Republicans are attacking Democrats for cutting Medicare funding, when in fact, Democrats transferred $500 Billion in funds TO PEOPLE ON Medicare; which Republicans had previously given directly to pharmaceutical companies as subsidies, rather than to the people who needed those benefits.

They are also attacking Democrats for creating financial support for the sick in the recent Health Care Reform Act of 2009, which is expected to cost about $980 Billion, yet create SAVINGS of $130 Billion in the first decade and an additional $1.3 TRILLION in savings in the second decade.

You may also want to consider that the $500 Billion being transferred from pharmaceutical companies to PATIENTS is also INCLUDED in that $980 Billion in the Health Care Reform Act, so MORE THAN HALF of the bill's COST had ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY REPUBLICANS!   It had just been going directly to pharmaceutical companies rather than to patients!

Here is some basic information on what the Health Care Reform Act provides to PATIENTS:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-reform-bill-summary_n_508315.html#s75260

And here is some basic information on what Republicans in Congress have been doing to SLASH Medicare since 1991:

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912070007

The Republican Party's Medicare Hypocrisy

December 07, 2009 6:04 pm ET

While Democratic health care reform proposals bolster Medicare by virtually eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, Republicans rely on a false line of attack, insisting legislation would lead to benefit cuts.  Despite their hollow rhetoric, Republicans have a long track record of philosophically opposing Medicare and actively seeking to reduce its funding.

The GOP's shocking hypocrisy is laid out below: since 1991, Senate Republicans have voted to slash $1.31 trillion from Medicare while their Republican counterparts in the House voted to take over $1 trillion away from America's seniors.

     When the information recently became public, RNC Chair Michael Steele decided to change the policies, to "opt out" of the abortion coverage.  But contrary to Republican demands that any public healthcare option not do business with any insurance company that offers abortion coverage, they are continuing to do business with the same insurance company that STILL provides abortion coverage to their other customers.  Why do they continue to demand that the public, that they are supposed to represent, has to comply with restrictions that the Republican Party EXEMPTS THEMSELVES FROM?   

Republicans are attacking Democrats for cutting Medicare funding, when in fact, Democrats transferred $500 Billion in funds to PEOPLE ON Medicare; which Republicans had previously given directly to pharmaceutical companies as subsidies, rather than to the people who needed those benefits.

They are also attacking Democrats for creating financial support for the sick in the recent Health Care Reform Act of 2009, which is expected to cost about $980 Billion, yet create SAVINGS of $130 Billion in the first decade and an additional $1.3 TRILLION in savings in the second decade.

You may also want to consider that the $500 Billion being transferred from pharmaceutical companies to PATIENTS is also INCLUDED in that $980 Billion in the Health Care Reform Act, so MORE THAN HALF of the bill's COST had ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY REPUBLICANS!   It had just been going directly to pharmaceutical companies rather than to patients!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-reform-bill-summary_n_508315.html#s75260

The Huffington Post   |  Jeremy Binckes and Nick Wing First Posted: 03-22-10 03:30 PM   |   Updated: 03-22-10 07:17 PM  

In addition:

Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, a ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.

Businesses with fewer than 50 employees get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.

Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700.  As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.

The cut-off age for young adults to continue coverage under their parent’s health insurance rises to age 27.

Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have is banned.  Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.

A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions.  Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.

New plans must cover checkups and preventative care without co-pays.  All plans will be affected by 2018.

Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.

Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.

Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.

The indoor tanning services tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services.  This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, will be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.

New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.

Medicare payment projections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.

Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio – money spent on procedures over money incoming – of 85% or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.

Chain restaurants will be required to provide a “nutrient content disclosure statement” alongside their items.  Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.

The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55-64 in order to help reduce the often expensive cost of that coverage.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options.  The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.

A two-year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatment of diseases.

So, let’s look at the Republican Party’s record on this same issue:

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912070007

• Blog

• Fact Check

• Ad Check

• Health Care

• Foreign Policy Matters

• Video

• About Us

How Corporate America Is Pushing Us All Off a Cliff ...a letter from Michael Moore

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Friends,

When someone talks about pushing you off a cliff, it's just human nature to be curious about them. Who are these people, you wonder, and why would they want to do such a thing?

That's what I was thinking when corporate whistleblower Wendell Potter revealed that, when "Sicko" was being released in 2007, the health insurance industry's PR firm, APCO Worldwide, discussed their Plan B: "Pushing Michael Moore off a cliff."

But after looking into it, it turns out, it's nothing personal! APCO wants to push everyone off a cliff.

