/PRNewswire/ -- At a meeting today in the nation's capital of a federal advisory committee on the new health care law, Family Research Council (FRC) expressed its strong opposition to designating abortion as a means of pregnancy-prevention. The Institute of Medicine Committee on Preventive Services for Women is hearing comments about regulatory mandates for women's preventive services under Obamacare.
Additionally, FRC sent a letter today to U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius encouraging HHS to not recommend the inclusion of abortion or contraceptive drugs as a mandated service that all health plans would be required to cover at no cost to patients. The letter states that to do so would violate the principles of conscience rights laws.
Jeanne Monahan , FRC's Director of the Center for Human Dignity, made the following comments after addressing the second meeting for the Committee:
"The committee should not recommend the inclusion of abortion as a means of preventing pregnancy. FRC rejects any suggestion that 'abortion is healthcare' or that pregnancy is a disease. Including abortion, whether chemical or surgical, as a mandated, free-of-charge preventive care service would further expand abortion in the health care law and undermine the conscience rights of many in the health care profession.
"Additionally, several drugs have been approved by the FDA to be legally categorized as 'emergency contraceptives,' but can destroy a preborn baby before or after implantation. Any mandates including drugs such as ella would expand taxpayer funding for abortion. Inclusion of contraceptives also undermines conscience protections that President Obama promised would be maintained.
"Earlier today, we sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius urging HHS not to mandate that abortion or contraceptives be covered free of charge under the new health care law. If the IOM and HHS recommend these mandates, the conscience rights of thousands of Americans will be violated, including issuers of plans, providers who contract with such plans, and Americans who will pay for the cost of these services. The IOM should focus on items and services that prevent actual diseases, and not include controversial services just to placate the abortion industry," concluded Monahan.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Friday, December 3, 2010
Libertarians oppose Republican plans to hang onto Obamacare
Incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that Republicans now want to keep two significant parts of Obamacare: forcing insurance companies to offer coverage for people up to age 26 under their parents' policies, and forcing insurance companies to issue coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "This switch is predictable. Republicans love to say the words 'less government,' but they always vote for more government. It's a shame that the big-government Republican Party succeeded in fooling Americans again on November 2. We tried to warn the tea partiers."
Hinkle continued, "Repealing one bill and replacing it with much of the same thing doesn't count as a repeal.
"Issuing coverage for a pre-existing medical condition is like issuing coverage for a house with a pre-existing fire. It doesn't make any sense, and no insurance company would do it in a free market.
"By the same token, forcing insurance companies to cover adults up to age 26 under their parents' policy is absurd. Republicans and Democrats both love to treat adults like children.
"If Republicans succeed in keeping these Obamacare policies, it will mean significantly higher insurance premiums for everyone, in order to subsidize the huge new expenses that insurance companies will be forced to pay."
The LP platform plank on health care states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."
Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "This switch is predictable. Republicans love to say the words 'less government,' but they always vote for more government. It's a shame that the big-government Republican Party succeeded in fooling Americans again on November 2. We tried to warn the tea partiers."
Hinkle continued, "Repealing one bill and replacing it with much of the same thing doesn't count as a repeal.
"Issuing coverage for a pre-existing medical condition is like issuing coverage for a house with a pre-existing fire. It doesn't make any sense, and no insurance company would do it in a free market.
"By the same token, forcing insurance companies to cover adults up to age 26 under their parents' policy is absurd. Republicans and Democrats both love to treat adults like children.
"If Republicans succeed in keeping these Obamacare policies, it will mean significantly higher insurance premiums for everyone, in order to subsidize the huge new expenses that insurance companies will be forced to pay."
The LP platform plank on health care states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."
Thursday, August 5, 2010
FRC Praises Senator Coburn's Senate Companion Bill to Remove Abortion from Obama Health Care Law
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council praised legislation introduced today by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would apply the Hyde amendment abortion funding restriction to the new health care law which currently can fund and subsidize abortion.
The new health care law sends tax credits to pay for plans with abortion, thereby bypassing the annual Hyde amendment, and directly spends federal dollars on programs without any abortion funding restrictions. The "Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act of 2010" would, like U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts's measure in the House of Representatives, restore the historic ban on federal funding of abortion in health care.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's new health care law destroys the traditional provision against federal funding for abortion. I applaud Sen. Coburn for introducing legislation that would put in place an abortion funding ban within the President's new health care plan. The American people, regardless of their view of the underlying issue, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. Sen. Coburn's bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the longtime prohibition against government funding of elective abortion.
"On Tuesday, Missouri voters stated emphatically their opposition to the individual mandate within the health care law. The outrage of voters spread even further after the Health and Human Services Department recently agreed to fund abortion in several state high risk insurance pool programs. HHS reversed course only after its approval of abortion funding was exposed, demonstrating that current law does not prevent abortion funding.
"Passing Sen. Coburn's bill is the only way to restore the status quo on abortion funding in health care. If the Obama Administration is honest when it says it will not fund abortion, then the Coburn/Pitts measures should be passed with resounding support," concluded Perkins.
The new health care law sends tax credits to pay for plans with abortion, thereby bypassing the annual Hyde amendment, and directly spends federal dollars on programs without any abortion funding restrictions. The "Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act of 2010" would, like U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts's measure in the House of Representatives, restore the historic ban on federal funding of abortion in health care.
Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"President Obama's new health care law destroys the traditional provision against federal funding for abortion. I applaud Sen. Coburn for introducing legislation that would put in place an abortion funding ban within the President's new health care plan. The American people, regardless of their view of the underlying issue, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. Sen. Coburn's bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the longtime prohibition against government funding of elective abortion.
"On Tuesday, Missouri voters stated emphatically their opposition to the individual mandate within the health care law. The outrage of voters spread even further after the Health and Human Services Department recently agreed to fund abortion in several state high risk insurance pool programs. HHS reversed course only after its approval of abortion funding was exposed, demonstrating that current law does not prevent abortion funding.
"Passing Sen. Coburn's bill is the only way to restore the status quo on abortion funding in health care. If the Obama Administration is honest when it says it will not fund abortion, then the Coburn/Pitts measures should be passed with resounding support," concluded Perkins.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
FRC Action: Donald Berwick's Views on Rationing Will Undermine U.S. Health Care System
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the White House announced that Donald Berwick will be appointed to serve as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dr. Berwick is the President and CEO of the Institute for Health Care Improvement. He will play an instrumental role in implementing the recently-enacted health care overhaul law.
FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky released the following statement regarding the President's choice:
"Donald Berwick is another example of President Obama's extreme liberal agenda, and only the latest in President Obama's numerous missteps related to health care in America.
"Donald Berwick has stated himself that England's socialized medical services are better than those in the United States, and has said that 'any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.'
"Another quote from just last year shows how Dr. Berwick makes very clear his view of the government's role in health care. He stated in an interview that '[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'
"Americans should keep their eyes open to guard their health from Donald Berwick's extreme view of medicine. He will only bring America's high standards for health care services down, and hurt Americans through rationing and lower standards of medical treatment."
