry may actually prefer watered-down reform over nothing. The Wonk Room has more. (Chart courtesy of FDL)
Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay For An Escalation Of The War But Not For Health Care?
Why Are Hawkish Lawmakers Willing To Pay For An Escalation Of The War But Not For Health Care?
In recent days, heated policy discussions in Washington have largely focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care legislation carry significant price tags: roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)
In his New York Times column today, columnist Nicholas Kristof asks why hawks claim health reform is “fiscally irresponsible” while enthusiastically supporting a troop surge in Afghanistan, given the fact that fixing our broken health care system is, unlike a troop surge, essential to the health and well-being of Americans:
The health care legislation pays for itself, according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the deployment in Afghanistan is unfinanced and will raise our budget deficits and undermine our long-term economic security.
So doesn’t it seem odd to hear hawks say that health reform is fiscally irresponsible, while in the next breath they cheer a larger deployment of troops in Afghanistan?
Meanwhile, lack of health insurance kills about 45,000 Americans a year, according to a Harvard study released in September. So which is the greater danger to our homeland security, the Taliban or our dysfunctional insurance system?
Indeed, hawkish legislators have lined up to both demand a costly surge in U.S. troops in Afghanistan while at the same time claiming that deficit-cutting health care legislation would simply be too expensive:
– Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has called for providing the “resources [needed]” for a “significant increase in U.S. forces” while warning that he is “really worried about what [health care reform] would do to the deficit.” [9/13/09, 10/26/09]
– Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has complained that passing health care legislation would “expand government spending even more,” while also boasting of his Republican caucus’s “broad support” for any troop increase in Afghanistan. [10/21/09, 10/11/09]
– Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote a letter to President Obama stating that we “urgently need more resources” in Afghanistan, “including more combat troops,” while at the same time claiming that passing health care legislation would be tantamount to “generational theft” that would run up “unconscionable and unsustainable deficits.” [11/10/09, 8/27/09]
Kristof’s question bears answering. Why is it that hawkish lawmakers are so willing to spend such enormous resources in both lives and treasure on a troop surge in Afghanistan that is increasingly opposed by Americans and Afghans, but are so quick to bark at the price tag of health care legislation that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they don’t have access to health care? As Glenn Greenwald notes, “Urging that more Americans be sent into endless war paid for with endless debt, while yawning and lazily waving away with boredom the hordes outside dying for lack of health care coverage, is one of the most repugnant images one can imagine.”
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: ‘It’s a just and noble cause to make health care available to everyone.’
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: ‘It’s a just and noble cause to make health care available to everyone.’
Hall of Famer and basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar revealed this morning that he has been battling leukemia, a form of cancer that develops in blood tissue. Abdul-Jabbar appeared on CNN’s American Morning and fielded questions about his battle with the disease. During the conversation, CNN co-host Kiran Chetry asked Abdul-Jabbar if he was following the health care debate, prompting the basketball star to offer his endorsement for reform. He explained that he believes that it is a “just and noble cause” to guarantee access to health care to Americans:
CHETRY: I’m sure you’ve been paying attention to the ongoing debate about health care. Have you taken a stand on that? Do you have an opinion on what we need to do as a nation to ensure more people can have access to health care?
ABDUL-JABBAR: I’m all for that. We have the best technology in the world. We’re supposed to be the ‘can-do’ nation. And our health care system really fails so many people. Especially poor people, people who don’t have the means to go to private doctors. I think we should change that. I think it’s absolutely crucial. Certainly it’s a just and noble cause to make health care available to everyone.
Watch it:
Study: 2,200 Vets Died Last Year Because They Lacked Health Insurance
Study: 2,200 Vets Died Last Year Because They Lacked Health Insurance
On the eve of Veterans Day, a team of researchers from Harvard Medical School has released a study finding that an estimated 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they did not have health insurance. That “translates to six preventable deaths per day” and more than twice the number killed in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001.
Being uninsured raises a person’s odds of dying prematurely by 40 percent. The researchers found that 1.46 million veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lacked insurance in 2008. While most veterans are eligible to receive excellent care from the Veterans Administration, those who were not injured in combat and whose income is above a certain threshold are often ineligible. Others are assigned low priorities, providing them with less consistent and more expensive access to care:
“Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people – too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]
Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the analysis and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, “On this Veterans Day we should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who were killed by our broken health insurance system. That’s six preventable deaths a day.”
Unfortunately, health insurance is just one of many serious problems vets face. Up to one-in-five veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, while male vets face suicide rates double the national average. And, as the VA under President Obama recognized, veterans still account for up to a quarter of all homeless.
The fact that even veterans cannot receive adequate health care demonstrates that the current system is broken and in need of dramatic overhaul. A robust public option will guarantee that vets and all working-class Americans will be able to afford quality health insurance. Still, the study’s authors warn that the health care legislation “would do virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013” and would “leave at least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,” leaving many veterans without care.
Hume Corrects O’Reilly’s False Claim That ‘Folks Don’t Want’ The Public Option: It’s Actually ‘Kind Of Popular’
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.”
Rep. Kilroy: GOP Shouting Down Democratic Women Was A ‘Sexist’ Attempt To Put Us ‘In Our Place’
Rep. Kilroy: GOP Shouting Down Democratic Women Was A ‘Sexist’ Attempt To Put Us ‘In Our Place’
On Saturday, several Republican went wild and shouted down members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus on the House floor. As each woman stepped up to the microphone to give a brief statement about how the House health care legislation would benefit women, Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (GA) — repeatedly talked over them, screamed, and shouted screeds like “I object, I object, I object, I object, I object.”