APCO was hatched in 1984 as a subsidiary of the Washington, D.C. law firm Arnold & Porter -- best known for its years of representing the giant tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris. APCO set up fake "grassroots" organizations around the country to do the bidding of Big Tobacco. All of a sudden, "normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-Philip Morris Americans" were popping up everywhere. And it turned out they were outraged -- outraged! -- by exactly the things APCO's clients hated (such as, the government telling tobacco companies what to do). In particular, they were "furious" that regular people had the right to sue big corporations...you know, like Philip Morris. (For details, see the 2000 report "The CALA Files" (PDF) by my friends and colleagues Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow.)

Right about now you may be wondering: how many Americans get pushed off a cliff by Big Tobacco every year? The answer is 443,000 Americans die every year due to smoking. That's a big cliff.

With this success under their belts, APCO created "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition." TASSC, funded partly by Exxon, had a leading role in a planned campaign by the fossil fuel industry to create doubt about global warming. The problem for Big Oil speaking out against global warming, according to the campaign's own leaked documents, was that the public could see the "vested interest" that oil companies had in opposing environmental laws. APCO's job was to help conceal those oil company interests.

And boy, have they ever succeeded. Polls now show that, as the world gets hotter, Americans are getting less and less worried about it.

How big is this particular cliff? According to the World Health Organization, climate change contributes -- right now -- to the deaths of 150,000 people every year. By 2030 it may be double that. And after that...well, the sky is literally the limit! I don't think it's crazy to say APCO may rack up even bigger numbers here than they have with tobacco.

With this track record, you can see why, when the health insurance industry wanted to come after "Sicko," they went straight to APCO. The "worst case," as their leaked documents say, was that "Sicko evolves into a sustained populist movement." That simply could not be allowed to happen. Something obviously had to be done.

As Wendell Potter explains, APCO ran their standard playbook, setting up something called "Health Care America." Health Care America, according to Potter, "was received by mainstream reporters, including the New York Times, as a legitimate organization when it was nothing but a front group set up by APCO Worldwide. It was not anything approaching what it was reporting to be: a 'grassroots organization.' It was a sham group."

Health Care America showed up online in 2007 (the year "Sicko" was released) and disappeared quickly by early 2008. You can still find their website archived here. As you'll see, their "moderated forum" allowed normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-the-insurance-industry Americans to speak out. For instance, here's something Nicole felt very strongly about:

"Moore shouldn't be allowed to call his film a 'documentary.' It should be called a political commercial. We need to fix our health care system, but we shouldn’t accept a Hollywood moviemaker’s political views as the starting point."

Here's what Wendell Potter revealed about the insurance industry's media strategy:

"As we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer to him as 'Hollywood entertainer' or 'Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore.' They don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth."

Thanks for your perspective, "Nicole"!

Now, how big was THAT cliff? A pretty good size -- according to a recent study, 45,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance.

And here we are in 2010. A lesser PR firm might be resting on its laurels at this point, content to sit back and watch hundreds of thousands of people continue to be pushed off the various cliffs they've built. But not APCO! Right now they've taken on their biggest challenge yet: leading a giant, multi-million dollar effort to help Wall Street "earn back the trust of the American people."

We may never know the size of this particular cliff. But we can be sure it's gigantic.

According to the New York Times, one of the things Wall Street's recession gave us is "the crippling of the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to Americans with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them." Internationally, organizations fighting AIDS and other diseases are "hugely afraid" of cutbacks in funding.

Of course, there are the 101 ways recessions kill quietly. For instance, children's hospitals are seeing a sharp 55% rise in the abuse of babies by parents.

And that's just the previous cliff. If APCO and its Wall Street co-conspirators lull us into turning our backs on them again, we can be sure the next cliff -- the next crash -- will be much bigger.

Anyway, this is all just a way for me to say to APCO: No hard feelings! My getting mad at you would be like a chicken who's still happily pecking away getting mad at McDonald's. Compared to the millions you've already turned into McNuggets, you've actually treated me much, much BETTER! Spying on my family, planting smears and lies about me, privately badgering movie critics to give the film a poor review, scaring Americans into believing they'd be committing a near-act of treason were they to go to the theater and see my movie -- hey, ya done good, health insurance companies of America. And, most important, you stopped the nation from getting true universal health care. Good job!

There's only one problem -- I'm not one of those "liberals" you fund in Congress, the ones who fear your power.

I'm me. And that, sadly, is not good for you.

Yours in good health,

Michael Moore

MMFlint@aol.com

MichaelMoore.com

P.S. It seems to me that APCO's discussion of pushing me off a cliff should legitimately be part of their Wikipedia page. And why not something about their role in Wall Street's new PR offensive? So I'm asking everyone interested to write something up that meets Wikipedia's guidelines and help bring the APCO Worldwide entry up to date. Post it somewhere online and send a tweet about it to @mmflint. I'll award a signed copy of "Sicko" by noon Sunday to the best entry...and then deputize you to post it on Wikipedia for real and make sure APCO's minions don't take it down. Just be sure afterward not to walk near any cliffs!

P.P.S. The late, great comedian Bill Hicks had some thoughts about marketing and the people who do it.

    Join Mike's Mailing List | Follow Mike on Twitter | Join Mike's Facebook Group | Become Mike's MySpace Friend

The Republican Party's Medicare Hypocrisy

December 07, 2009 6:04 pm ET

While Democratic health care reform proposals bolster Medicare by virtually eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, Republicans rely on a false line of attack, insisting legislation would lead to benefit cuts.  Despite their hollow rhetoric, Republicans have a long track record of philosophically opposing Medicare and actively seeking to reduce its funding.

The GOP's shocking hypocrisy is laid out below: since 1991, Senate Republicans have voted to slash $1.31 trillion from Medicare while their Republican counterparts in the House voted to take over $1 trillion away from America's seniors.

102^nd Congress: January 3, 1991 - January 3, 1993

House

102^nd Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
270 Democrats
1 Independent
170 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 102^nd Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

89 House Republicans Voted To Cut Medicare $25.2 Billion Over Five Years. In 1991, 89 House Republicans proposed and voted for a substitute amendment to the Fiscal 1992 Budget Resolution that would have cut Medicare $25.2 billion over five years. The substitute amendment, introduced by Rep. Gradison (R-OH), was rejected. [CQ.com; H. Con. Res. 121, Vote # 70, 4/17/91]

105 House Republicans Voted To Cut Medicare $27.2 Billion Over Five Years.  In 1991, 105 Republicans voted in support of a substitute amendment introduced by Rep. Kasich (R-OH) to the Fiscal 1992 Budget Resolution that would have implemented cuts in Medicare. Specifically, the substitute amendment would have "cut entitlement programs by $6.4 billion in fiscal 1992 and $48.6 billion over five years, including cuts in Medicare, totaling $27.2 billion over five years." The motion was rejected. [CQ.com; H. Con. Res. 121, Vote #69, 4/17/91]

57 House Republicans Voted To Cut Medicare And Medicaid $138.4 Billion Over Five Years.  In 1992, 57 House Republicans voted for a substitute amendment to the Fiscal 1993 Budget Resolution - Spending Freeze introduced by Rep. Dannemeyer (R-CA) that would have "cut Medicare and Medicaid entitlement programs by $138.4 billion over five years." The substitute amendment was rejected. [CQ.com; H. Con. Res. 287, Vote # 38, 3/4/92]

Senate

102^nd Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
58 Democrats
44 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 102^nd Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This Senate session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

103^rd Congress: January 3, 1993 - January 3, 1995

House

103^rd Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
265 Democrats
1 Independent
181 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 103^rd Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

156 House Republicans Voted To Cut $34 Billion From Medicare. In 1993, 156 House Republicans voted for an "amendment to cut federal spending by $90 billion over five years through various proposals, including $34 billion in Medicare cuts, $52 billion of discretionary spending cuts and $4 billion in other entitlement cuts and user fee increases." The motion failed. [CQ.com; HR 3400, Vote #609, 11/22/93]

Senate

103^rd Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
57 Democrats
0 Independents
45 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 103^rd Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This Senate session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

104^th Congress: January 3, 1995 - January 3, 1997

House

104^th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
208 Democrats
2 Independents
236 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 104^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

227 House Republicans Voted Twice To Cut Medicare By $270 Billion.  In October 1995, 227 Republicans voted for the misnamed Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, which cut $270 billion from Medicare over seven years.  The bill passed.  In November 1995, 232 Republicans voted to adopt the conference report on the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, which reduced spending on Medicare by $270 billion over seven years.  The bill passed. [HR 2425, Vote #731, 10/19/95; HR 2481, Vote #812, 11/17/95]

·                       84 House Republicans Voted To Cut An Additional $22.6 Billion From Medicare.  In 1995, 84 House Republicans voted for the Conservative Republican Substitute to the FY 1996 Budget Resolution.  The substitute bill would have cut Medicare by an additional $22.6 billion, on top of the $270 billion in cuts already contained in the budget.  The amendment failed.  [H.C.R. 67, Vote #343, 5/18/95]

212 House Republicans Voted To Cut Medicare By $158.1 Billion.  In 1996, 212 House Republicans voted to adopt the conference report on the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Resolution, which contained $158.1 billion in Medicare cuts over six years.  The bill passed. [H.C.R. 178, Vote #236, 6/12/96]

Senate

104^th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
48 Democrats
55 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 104^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

Senate Republicans Cut $270 Billion From Medicare.  More than 50 Republicans voted in favor of a budget that would cut Medicare by $270 billion. The budget passed.

·                       52 Republican Senators voted in favor.  [H.R. 2491, Vote #584, 11/17/1995]

·                       52 Republican Senators voted in favor.  [H.R. 2491, Vote #556, 10/27/1995]

·                       54 Republican Senators voted in favor. [H.C.R. 67, Vote #296, 6/29/95]

52 Republican Senators Voted Against Reducing Medicare Cuts By $181 Billion In Favor Of Tax Cuts For The Wealthy.  In 1995, 52 Republicans voted against a motion reducing cuts to Medicare by $181 billion by reducing tax cuts for upper income taxpayers. The motion was rejected 46-53. [S. 1357, Vote #499, 10/26/95] 

51 Republican Senators Voted To Maintain Tax Cuts Instead Of Reducing Medicare Cuts By $100 Billion.  In 1995, 51 Republicans voted against an amendment to reduce by $100 billion the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid by reducing tax cuts. The amendment failed 46-52. [S.C.R. 13, Vote #173, 5/22/95]

50 Republican Senators Voted Against Increasing Medicare Payments To Hospitals By $14.5 Billion.  50 Senators voted against an amendment restoring $14.5 billion in payments under Medicare to hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of poor patients. The amendment failed 47-52. [S 1357, Vote #524, 10/27/95]

52 Republican Senators Voted To Preserve Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Instead Of Reducing Medicare Cuts By $181 Billion.  52 Republicans voted against a motion reducing cuts to Medicare by $181 billion by reducing tax cuts for upper income taxpayers. The motion was rejected 46-53. [S 1357, Vote #499, 10/26/95]

54 Republican Senators Voted In Favor Of Cutting $270 Billion From Medicare.  54 Republicans voted to adopt the conference report on the fiscal 1996 budget resolution to put in place a seven-year plan to balance the budget by 2002 by cutting projected spending by $894 billion, including cuts of $270 billion from Medicare, $182 billion from Medicaid, $190 billion in non-defense spending, and $175 billion from various entitlement programs such as welfare. The conference report was agreed to 54-46. [HCR 67, Vote #296, 6/29/95]

54 Republican Senators Voted To Cut Medicare By $256 Billion.  54 Republican Senators voted to adopt the resolution to adopt a seven-year budget plan that would balance the budget by 2002 by cutting projected spending by $961 billion of which $256 billion would come from Medicare, $175 billion from Medicaid, $190 billion from non-defense discretionary spending, and $209 billion from various entitlement programs. The concurrent resolution was agreed to 57-42. [SCR 13, Vote #232, 5/25/95]

51 Republican Senators Voted To Maintain Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Instead Of Reducing Medicare Cuts By $100 Billion.  51 Republicans Senators voted against an amendment to reduce by $100 billion the proposed cuts of $256 billion to Medicare and Medicaid by reducing tax cuts. The amendment failed 46-52. [SCR 13, Vote #173, 5/22/95]

53 Republican Senators Voted In Favor Of Cutting Medicare Nearly $160 Billion Over Six Years.  53 Republican Senators voted to cut Medicare by $158.1 billion over six years.  The measure passed 53-46.  [H.C.R. 178, Vote #156, 5/23/1996]

·                       Budget Cuts Included Reductions In Medicare, Medicare, Welfare, And Discretionary Spending.  53 Republican Senators voted in favor of adopting of the conference report on the concurrent resolution to establish a six-year plan to balance the federal budget by 2002. Projected spending cuts over six years include $158.1 billion in Medicare, $72 billion from Medicaid, $53 billion from welfare and $297.9 billion from discretionary spending. The conference report passed 53-46. [HCR 178, Vote #159, 6/13/96]

105^th Congress: January 3, 1997 - January 3, 1999

House

105^th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
212 Democrats
2 Independents
231 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 105^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

219 House Republicans Voted To Cut $115 Billion From Medicare.  In 1997, 219 House Republicans voted for passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which "cut total projected entitlement spending over five years by about $137 billion, including a $115 billion reduction in Medicare." The bill passed. [CQ.com; HR 2015, Vote #241, 6/25/97]

Senate

105^th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
45 Democrats
0 Independents
55 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 105^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This Senate session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

107^th Congress: January 3, 2001 - January 3, 2003

House

107^th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
214 Democrats
2 Independents
228 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 107^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

206 House Republicans Voted To Kill A Resolution That Would "Repeal Cuts In Payments To Hospitals That Serve Low-Income Patients...And Ensure Necessary Medicare And Medicaid Funding." In 2002, Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) introduced a resolution that would "express the sense of the House that Congress should" work on legislation that would repeal cuts to health programs, including Medicare.  Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) motioned to table the resolution, effectively killing it with the agreement of 206 Republican votes.  The motion to table passed. [CQ.com; accessed 12/4/09; HR 854, Vote #440, 10/3/02]

Senate

107^th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
50 Democrats
2 Republicans
53 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 107^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This Senate session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

108^th Congress: January 3, 2003 - January 3, 2005

House

108^th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
208 Democrats
1 Independent
232 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 108^th Congress, 12/7/09]

208 House Republicans Voted Against A Measure That Would Take Medicare Competition Savings And Put It Toward Increasing Payments To Medicare Physicians.  In 2003, 208 House Republicans voted against a "motion to instruct House conferees to reject provisions of the House bill that require the traditional Medicare program to compete with private plans to provide Medicare benefits by 2010, and reject provisions of the Senate bill that establish an alternative payment system for preferred provider organizations in highly competitive regions. The savings from the rejection of these provisions would be used to increase payments to physicians for Medicare services." The motion was rejected.  [CQ.com; HR 1, Vote #615, 11/6/03]

215 House Republicans Voted Against Increasing Medicare Payments To Rural Hospitals.  In 2003, 215 House Republicans voted against a "motion to recommit the joint resolution to the House Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be reported back with language that would continue payment rates for physician services under Medicare at fiscal 2002 levels and increase the base payment amount that hospitals in small urban and rural areas receive through Medicare to the same as that for larger urban hospitals." The motion failed.  [CQ.com; H J Res 18, Vote #18, 2/5/03]

Senate

108^th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
48 Democrats
1 Independent
51 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 108^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

51 Republican Senators Tabled An Amendment That Would Have Given The Sickest Seniors $12 Billion In Medicare Funding.  51 Republican Senators voted to table an amendment that would have allocated $12 billion for additional treatment for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and disabilities. The motion to table passed 57-41. [S. 1, Vote #253, 6/26/03]

49 Republican Senators Voted To Put Needs Of Wealthy Americans Over The Needs Of American Seniors.  49 Republican Senators voted against an amendment that would reduce the enormous tax cut given to the wealthiest American tax payers in order to give a fair reimbursement to rural health care providers under Medicare. The amendment failed.  [SCR 23, Vote #89, 3/25/03]

50 Republican Senators Voted Against Increasing Medicare And Medicaid Funding By $4.1 Billion.  50 Republican Senators voted against a measure which would have increased funding for health care programs under Medicare and Medicaid by $4.1 billion. The motion was rejected 41-56. [HJR 2, Vote #21, 1/23/03]

109^th Congress: January 3, 2005 - January 3, 2007

House

109^th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
204 Democrats
1 Independent
236 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 109^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This House session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

Senate

109^th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
45 Democrats
1 Independent
55 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 109^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

50 Republican Senators Voted To Cut Medicare By $6.4 Billion.  50 Republican Senators voted in favor of the budget reconciliation bill that cut funding for Medicare by $6.4 billion by requiring that beneficiaries purchase medical equipment and cutting payments to home health care providers. The motion passed 50-50, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote. [S. 1932, Vote #363, 12/21/05]

50 Republican Senators Cut $5.78 Billion From Medicare.  50 Republican Senators voted in favor of passage of a Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution that would cut $5.78 billion from Medicare. The legislation passed 52-47.  [S. 1932, Vote #303, 11/3/05]

110^th Congress: January 3, 2007 - January 3, 2009

House

110^th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
246 Democrats
0 Independents
207 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 110^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

59 House Republicans Voted To Cut $20 Billion From Medicare Physician Reimbursement.  In 2008, 59 House Republicans voted to maintain a 10.6% scheduled cut in reimbursement rates for doctors serving patients who receive Medicare. The motion passed. [Kaiser Health News, 7/16/08; HR 6331, Vote #443, 6/24/08]

Senate

110^th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
49 Democrats
2 Independents
51 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 110^th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This Senate session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

111^th Congress: January 3, 2009 - January 3, 2011

House

111^th Congress, 1^st Session (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
267 Democrats
0 Independents
178 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 111^th Congress - 1^st Session, accessed 12/7/09]

172 House Republicans Voted To Cut $210 Billion From Medicare Physician Reimbursement. In 2009, 172 House Republicans voted against blocking "a 21 percent cut scheduled to take effect in January 2010, and increase the payment rate based on the Medicare economic index." The vote would have restored $210 billion in scheduled physician reimbursements. The measure failed. [Congressional Quarterly, accessed 12/4/09; New York Times, 11/19/09; HR 3961; Vote #909, 11/19/09]

Senate

111^th Congress, 1^st Session (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
62 Democrats
2 Independents
42 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 111^th Congress - 1^st Session, accessed 12/7/09]

At posting time, the current Senate was currently debating health care reform and a full tally of Medicare votes was not yet available.

Rachell Maddow Show August 5 2010

There are three Republican Senate Candidates currently running on an anti-abortion, anti-choice platform

They include Sharon Angle, running against Harry Reid in Nevada; Rand Paul running against Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in Kentucky, and Ken Buck in Colorado.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38586137

All say that they would not allow victims of rape or incest to have abortions, but rather would force them to carry their pregnancies to term.

Sharon Angle’s shared her advice on how to carry her rapist’s baby to term:  “Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Look for an alternative. Which they did.  And they found that they had taken a lemon and turned it into lemonade.”

When asked how Rand Paul would recommend that people who were being forced to carry pregnancies caused by rape and incest to deal with that situation, he responded that they “could use the morning after pill” or get a “better education on family planning.”  This for someone who has been RAPED!

And we all know that Republicans are all about cutting funds for education, so even IF someone could actually GET an education on how to avoid being RAPED, Republicans wouldn’t pay for the classes.  Rand Paul also complains about how Kentuckians aren’t getting their Federal Taxes for their state.  In actual fact, Kentuckians get $1.50 back for every $1.00 in taxes that they pay to the Federal Government.

Ken Buck also states that he does not agree with the abortion exceptions for rape and incest.

But these are all Tea Party Candidates who claim to be for SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

So, HOW would they actually be able to enforce any laws which require women to carry a pregnancy caused by rape or incest to term?  Wouldn’t you need a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM put in place to MONITOR these women to INSURE that they carry their pregnancies to full term?

Just how does this policy work when they would be expected to insure that all victims of rape and incest are forced, by the government, to carry them to full term and forced to give birth to the children of rapists?  AND HOW DO THEY EXPECT TO PAY FOR IT?

Princeton Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell commented on how Democrats haven’t figured out how to discuss abortion issues, so they cede them to Republicans without a fight.

HINT:  HERE’S A WAY!!!

California’s anti-gay marriage ban, Prop 8, was just struck down by Judge Walker, a George W. Bush appointee, ruling it unconstitutional. 

(Possible relation here?  George Walker Bush’s grandmother was Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Walker, the original owner of the New York Mets.)  The anti-gay marriage ban was “sold” to the public based on the argument that “gay marriages are damaging to kids”, an argument which has no support in any studies.

But the idea of not allowing committed couples to be married or have a civil union, and thereby not enjoy the full legal and financial benefits of such a union under the law, isn’t just a matter of religion, particularly when many churches would not condone it, and not allow the marriages to take place.

When people are denied the access to loved ones while in the hospital, they are less likely to have a positive outcome.

When people are denied health benefits of a spouse, the medical outcomes are often not only worsened, but the added financial costs can devastate a family already burdened with stress, which can cause even more health problems.

When individual family or corporate family insurance policies are not required to provide benefits to the families of committed couples, entire families can end up going “on the public dole”, and taxpayers end up paying for those medical services, for people who have been made destitute because insurance policies aren’t required to pay for these costs.

That is exactly what the corporations and Republicans are looking for.  They are trying to avoid having their insurance companies pay out those benefits to people, and put more financial pressure on Government and taxpayers so that they have more to complain about, while increasing their own profits and dividends.

Other Resources

• Administration on Aging
• Center for Medicare Advocacy
• Center for Studying Health System Change
• Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups – Wisconsin SMP
• Elder Financial Empowerment Project
• Federal Trade Commission
• Kaiser Daily Health Report
• Mathematica Policy Research
• Medicare Rights Center
• My Medicare
• National Consumer Protection Technical Resource Center
• Prescription Drug Helpline
• Stop Medicare Fraud
• Wisconsin Guardianship Support Center
• Wisconsin SMP Calendar
• Wisconsin SMP Fraud Alert Archives

A look at details of the health care overhaul law

March 22, 2010

Facts vs. Violence Against Democrats in The Wake of the House Approval of the Health Care Reform Bill

If it wasn’t enough that Democratic Congressmen were spat on, or had racial or homophobic epithets shouted at them, by protesters who claimed to be against Health Care Reform, “Birther”  Republican Congressman Randy Neugebauer (Texas), shouted out “Baby Killer” during Rep. Bart Stupak’s (Democrat – Michigan), speech in support of the Health Care Reform Bill, (after he was against it unless Abortion Control was included in it – specifically to ban Federal funds from being used for abortion, unless it was used in cases of Rape and Incest or to protect the life of the mother.) 

Mr. Neugebauer was not only out of order for his comments, but he is also completely without any factual support for it.  In 2006, the annual State of the World’s Mothers report released by Save the Children researchers found that American babies in The United States are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway.  The “Mothers’ Index” ranks 125 nations according to 10 gauges of well-being.

The United States ranks 2^nd highest/worst in child hood morbidity rate, with only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, higher than the United States with five deaths per 1,000 births.

The report goes on to say “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn (morbidity) rate is higher than any of those countries,”  (annual State of the World’s Mothers report).

This bill actually provides MORE preventive care AND provides support for long term care for children, particularly those who are poor and would normally not be provided any covered medical care.  That alone, would mean that more children would be BORN ALIVE and be KEPT ALIVE because of proper medical care being available to them.

In addition, countries with Universal Health Care have statistically lower rates of abortion than the only developed country in the world which doesn’t have Universal Health care, The United States.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics are available at http://data.un.org which demonstrates this point very clearly.  Even though abortions ARE FREE in other countries with Universal Health Care, they have FEWER ABORTIONS BECAUSE they have affordable healthcare!

In Canada, the abortion rate is 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States 20.8.  When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we’re No. 1.

But we also know that at an estimated 45,000 Americans die for lack of health care insurance coverage or preventable errors.  That is a number which has been referred to repeatedly during the recent health care debate.  This was based on a 1999 report compiled by the Institute of Medicine.

And, why, might you ask, is our estimate based on an 11 year old study?  Well, it is because there has not been a comprehensive study since then, because hospitals are failing to keep records on these deaths, because there has been no law that requires them to do so.

Lakewood, Colorado-based HealthGrades Inc. says that its estimates doubles those figures, saying that their data covers all 50 states and is more up-to-date than the 1999 study from the IOM, which said that as many of 98,000 people a year die from medical errors.  That report was released in 2004.  There have been numerous other, much smaller studies carried out by other organizations on a much smaller scale, which estimate deaths as much as 200,000 annually, due to preventable errors.   And millions more injured due to negligence from numerous causes.  The IOM report in 1999 estimated that medical errors cost the Nation approximately $37.6 billion each year; about $17 billion of those costs are associated with preventable errors.  About half of the expenditures for preventable medical errors are for direct health care costs.  70 percent of those medical errors were found to be preventable; 6 percent were potentially preventable.  A 2008 chart review of 15,000 medical records in Colorado and Utah, found that 54 percent of surgical errors were preventable.

In 1999 the IOM “To Err Is Human” report called the death toll shocking and challenged the medical community to cut the rate in half – within five years.  Instead, federal analysts believe the rate of medical error is actually increasing.  Even in states where there are regulations in place (because the Federal Government had not had them between 1999 and today), hospitals often ignore the rules WITHOUT PENALTY.  Consequently, over this period, 1999-2009, as many as 2 million Americans have died needlessly of preventable medical mistakes.

Republicans fraudulently claim that we have "the best medical care in the world".  They left off the last part of the statement "...IF you have the money to afford boutique health care services."  And of course, recent mistakes in the care of many wealthy celebrities have demonstrated that EVEN WITH their money, they couldn't get effective, professional health care, THAT COULD HAVE KEPT THEM ALIVE.

The report also called for a mandatory nationwide reporting system for medical errors. That never happened.

“The (American Medical Association) came out foaming at the mouth,” said Arthur Levin, president of the Center for Medical Consumers and an author of “To Err is Human.” “And I think the decision was made to let it fall off the table because the wisdom was that you needed the cooperation of the profession to make progress. I think the tacit compromise was, ‘We'll let that go.'”

The AMA and the American Hospital Association vehemently opposed an attempt by President Bill Clinton to create a mandatory reporting system for serious errors. The leaders of both groups snubbed an invite to a White House press conference introducing the president's patient safety agenda in 2000. The groups launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign that said mandatory reporting would drive medical errors underground. From 2000 to 2002, they spent $81 million on lobbying efforts, according to campaign statistics collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Mandatory reporting was dead on arrival.

But, fraudulent reporting by Republicans on what Health Care Reform would lead to, has raised an undercurrent of a minority of people who are against issues, WHICH DON’T EVEN EXIST in the health care reform bill!

They haven’t bothered to look at the facts or the proof that our current Health Care system is failing on a massive scale.

Now, there are reports that bricks have been thrown through doors and windows of Democratic Congressmen’s and Congresswomen’s, and Democratic Party Offices in at least three different states, after the Health Care Reform Bill passed in the House.  New York Monroe County Democratic Committee office, Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (New York) district office in Niagara Falls, was one of them:

WHEC reported that a note attached to the brick in the Monroe County office read "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" -- a quote delivered in an acceptance speech by Republican president candidate Barry Goldwater at the 1964 GOP convention.

No one was injured in either incident in New York.

Slaughter told WHEC that her offices have recently received threatening phone calls.

Speaking on the House floor Sunday, Slaughter referred to damage at her office, saying, "The anger isn't just contained outside the Capitol. Last week someone hurled a brick through the window of my district office in the dark of night. We must step back to remind ourselves of why we are here."

and the Tucson office of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona), was also attacked.  Another incident was reported earlier in the weekend by the Sedgwick County Democratic Party in Kansas. 

Party Executive Director Lyndsey Stauble told CNN that a brick with anti-Obama and anti-health care messages was thrown at the headquarters sometime late Friday or early Saturday. Nothing was taken, and no one was injured, she said, adding that a bakery next door called police.