FRC Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky released the following statement regarding the President's choice:
"Donald Berwick is another example of President Obama's extreme liberal agenda, and only the latest in President Obama's numerous missteps related to health care in America.
"Donald Berwick has stated himself that England's socialized medical services are better than those in the United States, and has said that 'any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional.'
"Another quote from just last year shows how Dr. Berwick makes very clear his view of the government's role in health care. He stated in an interview that '[t]he decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.'
"Americans should keep their eyes open to guard their health from Donald Berwick's extreme view of medicine. He will only bring America's high standards for health care services down, and hurt Americans through rationing and lower standards of medical treatment."
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Small Business Employees Won't Be Able Keep the Health Coverage They Currently Have
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) issued the following statement regarding new regulations from the Obama Administration that outline how existing health plans will be forced to change under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and how this impacts health coverage for small businesses:
"Basic common sense made clear that ObamaCare would present major cost problems and lost insurance coverage and choices for small businesses and their employees. While the President and his supporters denied or ignored these facts during the debate over health care legislation, now internal administration documents confirm reality. Up to 80% of all small businesses may be forced to switch health care plans in order to conform to government requirements. This is staggering, and we anticipate that the costs of these plans will be much higher given the vast array of new requirements that are required by the new health care law.
"The bottom line is clear and was predictable during the debate over ObamaCare: Insurance costs will rise for small businesses, innovative choices will be eliminated, and many individuals will lose their employer-based coverage. That's the economic reality, which flies directly in the face of what President Obama and congressional leaders promised."
The SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group that works to protect small business and promote entrepreneurship. For more information, please visit: www.sbecouncil.org.
"Basic common sense made clear that ObamaCare would present major cost problems and lost insurance coverage and choices for small businesses and their employees. While the President and his supporters denied or ignored these facts during the debate over health care legislation, now internal administration documents confirm reality. Up to 80% of all small businesses may be forced to switch health care plans in order to conform to government requirements. This is staggering, and we anticipate that the costs of these plans will be much higher given the vast array of new requirements that are required by the new health care law.
"The bottom line is clear and was predictable during the debate over ObamaCare: Insurance costs will rise for small businesses, innovative choices will be eliminated, and many individuals will lose their employer-based coverage. That's the economic reality, which flies directly in the face of what President Obama and congressional leaders promised."
The SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group that works to protect small business and promote entrepreneurship. For more information, please visit: www.sbecouncil.org.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
U.S. Citizens Association Files Suit to Overturn Health Care Law
/PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Citizens Association, an Ohio-based conservative organization, with over 23,000 members, has filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Akron, Ohio to repeal the Health Care Bill signed into law in March.
The U.S. Citizens Association has assembled a team of Constitutional litigators to launch a full-scale legal war against the Obama administration's health insurance reform legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. Citizens' Association is a non-profit corporation civic league with offices in Akron, Ohio. The Executive Director is Lance Davis. It has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to "not associate" with anybody they choose not to, including health insurers and their agents.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that under several amendments of the Constitution their members have a right to privacy that will be lost when they are forced to divulge confidential medical information, possibly including data derived from blood, urine and DNA samples, physical examinations, listing past or current illnesses, diseases and daily medications as applicants for mandated health insurance coverage.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law forces members who do not have health insurance nor ever want it to purchase with after- tax dollars, an unwanted product - health insurance. Members' personal liberty right, that is, the right to choose to buy or not buy health insurance is being deprived.
The U.S. Citizens Association uninsured members who have never engaged in interstate commerce involving health insurance, are being wrongfully compelled by federal law to purchase unwanted health insurance due to the wrongful application of the federal interstate commerce clause.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.
The lawyers selected to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams is known for his extensive work in commercial litigation and oil and gas law. Mr. Grossack is known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias and is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer. He is also known as a strong advocate for the rights of unrepresented parties in court. Mr. Emord is active in constitutional litigation with regard to the First Amendment, the Food and Drug Administration, deceptive advertising and libel, plus he is the author of numerous publications.
The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system. It includes, as part of its mission, challenging violations of the Constitution by elected public government officials that threaten the federal republic created by the U.S. Constitution.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
The U.S. Citizens Association has assembled a team of Constitutional litigators to launch a full-scale legal war against the Obama administration's health insurance reform legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The U.S. Citizens' Association is a non-profit corporation civic league with offices in Akron, Ohio. The Executive Director is Lance Davis. It has hired three law firms to make the case in Federal Court that the new law violates protections afforded by the Bill of Rights to Americans.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the First Amendment guarantees their members the right to "not associate" with anybody they choose not to, including health insurers and their agents.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that under several amendments of the Constitution their members have a right to privacy that will be lost when they are forced to divulge confidential medical information, possibly including data derived from blood, urine and DNA samples, physical examinations, listing past or current illnesses, diseases and daily medications as applicants for mandated health insurance coverage.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law forces members who do not have health insurance nor ever want it to purchase with after- tax dollars, an unwanted product - health insurance. Members' personal liberty right, that is, the right to choose to buy or not buy health insurance is being deprived.
The U.S. Citizens Association uninsured members who have never engaged in interstate commerce involving health insurance, are being wrongfully compelled by federal law to purchase unwanted health insurance due to the wrongful application of the federal interstate commerce clause.
The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.
The lawyers selected to handle the history-making lawsuit include William G. Williams of Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co., L.P.A., in Canton, Ohio; Jonathan Emord of Emord & Associates in Washington, D.C.; and David C. Grossack of Newton, Massachusetts.
Mr. Williams is known for his extensive work in commercial litigation and oil and gas law. Mr. Grossack is known for bringing an action against the Trial Court of Massachusetts for gender bias and is also the author of the book How to Win a Lawsuit Without A Lawyer. He is also known as a strong advocate for the rights of unrepresented parties in court. Mr. Emord is active in constitutional litigation with regard to the First Amendment, the Food and Drug Administration, deceptive advertising and libel, plus he is the author of numerous publications.
The U.S. Citizens Association is devoted to protecting individual liberties and promoting conservative values, fiscal responsibility, and the American private enterprise economic system. It includes, as part of its mission, challenging violations of the Constitution by elected public government officials that threaten the federal republic created by the U.S. Constitution.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Hospice Advocates to Congress: Protect Access to Compassionate & High-Quality End of-Life Care
/PRNewswire/ -- Today 450 Hospice Advocates from across the country took part in the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization's (NHPCO) Capitol Hill Day 2010 by meeting with their U.S. Senators and Representatives on Capitol Hill and encouraging policy makers to preserve and protect access to compassionate, high-quality end-of-life care for all Americans.
Thousands of additional Hospice Advocates participated in NHPCO's Virtual Hill Day 2010 from their home communities by making phone calls and sending emails to their Members of Congress that furthered echoed the hospice community's message. NHPCO Hill Day and Virtual Hill Day participants emphasized the value of hospice in their communities and reacquainted Congress with the unique structure of the Medicare Hospice Benefit.
"In the aftermath of health care reform, NHPCO's Capitol Hill Day 2010 was just the beginning of our efforts this year to educate Members of Congress on the hospice community's value and uniqueness as compared with other health care provider groups. Over 1.4 million patients and their families depend on compassionate end-of-life care from hospice programs in communities throughout the country," said J. Donald Schumacher, NHPCO president and CEO. "It is important that Congress know the importance of hospice to their constituents so they can take an active role in preserving compassionate end-of-life care for generations to come."
Over the past two years, the hospice community has been facing rate cuts on two fronts -- regulatory cuts enacted in October 2009 that eliminated a key component of the Medicare hospice reimbursement known as the Budget Neutrality Adjustment Factor (BNAF) and more recently, cuts slated to be implemented in 2013 as a result of the health care reform bill passed last month. This year, Hospice Advocates are working together to educate policy makers on how the hospice community will be impacted by the combined 14.3% reductions.
"Two cuts are too much for the hospice community," Schumacher added. "If these cuts stay in place, services will be reduced, programs will suffer, and the dying won't get the care they need."
At the Hill Day kickoff pep rally, NHPCO demonstrated its on-going commitment to engage and rally Hospice Advocates nationwide to educate their Members of Congress about the hospice community. The program started with rousing words of encouragement and support from Congressional hospice champions, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR.) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-3rd-OR.). This year, Virtual Hill Day participants were able to watch the remarks live over the Web while simultaneously tweeting and Facebook chatting to each other and NHPCO staff in attendance.
The organization also unveiled the rebrand of its lobbying affiliate, The Alliance for Care at the End of Life (ACEOL). The ACEOL is now doing business as NHPCO's Hospice Action Network - the name originally coined for its interactive, online community earlier this year. Through social media resources such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the Hospice Action Network has already developed an ever-growing online advocate base of over [X] people from all over the country. In tandem with traditional outreach methods, these Hospice Advocates are using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to interact with each other, educate the general public and policy makers about the impact of health policy on hospices in their communities.
"We are very excited about the rebrand of our lobbying affiliate. The Hospice Action Network will have all of the strengths of the Alliance, but will also allow us to use innovative and interactive strategies to grow our advocate ranks nationwide. This new identity will allow our Hospice Advocacy efforts to evolve into a national grassroots movement. The Hospice Action Network will not only support professional lobbying on Capitol Hill, but also serve to enhance the important advocacy work that hospice providers are doing in the trenches back home," Schumacher said.
Thousands of additional Hospice Advocates participated in NHPCO's Virtual Hill Day 2010 from their home communities by making phone calls and sending emails to their Members of Congress that furthered echoed the hospice community's message. NHPCO Hill Day and Virtual Hill Day participants emphasized the value of hospice in their communities and reacquainted Congress with the unique structure of the Medicare Hospice Benefit.
"In the aftermath of health care reform, NHPCO's Capitol Hill Day 2010 was just the beginning of our efforts this year to educate Members of Congress on the hospice community's value and uniqueness as compared with other health care provider groups. Over 1.4 million patients and their families depend on compassionate end-of-life care from hospice programs in communities throughout the country," said J. Donald Schumacher, NHPCO president and CEO. "It is important that Congress know the importance of hospice to their constituents so they can take an active role in preserving compassionate end-of-life care for generations to come."
Over the past two years, the hospice community has been facing rate cuts on two fronts -- regulatory cuts enacted in October 2009 that eliminated a key component of the Medicare hospice reimbursement known as the Budget Neutrality Adjustment Factor (BNAF) and more recently, cuts slated to be implemented in 2013 as a result of the health care reform bill passed last month. This year, Hospice Advocates are working together to educate policy makers on how the hospice community will be impacted by the combined 14.3% reductions.
"Two cuts are too much for the hospice community," Schumacher added. "If these cuts stay in place, services will be reduced, programs will suffer, and the dying won't get the care they need."
At the Hill Day kickoff pep rally, NHPCO demonstrated its on-going commitment to engage and rally Hospice Advocates nationwide to educate their Members of Congress about the hospice community. The program started with rousing words of encouragement and support from Congressional hospice champions, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR.) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-3rd-OR.). This year, Virtual Hill Day participants were able to watch the remarks live over the Web while simultaneously tweeting and Facebook chatting to each other and NHPCO staff in attendance.
The organization also unveiled the rebrand of its lobbying affiliate, The Alliance for Care at the End of Life (ACEOL). The ACEOL is now doing business as NHPCO's Hospice Action Network - the name originally coined for its interactive, online community earlier this year. Through social media resources such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the Hospice Action Network has already developed an ever-growing online advocate base of over [X] people from all over the country. In tandem with traditional outreach methods, these Hospice Advocates are using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to interact with each other, educate the general public and policy makers about the impact of health policy on hospices in their communities.
"We are very excited about the rebrand of our lobbying affiliate. The Hospice Action Network will have all of the strengths of the Alliance, but will also allow us to use innovative and interactive strategies to grow our advocate ranks nationwide. This new identity will allow our Hospice Advocacy efforts to evolve into a national grassroots movement. The Hospice Action Network will not only support professional lobbying on Capitol Hill, but also serve to enhance the important advocacy work that hospice providers are doing in the trenches back home," Schumacher said.
Friday, April 9, 2010
FRC Action Statement on Congressman Bart Stupak's Retirement
/PRNewswire/ -- Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments following the retirement announcement of Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.):
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
"For two decades Rep. Bart Stupak stood firm for the pro-life cause. It is a shame that he will leave Congress remembered more for his vote on the Obama health care bill, the largest abortion promoting piece of legislation in the last 30 years.
"Rep. Stupak's fall lies directly at the feet of the Democratic congressional leadership and President Obama, who pushed their support of government funding of abortion over the principles of pro-life Members of their own party. Although Rep. Stupak certainly is responsible for the decision he made to endorse the Obama plan, the severe demands his President and Party placed on him were untoward and unremitting.
"FRC Action will continue to work with pro-life Members of both parties to protect the mothers and unborn children targeted by President Obama's health care overhaul."
Friday, March 12, 2010
Will Patient Privacy Be Sold for Stimulus Money?
/PRNewswire/ -- The key to enforcing healthcare reform was already passed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the Stimulus Bill. This contains $17 billion to encourage physicians and hospitals to adopt electronic health records.
Doctors might not take the bribe. An informal online survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) so far shows that 90 percent of more than 1,100 respondents answer "No" to the question "Should doctors take the 'Stimulus' money to computerize their offices?" See www.aapsonline.org.
To get the subsidy of up to $65,000 over 5 years, doctors have to use a government-approved system. Such a system must be "interoperable" -- which means able to share patients' private information with more than 600,000 different entities.
No patient consent is needed.
Doctors are warned: "If you take the stimulus money to computerize your office, the government will own your patients' medical records -- and possibly your practice," states Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS.
The system will have to be capable of generating lists of patients by specific conditions, to use for "quality improvement," reduction of disparities, research, and outreach. It will have to contain decision rules as for ordering diagnostic tests, and a way to track compliance with the rules. Doctors' pay will be tied to achieving the government's desired outcomes.
The government's purposes include cutting spending and meeting population health goals. The doctor's calling, in contrast, has traditionally been to serve each individual patient.
Changing from a sickness to a wellness orientation means that healthy young workers (taxpayers and voters) have a priority higher than older, sicker folks.
Under the Senate healthcare reform bill, a computer will determine, at the point of service, whether or not an individual is eligible to receive a specific service at a specific facility. The interoperable health record would contain information such as ethnicity, race, preferred language, smoking status, weight, body mass index, age, and compliance with past treatment, related to patient worthiness and societal goals.
"Interoperability" is what the $17 billion buys for the government. It's essential for central government monitoring and control of doctors -- and their patients.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Doctors might not take the bribe. An informal online survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) so far shows that 90 percent of more than 1,100 respondents answer "No" to the question "Should doctors take the 'Stimulus' money to computerize their offices?" See www.aapsonline.org.
To get the subsidy of up to $65,000 over 5 years, doctors have to use a government-approved system. Such a system must be "interoperable" -- which means able to share patients' private information with more than 600,000 different entities.
No patient consent is needed.
Doctors are warned: "If you take the stimulus money to computerize your office, the government will own your patients' medical records -- and possibly your practice," states Jane M. Orient, M.D., executive director of AAPS.
The system will have to be capable of generating lists of patients by specific conditions, to use for "quality improvement," reduction of disparities, research, and outreach. It will have to contain decision rules as for ordering diagnostic tests, and a way to track compliance with the rules. Doctors' pay will be tied to achieving the government's desired outcomes.
The government's purposes include cutting spending and meeting population health goals. The doctor's calling, in contrast, has traditionally been to serve each individual patient.
Changing from a sickness to a wellness orientation means that healthy young workers (taxpayers and voters) have a priority higher than older, sicker folks.
Under the Senate healthcare reform bill, a computer will determine, at the point of service, whether or not an individual is eligible to receive a specific service at a specific facility. The interoperable health record would contain information such as ethnicity, race, preferred language, smoking status, weight, body mass index, age, and compliance with past treatment, related to patient worthiness and societal goals.
"Interoperability" is what the $17 billion buys for the government. It's essential for central government monitoring and control of doctors -- and their patients.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Americans More Favorable of President's Plans for Health Care, Economy and Foreign Policy after Viewing State of the Union Address
/PRNewswire/ -- Results of a national study among 1,050 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that favorability for the President's plans for health care, the economy, and foreign policy increased among all political parties after viewing President Obama's State of the Union Address.
HCD Research conducted the study using its mediacurves.com website earlier last evening to obtain Americans' "level of favorability" regarding the president's plans for critical issues including the U.S. economy, health care and foreign policy. To view detailed results go to www.mediacurves.com.
After the speech, President Obama's likeability ratings increased among all parties, with Democrats giving him an average likeability score of 6.2; Republicans giving him an average likeability score of 4.0; and Independents giving him an average likeability score of 5.1. In addition, the percentage of respondents who indicated that they would vote for Barack Obama if he ran for a second term increased among all parties.
HCD Research conducted the study using its mediacurves.com website earlier last evening to obtain Americans' "level of favorability" regarding the president's plans for critical issues including the U.S. economy, health care and foreign policy. To view detailed results go to www.mediacurves.com.
After the speech, President Obama's likeability ratings increased among all parties, with Democrats giving him an average likeability score of 6.2; Republicans giving him an average likeability score of 4.0; and Independents giving him an average likeability score of 5.1. In addition, the percentage of respondents who indicated that they would vote for Barack Obama if he ran for a second term increased among all parties.
Among the findings:
Are you in favor of President Barack Obama's plans for the future on
the following issues?
BEFORE ADDRESS Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Health Care 75% 25% 10% 90% 41% 59%
U.S. Economy 80% 20% 13% 87% 45% 55%
Foreign Policy 75% 25% 24% 76% 47% 53%
AFTER ADDRESS Democrats Republicans Independents
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Health Care 83% 17% 18% 82% 47% 53%
U.S. Economy 90% 10% 27% 73% 58% 42%
Foreign Policy 87% 13% 29% 71% 57% 43%
Would you vote for Barack Obama if he ran for a second term as President?
Democrats Republicans Independents
Before After Before After Before After
Yes 77% 86% 9% 14% 43% 52%
No 23% 14% 91% 86% 57% 48%
Please rate President Barack Obama on the following attributes where 1
represents "Not at all strong in this attribute" and 7 represents
"Extremely strong in this attribute."
LIKEABILITY Mean Before Mean After
Democrats 5.9 6.2
Republicans 3.9 4.0
Independents 5.0 5.1
-----
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Attorney General Corbett urges Congress to Strike Nebraska Provision from Health Care Legislation or Face Potential Legal Challenge
/PRNewswire/ -- Attorney General Tom Corbett has joined 11 of his fellow attorneys general urging the leaders of Congress to delete the Nebraska provision from the pending federal health care legislation. The provision grants Nebraska a permanent exemption from paying Medicaid expenses that all other states, including Pennsylvania, are required to pay.
Corbett and his colleagues sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging them to remove the Nebraska provision from the health-care overhaul bill or face legal action.
In the letter Corbett said, "The provision violates the most basic and universally held notions of fairness, and is inconsistent with protections against arbitrary legislation afforded by the Constitution."
Corbett, who last week began conducting a legal analysis of the constitutionality of the Nebraska amendment in the health care legislation, said he believes the provision is constitutionally flawed.
Corbett said that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson secured this special provision for Nebraska in exchange for his support of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
"The result of the Nebraska provision could have dire financial consequences for Pennsylvania taxpayers, forcing them to help offset the cost of Nebraska's Medicaid recipients," Corbett said. "The issue of equity and tax fairness should not be ignored, whether it is at the local, state or federal level."
Corbett noted that Medicaid expenses for Pennsylvania already total approximately $15 billion per year.
Corbett said he will continue to work with his colleagues across the country to explore all legal options challenging this provision if it is signed into law.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Corbett and his colleagues sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging them to remove the Nebraska provision from the health-care overhaul bill or face legal action.
In the letter Corbett said, "The provision violates the most basic and universally held notions of fairness, and is inconsistent with protections against arbitrary legislation afforded by the Constitution."
Corbett, who last week began conducting a legal analysis of the constitutionality of the Nebraska amendment in the health care legislation, said he believes the provision is constitutionally flawed.
Corbett said that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson secured this special provision for Nebraska in exchange for his support of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
"The result of the Nebraska provision could have dire financial consequences for Pennsylvania taxpayers, forcing them to help offset the cost of Nebraska's Medicaid recipients," Corbett said. "The issue of equity and tax fairness should not be ignored, whether it is at the local, state or federal level."
Corbett noted that Medicaid expenses for Pennsylvania already total approximately $15 billion per year.
Corbett said he will continue to work with his colleagues across the country to explore all legal options challenging this provision if it is signed into law.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, December 24, 2009
A Promise to Keep. Senate Vote is the First Step Toward the Promise of Quality, Affordable Health Care for All
/PRNewswire/ -- Today's passage of health care reform in the U.S. Senate is one historic step toward fulfilling what will one day be a promise we will make to every person living in this country: If you are sick, we will care for you. You will be able to afford coverage and insurance companies will not run roughshod over you.
USAction Executive Director Jeff Blum said other steps will include final passage after conference committee, effective implementation in the years to come and beginning work on new federal and state policies to make further progress toward affordable and accessible health care coverage for everyone.
"Right now we are focusing on improving the bill in conference committee by making good health care affordable and by holding insurance companies accountable," Blum said. "But make no mistake: This is, by far, the farthest we have ever come as a nation toward providing quality, affordable health care for all."
As House and Senate negotiators prepare to meet, Blum said USAction is calling on legislators to make the following improvements in the final legislation:
Make good health care more affordable:
-- Require employers to contribute to the cost of employee coverage.
-- Pay for health care reform through progressive financing - i.e., a tax
on the very wealthiest Americans and not by imposing a tax on costlier
health plans with many older and female workers, and full family
coverage.
-- Make coverage more affordable in the insurance exchange to ensure that
low- and moderate-income families can afford health insurance
coverage.
Hold insurance companies accountable:
-- Create a publicly-accountable health insurance option on day one
across the United States.
-- Establish strong insurance regulations in all markets and effective
implementation of coverage through federally operated exchanges.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
USAction Executive Director Jeff Blum said other steps will include final passage after conference committee, effective implementation in the years to come and beginning work on new federal and state policies to make further progress toward affordable and accessible health care coverage for everyone.
"Right now we are focusing on improving the bill in conference committee by making good health care affordable and by holding insurance companies accountable," Blum said. "But make no mistake: This is, by far, the farthest we have ever come as a nation toward providing quality, affordable health care for all."
As House and Senate negotiators prepare to meet, Blum said USAction is calling on legislators to make the following improvements in the final legislation:
Make good health care more affordable:
-- Require employers to contribute to the cost of employee coverage.
-- Pay for health care reform through progressive financing - i.e., a tax
on the very wealthiest Americans and not by imposing a tax on costlier
health plans with many older and female workers, and full family
coverage.
-- Make coverage more affordable in the insurance exchange to ensure that
low- and moderate-income families can afford health insurance
coverage.
Hold insurance companies accountable:
-- Create a publicly-accountable health insurance option on day one
across the United States.
-- Establish strong insurance regulations in all markets and effective
implementation of coverage through federally operated exchanges.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
FRC Statement on the Christmas Eve Passage of the Health Care 'Reform' Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- This morning the United States Senate voted 60-39 in favor of final passage of HR 3590, the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"Today's Christmas Eve vote may signal the end of the debate in the Senate, but it's far from the end of the debate at large. Since Senator Reid's bad bill is substantially different from the House's bad bill, the lower chamber will have to vote on the plan again. The Senate bill's massive funding for elective abortions and the construction of abortion facilities are among the most radical differences. On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview that the Senate health care bill will force 'everybody' in the exchange to pay an abortion premium. The so-called Nelson 'compromise' ensures that everyone will pay for abortion--no matter how the funds are divided up.
"According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Americans -- by a huge three to one margin -- are overwhelmingly opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Seventy-two percent of the country is now firmly on the side of Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) solution to ban the government's financial involvement in the deadly procedure. House and Senate conferees would do well to heed that warning when they come together to iron out their differences with the final bill, else this bill could collapse because of it.
"Disagreement over abortion funding is one of the many reasons this fight is far from over. Both House and Senate versions of the bill are seriously flawed. Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
AHIP Statement on Passage of Senate Health Care Reform Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), released the following statement today on passage of Senate health care reform legislation:
"Providing all Americans with health care coverage is crucial for the country. Health plans support legislative changes that would provide guaranteed access to all Americans, with no pre-existing condition limitations and no health-status-based premiums. These reforms are essential to giving all Americans greater peace of mind and health security.
"At the same time, specific provisions in this legislation will increase, rather than decrease, health care costs; reduce coverage options; and disrupt existing coverage for families, seniors and small businesses - particularly between now and when the legislation is fully implemented in 2014.
"These issues can and should be addressed if health care reform is going to fulfill the promise of providing all Americans with guaranteed access to affordable, portable health care coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Providing all Americans with health care coverage is crucial for the country. Health plans support legislative changes that would provide guaranteed access to all Americans, with no pre-existing condition limitations and no health-status-based premiums. These reforms are essential to giving all Americans greater peace of mind and health security.
"At the same time, specific provisions in this legislation will increase, rather than decrease, health care costs; reduce coverage options; and disrupt existing coverage for families, seniors and small businesses - particularly between now and when the legislation is fully implemented in 2014.
"These issues can and should be addressed if health care reform is going to fulfill the promise of providing all Americans with guaranteed access to affordable, portable health care coverage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
National Patient Advocate Foundation Encouraged by New Senate Health Care Reform Bill Provisions, Urges Additional Patient Protection Measures
National Patient Advocate Foundation Encouraged by New Senate Health Care Reform Bill Provisions, Urges Additional Patient Protection Measures in Final Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Patient Advocate Foundation (NPAF) - a national, non-profit organization dedicated to the mission of creating avenues of improved patient access to health care through public policy reform at the state and federal levels - today praised Senate leadership for their tireless work on historic health care reform, and encouraged lawmakers to continue their steadfast work on this important issue in the weeks to come.
"We are grateful for the impressive progress made in both chambers of Congress in advancing health care reform, and by our Senators' current dedication to working nearly around the clock in order to complete the votes required to pass reform legislation," said Nancy Davenport-Ennis, Founder and CEO of NPAF. "We urge all Senators to continue this positive momentum and vote in support of the health care bill on Christmas Eve, bringing us one step closer to enacting meaningful and comprehensive reform for all Americans."
NPAF is especially pleased with many provisions in the Senate bill manager's amendment that would greatly benefit patients with chronic, life-threatening and disabling conditions. These include the elimination of preexisting condition coverage exclusions for children under age 19; the prohibition of annual dollar limits on coverage; and the requirement of coverage for routine costs associated with clinical trials, championed by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
As the House and Senate look ahead to conferencing reform legislation, NPAF urges lawmakers to incorporate additional patient protection measures as they work together to finalize health care reform legislation to be sent to the President. Specifically, the following improvements are needed in order to effectively improve chronically and severely ill Americans' access to quality health care:
-- Apply insurance reforms, including the elimination of preexisting
condition exclusions, to all markets including large group and
self-insured;
-- Provide a transitional reduction in the preexisting condition
look-back and waiting periods (as in the House bill);
-- Eliminate lifetime and annual coverage limits, on both dollar value
and service/disease specific; and
-- Provide at least $2 billion a year to fund the high-risk pool for
high-risk patients, and limit age rating in the risk pool at 2 to 1.
"As we approach the holidays, we at NPAF and the millions of patients we serve in conjunction with our companion organization, the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), are thankful for our lawmakers' work to improve the quality of our health care system and their foresight in including policy provisions that will have a measurable impact on patients' access to necessary care," added Davenport-Ennis. "Our work must not stop here, and we will continue to look to our lawmakers throughout the holiday season and beyond to help us make certain that our nation succeeds in providing affordable, high-quality and effective health care for all."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Patient Advocate Foundation (NPAF) - a national, non-profit organization dedicated to the mission of creating avenues of improved patient access to health care through public policy reform at the state and federal levels - today praised Senate leadership for their tireless work on historic health care reform, and encouraged lawmakers to continue their steadfast work on this important issue in the weeks to come.
"We are grateful for the impressive progress made in both chambers of Congress in advancing health care reform, and by our Senators' current dedication to working nearly around the clock in order to complete the votes required to pass reform legislation," said Nancy Davenport-Ennis, Founder and CEO of NPAF. "We urge all Senators to continue this positive momentum and vote in support of the health care bill on Christmas Eve, bringing us one step closer to enacting meaningful and comprehensive reform for all Americans."
NPAF is especially pleased with many provisions in the Senate bill manager's amendment that would greatly benefit patients with chronic, life-threatening and disabling conditions. These include the elimination of preexisting condition coverage exclusions for children under age 19; the prohibition of annual dollar limits on coverage; and the requirement of coverage for routine costs associated with clinical trials, championed by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
As the House and Senate look ahead to conferencing reform legislation, NPAF urges lawmakers to incorporate additional patient protection measures as they work together to finalize health care reform legislation to be sent to the President. Specifically, the following improvements are needed in order to effectively improve chronically and severely ill Americans' access to quality health care:
-- Apply insurance reforms, including the elimination of preexisting
condition exclusions, to all markets including large group and
self-insured;
-- Provide a transitional reduction in the preexisting condition
look-back and waiting periods (as in the House bill);
-- Eliminate lifetime and annual coverage limits, on both dollar value
and service/disease specific; and
-- Provide at least $2 billion a year to fund the high-risk pool for
high-risk patients, and limit age rating in the risk pool at 2 to 1.
"As we approach the holidays, we at NPAF and the millions of patients we serve in conjunction with our companion organization, the Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), are thankful for our lawmakers' work to improve the quality of our health care system and their foresight in including policy provisions that will have a measurable impact on patients' access to necessary care," added Davenport-Ennis. "Our work must not stop here, and we will continue to look to our lawmakers throughout the holiday season and beyond to help us make certain that our nation succeeds in providing affordable, high-quality and effective health care for all."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Americans United for Life Action: 'Senate Health Care Bill Absolutely Fails To Meet Abortion and Life Protections.'
/PRNewswire/ -- Official statement of Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Charmaine Yoest:
"Majority Leader Reid's amendment to the Senate health care bill absolutely fails to meet abortion and life protections that exist in current federal law and policy. It does not prevent federal funding of plans that include abortion coverage, it does not adequately protect health care providers who choose to exercise their rights of conscience, and it does not prevent government involvement in assisted suicide. A vast majority of the American people are opposed to these policies and will make themselves heard loudly over the coming days."
- Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action
Americans United for Life's Legal Analysis of Life Concerns in Manager's Amendment:
From a preliminary analysis of Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment, it is clear that it is unacceptable and would be a radical departure from existing law and policy.
First, the amendment provides inadequate conscience protection, because it does not prohibit any government entity or program (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.
Second, the amendment fails to address our concerns that under the Mikulski amendment (already accepted in the underlying bill), the Health Resources and services Administration (HRSA) has the power to require private insurance plans to include abortion coverage under the guise of "preventive care."
Third, the amendment allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive government subsidies, which is a radical departure from existing law (which is not allowed under the Hyde Amendment and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).
Fourth, while the amendment allows states to "opt out" of allowing private plans that include abortion coverage to participate in their exchanges, this "opt out" provision makes abortion coverage normative. In other words, states will have to act to prevent subsidies from going to plans that cover abortions in their state, turning on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion.
Fifth, the amendment fails to ensure federal funds will not go to assisted suicide and fails to address concerns that Comparative Effectiveness Research will lead to rationing of essential medical care.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Majority Leader Reid's amendment to the Senate health care bill absolutely fails to meet abortion and life protections that exist in current federal law and policy. It does not prevent federal funding of plans that include abortion coverage, it does not adequately protect health care providers who choose to exercise their rights of conscience, and it does not prevent government involvement in assisted suicide. A vast majority of the American people are opposed to these policies and will make themselves heard loudly over the coming days."
- Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life Action
Americans United for Life's Legal Analysis of Life Concerns in Manager's Amendment:
From a preliminary analysis of Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment, it is clear that it is unacceptable and would be a radical departure from existing law and policy.
First, the amendment provides inadequate conscience protection, because it does not prohibit any government entity or program (federal, state, or local) from discriminating against health care providers that do not want to participate in abortions.
Second, the amendment fails to address our concerns that under the Mikulski amendment (already accepted in the underlying bill), the Health Resources and services Administration (HRSA) has the power to require private insurance plans to include abortion coverage under the guise of "preventive care."
Third, the amendment allows insurance plans that cover abortions to receive government subsidies, which is a radical departure from existing law (which is not allowed under the Hyde Amendment and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).
Fourth, while the amendment allows states to "opt out" of allowing private plans that include abortion coverage to participate in their exchanges, this "opt out" provision makes abortion coverage normative. In other words, states will have to act to prevent subsidies from going to plans that cover abortions in their state, turning on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion.
Fifth, the amendment fails to ensure federal funds will not go to assisted suicide and fails to address concerns that Comparative Effectiveness Research will lead to rationing of essential medical care.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
FRC Rejects Phony Abortion 'Compromise'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) released his long awaited "manager's amendment" with new language dealing with the abortion issue. The new language is being trumpeted as including an opt-out provision that actually makes the opt-out provision in the original bill worse by requiring the state to either cover all abortions or opt out of all abortions. This will make it difficult for states that currently include exceptions for life, rape, and incest. This so-called "compromise" language makes it more likely that these states will cover all abortions. Moreover, there is no individual opt-out ensuring that everyone in the plans would pay for other people's abortions. In contrast to the Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment, this new language undermines the principles of the Hyde Amendment.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say about the legislation:
"The Senate health care bill will set up the federal government as being brokers for the abortion industry. No Senator or organization can call themselves pro-life if they support such language.
"This so-called 'compromise' includes the accounting gimmicks that we have seen previously proposed. The new language also does nothing to protect individual consciences. Every purchaser of insurance will be forced to pay for other people's abortions in a more direct manner than ever before.
"The replacement of the public option resembles the current health plan for federal employees, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), with one notable exception, the FEHBP excludes plans that cover abortions while Senator Reid's bill would mandate abortion coverage.
"There are many reasons to reject the overall bill, including the cost to future generations while doing nothing to actually reform our health care system. This bill would now require government funds to pay for plans that cover elective abortion which is a direct violation of the principles set forth over thirty years ago with the Hyde Amendment. It's now very clear that this abortion funding bill should be thrown into the trash heap of bad ideas and misplaced priorities.
"I ask Senators Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) and Robert Casey (D-Penn.) to remember the promises they made to protect the most innocent among us and reject Senator Reid's bill by voting against any procedural motions on the legislation."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had this to say about the legislation:
"The Senate health care bill will set up the federal government as being brokers for the abortion industry. No Senator or organization can call themselves pro-life if they support such language.
"This so-called 'compromise' includes the accounting gimmicks that we have seen previously proposed. The new language also does nothing to protect individual consciences. Every purchaser of insurance will be forced to pay for other people's abortions in a more direct manner than ever before.
"The replacement of the public option resembles the current health plan for federal employees, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), with one notable exception, the FEHBP excludes plans that cover abortions while Senator Reid's bill would mandate abortion coverage.
"There are many reasons to reject the overall bill, including the cost to future generations while doing nothing to actually reform our health care system. This bill would now require government funds to pay for plans that cover elective abortion which is a direct violation of the principles set forth over thirty years ago with the Hyde Amendment. It's now very clear that this abortion funding bill should be thrown into the trash heap of bad ideas and misplaced priorities.
"I ask Senators Ben Nelson (D-Nebr.) and Robert Casey (D-Penn.) to remember the promises they made to protect the most innocent among us and reject Senator Reid's bill by voting against any procedural motions on the legislation."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Friday, December 18, 2009
'Abortion Compromise' Does Not Address Core Problem In Senate Health Bill, Says Cardinal DiNardo, Bishops' Pro-Life Chair
/PRNewswire/ -- Responding to reports of a new "compromise" proposal on abortion in the U.S. Senate's health care reform bill, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo today reaffirmed the position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that the legislation will be morally unacceptable "unless and until" it complies with longstanding current laws on abortion funding such as the Hyde amendment. Cardinal DiNardo is Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and Chairman of the Conference's Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
The Cardinal commented on efforts by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) to improve the Senate bill's treatment of abortion.
"Senator Casey's good-faith effort to allow individuals to 'opt out' of abortion coverage actually underscores how radically the underlying Senate bill would change abortion policy. Excluding elective abortions from overall health plans is not a privilege that individuals should have to seek as the exception to the norm. In all other federal health programs, excluding abortion coverage is the norm. And numerous opinion polls show that the great majority of Americans do not want abortion coverage."
"I welcome Senator Casey's good-faith effort to improve this bill," said Cardinal DiNardo. "In particular he has sought to improve protection for conscience rights, and to include programs of support for pregnant women and adoptive parents that we favor in their own right. However, these improvements do not change the fundamental problem with the Senate bill: Despite repeated claims to the contrary, it does not comply with longstanding Hyde restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions and health plans that include them."
Cardinal DiNardo had written to the Senate on December 14, saying that "the Catholic bishops of the United States strongly support authentic reform of our ailing health care system." His letter cited "three moral criteria for reform: respect for life and conscience; affordability for the poor; and access to much-needed basic health care for immigrants," noting that so far the Senate bill "has fallen short of the example set by the House version of this legislation in each of these areas."
On abortion funding, the Cardinal urged the Senate to "incorporate into this bill the longstanding and widely supported policies of current law, acknowledged and reaffirmed by the Senate itself" when it approved the Consolidated Appropriations Act for the new fiscal year on December 13. This Act reaffirmed the Hyde amendment and other laws that exclude elective abortions from health plans receiving federal funds -- including the plans that cover the Senators themselves and all other federal employees. The Senate so far has failed to reflect this same policy in its health care bill as the House has done, he said [see www.usccb.org/healthcare/DiNardo_1214_letter.pdf].
Cardinal DiNardo said December 18: "We continue to oppose and urge others to oppose the Senate bill unless and until this fundamental failure is remedied. And whatever the immediate outcome in the Senate, we will continue to work for health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. As the bishops have said many times, 'providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good, moral imperative and urgent national priority.' In particular we will work vigorously to ensure that the substance of the House's provision on abortion funding is included in final legislation. A special debt of gratitude is owed to House and Senate members, especially Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who have placed their votes and reputation on the line to stand up for unborn children. Making this legislation consistent with longstanding federal law on abortion will not threaten needed authentic reform, but will help ensure its passage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Cardinal commented on efforts by Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) to improve the Senate bill's treatment of abortion.
"Senator Casey's good-faith effort to allow individuals to 'opt out' of abortion coverage actually underscores how radically the underlying Senate bill would change abortion policy. Excluding elective abortions from overall health plans is not a privilege that individuals should have to seek as the exception to the norm. In all other federal health programs, excluding abortion coverage is the norm. And numerous opinion polls show that the great majority of Americans do not want abortion coverage."
"I welcome Senator Casey's good-faith effort to improve this bill," said Cardinal DiNardo. "In particular he has sought to improve protection for conscience rights, and to include programs of support for pregnant women and adoptive parents that we favor in their own right. However, these improvements do not change the fundamental problem with the Senate bill: Despite repeated claims to the contrary, it does not comply with longstanding Hyde restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions and health plans that include them."
Cardinal DiNardo had written to the Senate on December 14, saying that "the Catholic bishops of the United States strongly support authentic reform of our ailing health care system." His letter cited "three moral criteria for reform: respect for life and conscience; affordability for the poor; and access to much-needed basic health care for immigrants," noting that so far the Senate bill "has fallen short of the example set by the House version of this legislation in each of these areas."
On abortion funding, the Cardinal urged the Senate to "incorporate into this bill the longstanding and widely supported policies of current law, acknowledged and reaffirmed by the Senate itself" when it approved the Consolidated Appropriations Act for the new fiscal year on December 13. This Act reaffirmed the Hyde amendment and other laws that exclude elective abortions from health plans receiving federal funds -- including the plans that cover the Senators themselves and all other federal employees. The Senate so far has failed to reflect this same policy in its health care bill as the House has done, he said [see www.usccb.org/healthcare/DiNardo_1214_letter.pdf].
Cardinal DiNardo said December 18: "We continue to oppose and urge others to oppose the Senate bill unless and until this fundamental failure is remedied. And whatever the immediate outcome in the Senate, we will continue to work for health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. As the bishops have said many times, 'providing affordable and accessible health care that clearly reflects these fundamental principles is a public good, moral imperative and urgent national priority.' In particular we will work vigorously to ensure that the substance of the House's provision on abortion funding is included in final legislation. A special debt of gratitude is owed to House and Senate members, especially Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who have placed their votes and reputation on the line to stand up for unborn children. Making this legislation consistent with longstanding federal law on abortion will not threaten needed authentic reform, but will help ensure its passage."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Physician Groups Oppose Current Senate Health Care Reform Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, a group of national medical societies launched a multi-state advertising campaign in opposition to H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate and making its way towards a final vote in the coming days. The groups are targeting key states, urging Senators to vote against a health care bill that is "bad medicine" for patients.
"Physicians know first hand that our health care system needs reform - but the current Senate health care bill is 'bad medicine' for patients," said Troy M. Tippett, M.D., President of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. "The Senate bill inappropriately expands the role of the federal government in health care decision making, and undermines the doctor-patient relationship that is critical to a health care delivery system that works for patients."
"While we are united in our desire to improve health care and extend coverage, the current Senate bill is not the cure to what ails our health care system. It jeopardizes patient access to the physician of their choice," said Joseph D. Zuckerman, M.D., President of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons. "We urge the Senate to take a step back, and make essential changes to this bill before a rush to reform leads to a bad outcome for patients across the country."
Physician organizations supporting this initiative include: the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, American Society of Breast Surgeons, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Arthroscopy Association of North America, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, National Association of Spine Specialists, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America.
Dozens of other medical groups, representing hundreds of thousands of physicians, are also on record opposing the current Senate health care reform bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Physicians know first hand that our health care system needs reform - but the current Senate health care bill is 'bad medicine' for patients," said Troy M. Tippett, M.D., President of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. "The Senate bill inappropriately expands the role of the federal government in health care decision making, and undermines the doctor-patient relationship that is critical to a health care delivery system that works for patients."
"While we are united in our desire to improve health care and extend coverage, the current Senate bill is not the cure to what ails our health care system. It jeopardizes patient access to the physician of their choice," said Joseph D. Zuckerman, M.D., President of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons. "We urge the Senate to take a step back, and make essential changes to this bill before a rush to reform leads to a bad outcome for patients across the country."
Physician organizations supporting this initiative include: the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, American Society of Breast Surgeons, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Arthroscopy Association of North America, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, National Association of Spine Specialists, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America.
Dozens of other medical groups, representing hundreds of thousands of physicians, are also on record opposing the current Senate health care reform bill.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Biting the Hand That Heals
/24-7/ The nation's health care system is a popular topic of discussion, and the hot-button issue within is the idea that an abundance of medical lawsuits are responsible for the increase in health care costs.
It's a dilemma - while preventable medical errors are a leading cause of injury and death, and many wronged patients never gain reparations - too many devoted physicians live and work in fear of the consequences they may face due to false claims made against them.
Enter Tort Reform
Tort reform would make it more difficult to sue doctors and obtain large judgments, usually by putting a cap on the amount a plaintiff can receive in punitive damages, and would limit the liability damages of physicians and insurance companies. Missouri capped non-economic damages at $350,000 in 2005, which some doctors claim has prompted a welcome reduction in their insurance rates.
Defensive Medicine
Some argue that such reform would reduce the threat of liability that can drive doctors to prescribe costly tests and procedures, protecting them from lawsuits, even though the tests and procedures are often medically unnecessary. Studies show that this "defensive medicine" accounts for about 3 percent, or about $60 billion a year, of overall medical spending. Reliable studies also place the cost of malpractice litigation at just 2 percent of overall health care costs. But any discussion regarding reform should focus on reducing malpractice, not just reducing malpractice claims.
The Institute for Medicine estimates that more than 98,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of preventable medical errors. The reluctance of many hospitals and state governments to properly address and report these occurrences often results in patients seeking justice the only way possible-by going to court.
Moving Forward
The Obama administration has said it will provide grants of up to $3 million to states and health systems that investigate new ways of handling medical liability claims. "Tort reform's impact is significant-meaning we can measure it-but significant and small," says Leemore Dafny, who has been among the economic experts sharing recommendations with senior members of the Obama administration. She adds: "We've done some tests and it turns out that it's not going to be a huge fix."
Any attempt to make adjustments to the health care system structure would ideally strike a balance - as a patient's right to seek justice in court is diminished, the measures to prevent medical errors from occurring should be strengthened. Providers need incentives to offer cost-effective care, while patients need to trust that the judicial system will properly deal with providers who are negligent. While tort reform may not be the ultimate "silver bullet" solution, it opens up a discussion that requires the action to dig deeper and investigate further.
Article provided by Warner Law Offices PA
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
It's a dilemma - while preventable medical errors are a leading cause of injury and death, and many wronged patients never gain reparations - too many devoted physicians live and work in fear of the consequences they may face due to false claims made against them.
Enter Tort Reform
Tort reform would make it more difficult to sue doctors and obtain large judgments, usually by putting a cap on the amount a plaintiff can receive in punitive damages, and would limit the liability damages of physicians and insurance companies. Missouri capped non-economic damages at $350,000 in 2005, which some doctors claim has prompted a welcome reduction in their insurance rates.
Defensive Medicine
Some argue that such reform would reduce the threat of liability that can drive doctors to prescribe costly tests and procedures, protecting them from lawsuits, even though the tests and procedures are often medically unnecessary. Studies show that this "defensive medicine" accounts for about 3 percent, or about $60 billion a year, of overall medical spending. Reliable studies also place the cost of malpractice litigation at just 2 percent of overall health care costs. But any discussion regarding reform should focus on reducing malpractice, not just reducing malpractice claims.
The Institute for Medicine estimates that more than 98,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of preventable medical errors. The reluctance of many hospitals and state governments to properly address and report these occurrences often results in patients seeking justice the only way possible-by going to court.
Moving Forward
The Obama administration has said it will provide grants of up to $3 million to states and health systems that investigate new ways of handling medical liability claims. "Tort reform's impact is significant-meaning we can measure it-but significant and small," says Leemore Dafny, who has been among the economic experts sharing recommendations with senior members of the Obama administration. She adds: "We've done some tests and it turns out that it's not going to be a huge fix."
Any attempt to make adjustments to the health care system structure would ideally strike a balance - as a patient's right to seek justice in court is diminished, the measures to prevent medical errors from occurring should be strengthened. Providers need incentives to offer cost-effective care, while patients need to trust that the judicial system will properly deal with providers who are negligent. While tort reform may not be the ultimate "silver bullet" solution, it opens up a discussion that requires the action to dig deeper and investigate further.
Article provided by Warner Law Offices PA
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)