Yesterday, ThinkProgress interviewed Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), one of the Democratic women who faced this treatment. Kilroy said unequivocally that the GOP’s actions were “sexist” and it would be “nice” if they apologized. She pointed to recent GOP comments about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — that it’s time to “put her in her place” — and said that’s exactly what Price and the other Republicans were doing on Saturday:
KILROY: [T]hree male members of Congress got up and started shouting down — trying to shout down the Democratic women. I thought it was loud, I thought it was rude, I thought it was disrespectful, and I thought it was sexist. [...]
Well, when you engage in loud, rude, and boorish behavior, my mother would have said they should apologize. I don’t expect an apology, but that would be nice to have that. But you know, you’re seeing this sexist behavior going on.
You heard recently comments — from the Republican side of the aisle, some of my Republican colleagues over there — saying Speaker Pelosi should be put in her place, and I think that’s what they thought they were doing with the Democratic women. And it’s simply outrageous to me to have women being treated like that on the floor of the House.
Listen here:
Yesterday on a Center for American Progress Action Fund conference call, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that Republicans have been essentially giving a “back-of-the-hand treatment to women,” pointing out that on Friday, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) “actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.”
Transcript: More »
Fred Hiatt employs fuzzy math to claim House health bill would bring ‘America a step closer to bankruptcy.’
Fred Hiatt employs fuzzy math to claim House health bill would bring ‘America a step closer to bankruptcy.’
In this morning’s Washington Post, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt argues that the House health care bill “could take America a step closer to bankruptcy” and harm “the poor and vulnerable.” But since the CBO’s analysis of the House health care bill doesn’t support Hiatt’s contention that it would bring America to the brink of bankruptcy, Hiatt relies on the CBO’s analysis of the President’s entire budget and implies that it’s Obama’s health “plan”:
The root difficulty is Obama’s insistence that the nation can afford a large new social program without raising taxes on anyone who earns less than $250,000 per year. Under his plan, according to a CBO analysis, the government will be spending 24.5 percent of gross domestic product — the total value of the national economy — by 2019 while raising only 19 percent in revenue: a huge, unsustainable gap.
The 24.5% of GDP isn’t a measure of government spending as a result of the House/Obama health care bill. It’s a measure of the outlays of all of the President’s policies in his 2010 budget in 2019 and does not capture the deficit-reducing effects of health care reform or the House bill. The Wonk Room has more.
Anti-reform doctors seeking to rescind AMA endorsement are led by front group with insurer, GOP ties.
Anti-reform doctors seeking to rescind AMA endorsement are led by front group with insurer, GOP ties.
The House passed historic comprehensive health insurance reform on Saturday with the help of endorsements from hundreds of community organizations, including the American Medical Association. However, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that former AMA president Donald Palmisano is leading an effort to force the AMA to rescind its endorsement of the bill. As ThinkProgress first reported back in July, Palmisano’s organization Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights is being managed by the infamous lobbying firm known as DCI Group, which specializes in creating “credible coalition partners” to advance the interests of corporations. ThinkProgress’ Victor Zapanta caught up with Palmisano, who told us he supports the “patient-doctor relationship” where uninsured patients and patients who cannot afford care should simply beg for charity:
PALMISANO: If you have a problem, you would just say ‘look I have a financial problem, can you help me’ and doctors will help you. If somebody couldn’t pay, we just send them a note, ‘you haven’t paid, is there a reason you can’t pay?’ All they have to do is give us any reason and we just wrote off the bill, forgot the bill. That’s what doctors do.
Watch it:
DCI Group, in addition to its record of setting up “Smokers’ Rights” fronts for tobacco companies, has worked closely the private health insurance industry in the past to thwart legislation to improve the health care system. Additionally, Palmisano has been working closely with Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who are most interested in torpedoing health reform to score political points.
Armey’s View Of Americans With Pre-Existing Conditions: Someone Who ‘Eats Like A Pig’ And Has Diabetes
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 »
Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Republicans Are Giving Women A ‘Back-Of-The-Hand Treatment’
Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Republicans Are Giving Women A ‘Back-Of-The-Hand Treatment’
This morning, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) participated on a conference call with the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Judy Feder to discuss Republican efforts to shut out women’s issues in the health reform debate. Feder noted that in 2006, nine Senate Republicans voted to explicitly kill a proposal that would have ensured that insurance companies cannot use domestic violence as a pretext for denying coverage to women. The two went on to discuss how, as the House vote drew near, Republican lawmakers’ disregard for the interests of women became more apparent.
In the House Rules Committee the Friday before the vote, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who is also the chief recruiter for Republican House campaigns in 2010, justified the practice of insurance companies discriminating against women by comparing gender differences to smokers and non-smokers. The next day — on Saturday morning — Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and several of his GOP colleagues shouted down congresswomen making 1-minute speeches on the importance of health reform for women. Wasserman Schultz denounced the interruption tactics and Sessions’ comparison of women to smokers as the “Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women”:
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to express and underscore my concerns of essentially what amounts to the Republicans’ back of the hand treatment to women, issues that are important to women, particularly women’s health. We already have had a clear sense that Republicans were opposed to our efforts to advance women’s health interests. Now we know we know they’re opposed to letting women voice opinions on health care as well. [...] My colleague Pete Sessions actually compared women to smokers and suggested women, like smokers, have to pay more for insurance just by the accident of our ability to get pregnant.
Listen here:
Indeed, asked by a witness why should a woman pay more for a man for health insurance premiums, the supposedly pro-life Sessions scoffed:
SESSION: We’re all different. Why should a smoker pay more than a non-smoker.
Watch it:
Insurance companies employ a variety of discriminatory practices towards women. In many states, insurance companies consider rape, previous pregnancies, a c-section, and domestic violence as preexisting conditions. President Obama’s health reform proposals, including the bill passed by the House on Saturday, will end all denials of care based on preexisting conditions and ban gender discrimination for premiums.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll