Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Health and Wellness
Video: Progressive Change Campaign Committee Robocalls For the Public Option
Posted by AlterNet Staff, AlterNet on November 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
Last month, as Majority Leader Harry Reid considered whether to include a public health-insurance plan in the bill he would put before the Senate, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee ran as him hard, pressuring the leader with television ads in his home state of Nevada, where Reid is expected to face a difficult re-election campaign for his Senate seat.
Now, having won that battle -- Reid indeed included a public option in the Senate bill -- PCCC is marshaling support for Reid as he shepherds the bill though the legislative process, making robocalls recorded by Lee Slaughter, the Nevada nurse who appeared in the ad that was used to pressure Reid. People receiving the call are given a keypad option that allows them to sign up for PCCC's public option campaign. (The online sign-up page is here.)
Below find a video that features Slaughter's robocall as its audio.
VIDEO AFTER THE JUMP
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Americans Want a Health Surtax on Wealthy
Posted by Daniela Perdomo, AlterNet on November 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM.
Although the House bill includes a surtax on the wealthy in order to help fund the proposed health care overhaul, the possibility of it being included in the final health care bill seems uncertain. As Majority Leader Reid prepares the Senate's bill, he ought pay attention to this newly released Associated Press poll which shows that 57% of Americans are in favor of a health surtax on the richest among us -- and only 37% are opposed.
The poll also found that respondents dislike other options that are publicly being discussed on the Hill, such as the so-called "Cadillac plans," that would tax insurers on high-value coverage plans. Higher taxes on insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers were not as popular either.
The surtax included in the House bill would levy a 5.4% income tax surcharge on individuals earning $500,000 a year and households raking in $1 million.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
The Uninsured Are Twice as Likely to Die in the ER From a Traumatic Injury Than the Insured
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on November 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM.
Among those 45,000 deaths a years among the uninsured are those dying in emergency rooms as the result of traumatic injuries, and the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance.
An analysis of 687,091 patients who visited trauma centers nationwide from 2002 to 2006 found that the odds of dying from injuries were almost twice as high for the uninsured than for patients with private insurance, researchers reported in Archives of Surgery.
Trauma physicians said they were surprised by the findings, even though a slew of studies had previously documented the ill effects of going without health coverage. Uninsured patients are less likely to be screened for certain cancers or to be admitted to specialty hospitals for procedures such as heart bypass surgery. Overall, about 18,000 deaths each year have been traced to a lack of health insurance....
The research team from Harvard University and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston used information from 1,154 U.S. hospitals that contribute to the National Trauma Data Bank. The team found that patients enrolled in commercial health plans, health maintenance organizations or Medicaid had an equal risk of death from traumatic injuries when the patients' age, gender, race and severity of injury were taken into account.
The risk of death was 56% higher for patients covered by Medicare, perhaps because the government health plan includes many people with long-term disabilities, said Dr. Heather Rosen, who led the study while she was a research fellow at Harvard Medical School.
The risk of death was 80% higher for patients without any insurance, the report said.
The reason for this much higher risk of death isn't immediately clear. The researchers point out that, while federal law requires that emergency rooms provide care, the uninsured often have longer waits in the ER, and sometimes have to go to various ERs to find one that will treat them. They are also likely to receive fewer services, especially expensive ones like MRI scans. They also are likely to have more untreated underlying condidtions that compromise their overall health. Additionally, the demographics of the uninsured and traumatic injuries is a factor; "gunshot and stabbing victims -- frequently younger people involved in crime" are more likely to die and more likely to be uninsured than other trauma patients.
Bottom line, being uninsured is potentially deadly. The moral and financial costs to the country are unacceptable, and any member of Congress who obstructs this effort to reform the system will carry the responsibilty of those deaths.
Why There Are More Than 1 Million Hungry Kids in the U.S.
Posted by Sarah Newman, Takepart on November 18, 2009 at 8:43 AM.
It's time to forget the inaccurate stereotypical image of America's hungry as long lines of mostly homeless men, winding down the block from a church's soup pantry entrance, waiting for their daily meal. The times have changed, drastically. The ongoing economic recession has slowly started to show limited signs of recovery on paper and on Wall Street, but these developments haven't reached millions of Americans. We live in an era with a 10 percent official national unemployment rate, coupled with rising costs of living and stagnant wages. Those shouldering the burden of this economic crisis are barely surviving. For many, they can't even afford basics for survival, such as food.
The Washington Post reported that the federal government's latest statistics show the number of Americans who are food insecure (they lack regular access to food) increased last year 49 million people and 17 million of them were children. More alarming is the increase in the number of children who were just plain hungry, which reached 1.1 million -- that's 21 percent of all households with children with low or very low (i.e. hungry) food security. Those waiting for a daily meal are people of all ages, races and geographic backgrounds.
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack acknowledges that "poverty, unemployment, these are all factors," in the increase in hunger and food insecurity rates. The government report's author noted, though, "that most families in which food is scarce contain at least one adult with a full-time job, suggesting that the problem lies at least partly in wages, not just an absence of work."
This report begs the question: how are these people surviving? The federal government isn't able to fully fill this gap. Their anti-hunger programs such as food stamps, school lunches and/or WIC (Women, Infant and Children) only serve about 50 percent of those in need. This is where we all come into the picture. It turns out that last year, 4.8 million households used private food pantries, up from 3.9 million the previous year. Private food pantries rely on people like you and me to survive.
Feeding America, a leading hunger-relief organization, has had increased demand over the past year, coinciding with the report's findings. The organization, which has a network of 200 food banks, provided food to 25 million people last year. Most of these volunteer-run places are refuges to people who would otherwise go hungry. With the increased demand, more support is needed. Wherever you live in the U.S., whether it's a big city, small town or suburban community, there are hungry people who need your help. This is a problem that can be solved but it requires all of our participation as a volunteer, donor and/or advocate. Let's make sure that all of America is fed today.
Sorry Monsanto, You're Wrong: More GE Crops Mean More Pesticides
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM.
More genetically engineered crops means less pesticides are needed, right? That's what the big agricultural biotech companies, like Monsanto, promised. But, a report proves they're wrong. Really wrong.
First, the report was funded by a coalition of non-governmental organizations including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, the Cornerstone Campaign, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, Greenpeace International and Rural Advancement Fund International USA.
They found that GE corn, soybean, and cotton crops have increased the use of weed-killing herbicides in the U.S. by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008. Why? Because the idea behind many of the big GE crops is to make them resistant to herbicides, for instance Roundup Ready Soybeans won't be killed if you spray the herbicide Roundup on them. Roundup instead is suppose to kill the weeds around the plant. But, crafty little nature has outsmarted biotech again and now we've got weeds that have become resistant as well. Woops.
So, maybe the biotech industry shouldn't be making farmers pay through the nose for these seeds, eh? Here's some more info from the report about the pickle farmers are in now, thanks to GE crops:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Congressional Puppetry: Biotech Lobbyists Ghost-Write Health-Care Reform Speeches for 42 House Members
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM.
Robert Pear, reporting for the New York Times, discovered that the impassioned rhetoric aired by a fairly large number of law-makers during the health-care debate was drafted by corporate lobbyists.
In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.
E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”
Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” It is unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.
The piece is headlined, "In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’". But it might as well have read: "Sloppy Staffers Offer Peek Into Everyday, Legal and Perfectly Ordinary Washington Corruption."
Because what makes this a featured story -- the only thing really unusual about it -- is that "so many revisions and extensions match up word for word," which left rather "clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists."
Otherwise, it's dog bites man. Congressional staffers constantly rely on lobbyists for information, political help and, yes, talking-points. Advocates send lawmakers draft text to be included not only in speeches delivered on the House floor, but in legislation as well -- they do it all the time. (And I should note that it's not just corporate lobbyists pushing stuff through the worst lawmakers in Congress; labor, environmental, consumer groups and other advocates do the same thing for progressive law-makers. In this case it may be a pack of lies from a biotech firm in an effort to kill health-care, but ...)
And, of course, it's unusual for this kind of endemic distortion of the legislative process to be seen as anything but routine by the political class. So it's a story that's also note-worthy simply for the fact that the New York Times decided to treat it as such.
Anyway, a little peek into the sausage-making.
Hypocrisy Watch: RNC Insurance Plan Has Covered Abortions for 18 Years
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on November 13, 2009 at 5:17 PM.
RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS -- AND COUNTING.... The debate over financing of abortions -- the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment -- is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: "The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."
But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation's largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers "abortion services." The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.
Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC -- whose platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life" -- gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
What's Really So Frightening About Burger King's $1 Double Cheeseburgers
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on November 13, 2009 at 4:50 PM.
Ever time I see a Burger King commercial advertising their $1 double cheeseburgers I'm astounded. How the heck could that be possible? There is meat on there, right? Two patties? I mean it's likely pieces of thousands of feedlot cows and it has got other fillers in there. And usually some sort of chemical to try and kill the bacteria. And then there's the cheese -- maybe something resembling a dairy product, the bun (which has at over 30 ingredients, according the BK website -- I lost count), and of course a few wilted tomatoes or lettuce or pickles maybe? Hard to remember, last time I had a fast food burger I was 11.
And that's just the ingredients -- of course there is also the labor, the packaging, and the other associated costs.
So how could it be remotely possible to do all of that -- even at massive scale -- for a buck?
Well, it turns out you can't.
According to the AP, "The National Franchise Association, a group that represents more than 80 percent of Burger King's U.S. franchise owners, said the $1 promotion forces restaurant owners to sell the quarter-pound burger with at least a 10-cent loss."
So, I was right. Um, barely.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Goldman Sachs Report: Watered-Down Senate Health Bill a Windfall for Big Insurance
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:55 PM.
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)
Hawks in Congress Willing to Shell Out Trillions for War, but Won't Help Americans Get Decent Health-Care
Posted by Zaid Jilani, Think Progress on November 13, 2009 at 3:57 AM.
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 [ed: Thursday], 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.”
Hey, I've Got a "Moral Objection" to Health Insurance Covering Viagra
Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo on November 12, 2009 at 2:00 PM.
I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)
Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Public Option Back on the Chopping Block
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on November 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM.
Reid has put the House healthcare reform bill on the Senate calendar to begin the Senate's action on the bill. CBO scores on the proposed Senate bill, which melds the HELP and SFC bills, are expected at the end of this week.
Reid filed a motion to introduce the bill on Monday, Nov. 16. Anticipating a Republican objection, the bill would be pushed onto the Senate calendar.
"A motion to proceed to the bill would be in order the next legislative day," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley....
Reid's action late Tuesday sets up a critical vote next week on a motion to proceed to the bill. Such a motion would require 60 votes to succeed — an important, early test of the Democratic caucus's unity on procedural votes. Several senators who caucus as Democrats have expressed skepticism about the bill, while others have expressed a willingness to support procedural votes. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) have both warned Democrats that they will target any senators who support procedural votes on the bill.
Republicans are going to target weak Democratic Senators anyway, so that threat is utterly meaningless and will be a completely unacceptable excuse for spinelessness on the part of any Dem.
Adding to the problem of scared Dems is the Dems who insist upon being catered to. Lieberman has now been joined by Ben Nelson in a vow to block a bill with a public option. (H/T TWI)
"Well, first of all, it [the House bill] has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.
"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."
Note that Nelson didn't go quite as far as Lieberman in saying he'd block any bill with a public option, leaving himself room to do what he thinks his role is--negotiate something else. But his arguments are just as disingenuous as Lieberman's. The public option is not government run--it will operate on premiums paid into it, just like any insurance, after the initial set up investment. The tax increases on the wealthy--make that very wealthy--in the House bill are far more equitable than the excise tax on high-value insurance plans in the Senate Finance bill. So here's Ben Nelson, sticking up for insurance companies and the wealthy.
All this thanks to the stunning display of leadership by Reid and concerted arm twisting and lobbying by the White House after Lieberman pulled his shit. Yeah, right. Reconciliation, anyone?
MIT: Eating Local Food Is the Key to Solving Our Obesity Epidemic
Posted by Tara Lohan on November 11, 2009 at 7:45 AM.
Sometimes it takes more than Michael Pollan to get through to people. New research from MIT about how locally grown foods can reduce our obesity problem is welcome news. Right now Americans are getting bigger and bigger -- between 1980 and 2006 obesity among teenagers grew from 5 to 18 percent; and 7 to 17 percent for pre-teens. These gains are contributing more to the onset of diseases like type 2 diabetes, strokes and heart problems, writes Peter Dizikes of MIT News Office.
A group of MIT researchers found that what's driving our obesity epidemic is "our national-scale system of food production and distribution, which surrounds children -- especially lower-income children -- with high-calorie products." Precisely what folks in the pro-food/local foods movement have been saying for years. And it makes sense considering the shocking figure that 90 percent of American food is processed according to the USDA, Dizikes highlights.
Thankfully the researchers didn't just stop at pointing out the obvious, they offered a solution:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster Healthcare Bill, Says Public Option Is "Unnecessary"
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on November 9, 2009 at 5:00 AM.
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) about the House's historic passage of health care legislation last night. Lieberman said that as a "matter of conscience," he will join a Republican filibuster if a public option -- which has supposedly been put forward "by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance" -- is also included in the bill that goes before the Senate:
LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.
But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt -- $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.
WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a "no" vote in the Senate?
LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.
Watch it:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 7, 2009 at 8:32 PM.
In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York's 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California's 10th voted for the bill.
As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year's Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.
At a meeting with reporters following the bill's passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber's long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in the vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings. Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.
The bill passed in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans -- the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers -- that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.
Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents' policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.
(For more on what's in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet's Joshua Holland.)
It was a week of wrangling, arm-twisting and conservaDem-whispering for House leaders as they sought to put together the 218 votes necessary to pass the bill. Originally scheduled for Friday, the vote was put off for a day as House Whip James Clyburn and Pelosi's whip team worked members of the Democratic caucus to bring more on board. President Barack Obama consequently delayed a planned Friday visit to Capitol Hill for a meeting with Democrats about the bill, instead making the trek today in a bid to sway any stragglers.
Much of the slow-down came at the hands of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who insisted that the bill was not strong enough in preventing the use of federal funds for abortion procedures, since the bill would permit a woman who bought private health insurance -- with her own money -- through a federally-administered insurance exchange to purchase a policy that covered abortion. With the backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Stupak and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., held up the bill, looking for a deal on language that would appease the church. (Both Stupak and Pitts belong to the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.)
As of Friday night, Pelosi thought she had worked out a language compromise with the pro- and anti-choice forces, but before daybreak, the deal had fallen apart "because they can't count," Stupak said of Pelosi's negotiators during a press conference after the House vote.
Unable to deliver the compromise she thought she had forged, Pelosi allowed Stupak to bring his concerns to the floor in the form of an amendment, which passed with the votes of 64 Democrats. (More about the amendment from AlterNet here and RH Reality Check here.)
Part of Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform. Certainly House Minority Leader John Boehner seemed to think so, as he made a point, during the general debate on the larger health-care bill of asking each of the committee chairmen who together crafted the Affordable Health Care Act whether they would commit to preserving the amendment when the bill is finalized in conference committee.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
House Takes Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
Posted by RH Reality Check, RH Reality Check on November 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM.
This post is from Jodi Jacobson's blog at RH Reality Check.
House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.
In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.
The amendment, named for Representatives Bart Stupak, D-Mich, and Joe Pitts, R-Penn. Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally, and was among those who succeeded in adding language forbidding the provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.
The agreement to vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment came after 1:00 am this morning when an effort to adopt compromise language crafted by Rep. Brad Ellsworth apparently was rejected by Stupak and his supporters. We reported on the Ellsworth Amendment here. Rejection of the Ellsworth Amendment makes clear the agenda of Stupak's amendment is to ban abortion care in private insurance plans, because Ellsworth provided numerous protections against the use of federal funds for abortions other than those for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, for all of which the law now allows federal funding.
The Hill reports that:
Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak's language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.
"I forsee a return to the dark ages," Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., told The Hill. "I'm 73, I've seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die."
"I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes," liberal Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told the panelists of the House Rules committee as they debated whether to allow the amendment. "I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable."
Having successfully made birth control "too controversial for health reform," Stupak, working with other "Dems for Life," the now unabashedly ultra-right Republican party and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to block passage of the health reform bill unless he got his way on the vote. His efforts are backed up by a massive organizing effort undertaken by the Catholic Bishops to mobilize ultra-conservative Catholics throughout the country. More than 85 percent of Catholics in the United States use birth control, and Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.
Women's rights advocates, including the speaker of the House and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the health-care bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can't afford them, in keeping with current law.
"Rep. Stupak’s proposal to codify the Hyde amendment in health-care reform would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health-care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In the statement, Richards explains:
Such an "abortion rider," whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against. As a result, an "abortion rider" policy is unworkable. Women would not choose to purchase it, and would subsequently be unable to obtain the care they need. Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose.
For these and other reasons, "Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the Stupak-Pitts amendment which would result in women losing health benefits they have today," said Richards in a statement released early this morning. The statement continues:
This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by [instead] creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes. Women won't stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.
While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth
In fact, "the Stupak-Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market," continued Richards, "undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."
On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.
BACKGROUND on STUPAK-PITTS AMENDMENT:
The Stupak-Pitts amendment would:
The current compromise in the bill, the Capps Amendment, already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests.
It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to.
The following is a list of editorials in major newspapers that have opposed Stupak-Pitts and similar proposals:
An editorial in USA Today (11/2/09): “[The Stupak amendment] goes too far. It would mark a broad new expansion in the effort to restrict access to abortion. Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.”
An editorial in the New York Times said (10/1/09):
“Conservative critics of pending reform bills want to prohibit the use of tax subsidies to buy any health insurance policy that covers abortion. Some want to require women to buy an extra insurance “rider” if they want abortion coverage, an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”
An editorial in the LA Times said (11/6/09):
“The real goal of abortion opponents isn't to maintain the status quo. It's to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. By restricting coverage offered through the exchange, they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering it in the market for individual and small-group policies.”
An editorial in The St. Petersburg Times said (11/5/09):
"Contrary to the claims of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has been leading the antiabortion effort, the Capps amendment would not expand federal funding for abortion. Instead it would establish some basic principles to reflect the current health insurance landscape in which nearly 90 percent of private plans offer abortion coverage."
If Tea-Baggers Are Such Populists, Why not Vent Fury Over Flu Shots Going to Wall Street While Kids Go Without?
Posted by Jill C., Brilliant at Breakfast on November 7, 2009 at 4:12 AM.
Instead of going to Washington and mindlessly parroting what right-wing talk show hosts tell them, much of which is flat-out wrong, perhaps the teabaggers who marched on Washington would be better served directing their outrage at this:
Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked Health and Human Service (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to investigate why the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approved the distribution of the H1NI vaccine to Wall Street firms at a time when the vaccine is unavailable to most Americans.
Recent news reports indicate 13 companies, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Time Warner, have been cleared to receive the vaccine.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
At Least 5 Need Government-Run Health-Care at Bachmann's Angry Protests Against Government-Run Health-Care
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM.
I find Dana Milbank annoying. Actually, I think he's the living, breathing incarnation of everything wrong with the Beltway media.
Today's column is just as cynical, superficial and snarky as the rest. The argument he makes is typically obtuse.
BUT, it's directed at those annoying Tea-Baggers, so it amuses me!
Technically, Thursday's GOP-sponsored rally at the Capitol was a "press conference" (a Capitol Police spokeswoman explained that the lawmakers didn't have a permit for a demonstration). The speakers took no questions at this news conference, instead calling, at least a dozen times, for the Pelosi bill's death.
"Remember some of the other battles: Lexington and Concord, Hamburger Hill, Pork Chop Hill?" said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). "We're not going to leave this hill until we kill this bill!"
[...]
But, as with a similar rally by Democrats a week before, unpredictable things tend to happen in the wide-open spaces of the Capitol's West Front. Minutes into the rally, a breeze toppled the American flag from the stage.
More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.
This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. "Join us in defeating Pelosi care!" he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher. Boehner may have been distracted as well. He told the crowd he would read from the Constitution, then read the "we hold these truths" bit from the Declaration of Independence.
[...]
By the time it was over, medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care. But Bachmann overlooked this irony as she said farewell to her recruits.
Read the whole thing. Might amuse you too.
How Does a Religious Cult Have the Clout to Delay Health Care Vote?
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM.
Just when it seemed the stars were aligning for an historic vote tomorrow on health-care reform legislation in the House of Representatives, anti-choice Democrats are balking, saying that the plan would permit the indirect flow of federal dollars to fund abortion.
Led by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a member of the Capitol Hill religious cult known as The Family, and spurred on by the Catholic bishops, anti-abortion Dems are contesting the fact that some small number of private insurance plans offered via the bill's insurance exchange scheme may offer coverage for abortion -- even therapeutic abortion. Where the federal dollars come in is via the subsidies for which lower-income people would be eligible for buying insurance through the exchange.
Politico's Patrick O'Connor reports on the church's influence at the negotiating table:
Negotiators are working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to finalize language the church can accept. Vulnerable anti-abortion Democrats don’t want to support any bill that the bishops haven’t signed off on.
Last time I looked, abortion was a legal medical procedure in the United States. The changes the church wants would virtually forbid abortion coverage, even for women carrying fetuses without a chance of surviving outside the womb. The church seeks to codify its contempt for women into U.S. law, dooming a woman already facing a tragic pregnancy to compromise her life and health -- mental and physical -- apparently for the sin of having had sex.
As the legislation stands, no federal dollars would directly cover an abortion, and the public plan will offer no abortion coverage. But that's not enough for the men of the cloth.
The question remains, of course, as to whether this is an issue truly of moral conscience, or just a trick for stalling health-care reform. At Michele Bachmann's disinform-athon yesterday on the Capitol steps, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins alleged, untruthfully, that the bill announced last week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covers abortion, as did several members of Congress. The Family Research Council is a Republican-allied group.
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Report: Hasan Snapped Under Weight of Bullying, Anxiety Over Deployment
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on November 6, 2009 at 8:36 AM.
It goes without saying that the usual suspects would view the tragic events at Fort Hood as an act of terror inspired by "jihadism." A soldier, a Muslim of Palestinian descent, reportedly shouted "God is great!" before opening fire on soldiers awaiting deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.
If one is already inclined to see terrorists lurking beneath one's bed, naturally that's a neat end to the story, and supports whatever simplistic notions about Islam and terrorism one might hold.
Yesterday, as the first sketchy reports started filtering in, I thought that an organized act of political terror was about the least likely scenario to have gone down. (This didn't prevent me from thinking, 'oh, this is not going to go well' when the Major's name was released.)
And as it turns out, unless you're reading Right-wing blogs this morning, it does in fact appear to be a case of an individual snapping under a variety of stresses.
ABC:
Fort Hood shooting suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, wanted out of the Army after being constantly harassed by others in the military and was called a "camel jockey," his family said.
As Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq, he was suffering from some of the same stresses that he was trained as an Army psychiatrist to treat.
Although the 39-year-old had just been promoted to major in May, his family says he had hired a lawyer to help him get out of the Armed Forces.
"Apparently became very disgruntled in the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and voiced that to a lot of his colleagues," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)...
...After the 9/11 attacks, his cousin says he was the target of constant harassment from others in the military. His tormentors called him a "camel jockey," said his cousin, Nader Hasan. He wanted out of the Army, so he paid back his military student loans and hired an attorney.
While the bullying irritated Hasan, Nader Hasan believes his upcoming deployment is what set him off. The cousin said, "My mom is his mom… and we didn't know he was being deployed until we heard it on the news today."
The whole thing is obviously an incredible tragedy. But as Mark Ames -- who wrote the book about this kind of rage-killing -- points out on the front, this was anything but an isolated incident. All kinds of people "go postal."
That this one happened to be a Muslim and a soldier with strong feelings about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only gives those who were already so inclined an opportunity to use a profound tragedy to impugn an entire faith.
CBO: Repubs' "Alternative" Health-Care Plan Would Leave 52 Million Uninsured in 2019
Posted by Ben Armbruster, Think Progress on November 5, 2009 at 7:22 AM.
Last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the House Republican alternative health care bill. While the CBO determined the GOP bill’s 10 year price tag to be $61 billion — far less that the Democrats’ proposal — the score also found that the their bill would have little effect on nearly 46 million uninsured Americans:
By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
The CBO found that the Democrats’ bill, however, would cover 36 million more Americans and “reduce the number of nonelderly Americans without coverage to around 18 million over the next decade.” Yet, just before the CBO scored the GOP bill, a spokesperson for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) falsely claimed their alternative “will cover millions more Americans” than the Democrats’ bill.
Last night on Fox News Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) dodged a question about how many uninsured the GOP plan would cover and instead railed at the Democrats for “trying to get at this business of universal coverage”:
PENCE: We believe you get at the coverage issue by lowering the cost of health insurance. … So Republicans by focusing on the cost of health insurance believe that we are going to take our country in a direction where we also deal with the tens of millions of people and employers that struggle with providing insurance.
Boehner's Lame Excuse About Why the GOP Health Care Bill Sucks So Badly
Posted by mcjoan, Daily Kos on November 4, 2009 at 3:55 PM.
Yesterday, hours after the House Republicans healthcare "reform" plan was released and universally mocked, Rep. Boehner cried foul, insisting that this unauthorized leak was of a draft bill that wasn't finalized and hadn't been seen by members.
Just a quick reminder of the reaction in the media to Boehner's bill. Here's what the original WSJ article reported:
A House Republican health-care bill wouldn't seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance, Minority Leader John Boehner said Monday.
And here's Roll Call:
Under the GOP plan, insurance companies would still be allowed to exclude anyone with a pre-existing medical condition from coverage, there would be no national insurance exchange and businesses would not face any mandate to provide insurance nor individuals to buy it. Boehner also left out tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy insurance — a central pillar of most GOP reform proposals and a key feature of a four-page outline Republican leaders released in June.
But that bill, says Boehner and Pence, wasn't the real bill, as reported by The Hill:
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Iowa Wingnut Steve King Lauds Lobbyists as American Heros for Bussing in Health Reform Protesters
Posted by Lee Fang, Think Progress on November 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM.
On Thursday, the lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — which were instrumental in orchestrating dozens of anti-Obama tea parties and town hall disruptions — are planning an anti-health reform rally at the steps of the Capitol. Republican leadership, like Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), have endorsed the rally. But two of the most rabidly right-wing members of Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) are amongst the most aggressive promoters of the rally, with the help of talk radio and Fox News.
FreedomWorks has launched a website called “DontKillGrandma.com” listing recommended tactics for activists to engage in while protesting health reform. For the Thursday rally, FreedomWorks says activists should engage in a “simultaneous chant of ‘Kill the Bill.’” FreedomWorks is funded by corporate money and is led by Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader and until recently lobbyist from DLA Piper.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is busing people to the rally. AFP is led by astroturf lobbyist Tim Phillips and is bankrolled by gas and oil baron David Koch, the world’s 9th richest person and the financier of dozens of conservative think-tanks, publications, and politicians. Like they did for the April tea parties, AFP has commissioned at least 10 buses from Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina to bring protesters — free of charge — to DC for the rally.
During a speech last night, King thanked the lobbyists for bringing in buses from “state after state after state.”
[Ed: Watch it in the window to your right.]
Read the rest of the post on the flip side »
Joe Lieberman In a Thong? New "Strip Joe" Game Allows You to See the Awful Truth
Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet on November 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM.
Have you had enough of Sen. Joe Lieberman, and his on-again, off again threat to stop health-care reform legislation from coming to a vote? The folks at Agit-Prop have teamed up with CREDO to give you a way to let off some steam, even as you send a message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get tough with the Joester.
Called "Strip Joe," an animated online game allows you to wield a gavel with your cursor at various anatomical parts of the senator from the state of Aetna; wherever you land your gavel on the senator, he loses that piece of clothing. If you like what you see when you win, you can purchase your very own "GOP string" to add to your lingerie chest. (Made in USA!)
These are hijinks with a purpose, though. The game site allows viewers to sign on to a petition to Harry Reid that demands, "If Lieberman joins a GOP filibuster of the health care bill, strip him of his chairmanship." Lieberman chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Now, where did I leave my gavel?
Joe Lieberman: Swine Flu is Either with Us or the Terrorists!
Posted by Steve M., No More Mister Nice Blog on November 3, 2009 at 5:42 AM.
I wish the exact quote were available, but for now we have this from Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard's blog:
... a source who was present at the scene reports:
In the stakeout after Face the Nation, Joe Lieberman excoriated the decision to give the vaccine to GITMO terrorists and not to pregnant women.
Really, Joe? Best you can do?
Yeah, we're giving swine flu vaccine to Guantanamo prisoners.
Can't think of a reason why, Joe? I won't even bother bringing up the Geneva Conventions, or our military's long tradition of humane treatment of prisoners -- I know you don't believe in any of that crap, Joe.
Still can't come up with a reason? Here, I'll give you a big fat hint:
Who's guarding Gitmo prisoners?
Right: our troops.
I know you think the prisoners are subhuman scum, vile worms who can't be compared to decent human beings on any level whatsoever. But guess what, Joe?
Viruses don't give a crap.
A virus can easily spread from your scum to our brave youth. Vaccinating these prisoners is a way of protecting our men and women in uniform.
Hey, Joe, why do you hate the troops?
GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM.
Few Republican congressional members have served as a greater fount for hyperbolic and uninformed ranting about health care reform as has Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC). As ThinkProgress previously documented, Foxx has claimed Democratic reforms would mean seniors are “put to death by their government,” that health reform is a “distraction,” and that “there are no Americans who don’t have health care.” She was at it again today on the House floor, arguing that health reform is a greater threat to our country than “any terrorist right now in any country”:
Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.
McCain Adviser Who Attacked Dems' Health Reform Now Facing Insurance Nightmare
Posted by Igor Volsky, Think Progress on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, “remains unemployed — and his COBRA health coverage is running out,” the Washington Post reports. “Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky ‘preexisting conditions’ that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage”:
Holtz-Eakin said he’s been paying about $1,000 a month to extend the private health insurance he received on McCain’s campaign through the government’s COBRA program, but that will expire in a few months. This is the first time in his life he has not had employer-provided health coverage. “I worry about where I go next in the way many Americans do,” he said.
During the campaign, Holtiz-Eakin fervently defended McCain’s proposal to shift more Americans out of their employer-sponsored coverage and into the individual health insurance market. “The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves,” Holtz-Eakin said in August. “Instead of only getting it in the employer market, you would get it regardless of your source of insurance. And you get the same amount whether you’re rich or poor, $5,000 for every working family.”
EMAIL
PRINT
COMMENT NOW
PERMALINK