Stauble mentioned that a recent post on a blog encouraged people to throw bricks at local Democratic offices nationwide.

Blogger Michael B. Vanderboegh of Pinson, Alabama, told CNN Monday that in a Friday blog -- which he says was posted after the incident at Slaughter's office -- he called for people to break windows at Democratic headquarters at the city and county level. He said he didn't call for the damages to congressional offices because, "I didn't want to be responsible for anybody breaking a federal law."

However, "I can understand how someone can be frustrated enough to throw a brick through a congresswoman's window," Vanderboegh said.  He said he feels the health care bill is "unconstitutional and tyrannical."

"My answer is violence, by getting their attention," he said, adding, "If we can get across to the other side, that they are within inches of provoking a civil war in this country, then that's a good thing."

Hmmm.  Isn’t inciting violence against the law?

And this isn’t anything new.

Hal Turner, New Jersey’s top White-Supremacist internet-radio show host was arrested several times for threatening public officials with bodily harm, most recently July 25, 2009 for threatening to murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago following their recent ruling upholding handgun bans.

In August of 2008, a man walked into the Democratic Party Headquarters for Arkansas and shot the State Democratic Chairman to death.

Now Rush Limbaugh is saying to his audience “We need to defeat these bastards.  We need to wipe them out.”

And all this current nonsense, because Congress finally passed a Health Care Reform bill after only 100 years of discussion (started by President Theodore Roosevelt – Republican by the way), and debate, supported for at least 40 years by the Democratic Party, and opposed by Republicans (but they still want to talk about it – while DOING NOTHING.)

What was the Republican argument when they were in control of the Congress?  Wasn’t it “Majority Rules, The Majority is the Majority?”  Now they demand not only a super majority (60 votes), but even 80 votes in the Senate, which has absolutely NO substance or support in the Constitution or current law.

If they wanted to pass a Health Care Reform Bill, they certainly could have done so, when they were in complete control of the Congress during the first six years of the Bush Administration, but I guess that didn’t take a high priority, in comparison to fighting an illegal war with Iraq, and making sure that oil companies were given carte blanche to drill where ever they wanted and pollute as much as they wanted, while raising energy rates and cutting off Grandmothers’ electricity (and laughing about it), so that they had no air conditioning in California during the heat waves.

It is clear that you won’t see responsible debate coming from Republicans, given that shouts of “Kill Him” came out of Palin audiences where Palin did nothing to dissuade her supporters from this behavior.    Even the U.S. Secret Service revealed during the final weeks of the 2008 Presidential Campaign that Sarah Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama’s patriotism provided a spike in death threats against the future president.  (reported by the Telegraph.co.uk on November 8, 2008)

“Details of the spike in threats to Mr. Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs. Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs. Palin took it upon herself to question Mr. Obama's patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr. McCain.”

Is this what Republicans consider “Leadership”?

Senator Coburn ( R - Okla ) threatened to use his Senatorial perogative to block any lawmakers from being appointed to any federal post should they switch their vote to yes for the reconciliation, after voting no in the previous vote for the Senate version of the Health Care Bill, and lose their bid for re-election in November.  Since no Republicans have indicated any thoughts of changing their minds, it is a clear threat against Democrats.  And it isn't much of a threat, given that Republicans have been blocking Obama's appointments since his inauguration.  This would give President Obama the option of appointing them anyhow, while the Senate is out of session, known as a recess appointments, the terms of those appointments would then expire at the end of the next Senate Session.   

After the passage of the Health Care Bill, Sarah Palin posted comments to her followers that "this is not the time to retreat, it is the time to reload". 

She has put out a map "targeting" vulnerable Democratic seats, with gunsight crosshairs identifying their geographic locations!

The inexcusable and undeniable connection to the idea of her pushing her followers using violence, or threats of violence, to get their way is very clear.

He posted the wrong address.  It was the address of the Congressman's brother, who has four young children.  The Congressman Thomas Perriello ( Va. Dem ) had requested that they take down the address, but the website owner has refused to do so.  Someone cut their propane gas line to the house.  The Fire Marshal and the FBI are currently investigating.  It is likely that they posted the wrong address INTENTIONALLY, because it was a FAMILY MEMBER's home and not the Congressman's, because threats against Congressmen and the President are FELONIES.

Death threats have been made agsint Louise Slaughter, Bart Stupak and comments threatening to lynch Senator Pat Murray (D-Washington).   

Threats of violence have reached a fever pitch, and while Republicans and the Tea Party movement's founders have claimed that this was not what their organizations are all about, they haven't come out to loudly denounce them, or take any actions to shut them down.  That happened during the presidential elections as well, and Republicans know that the vast majority of those making the threats are Republicans, so they play to their base to stoke the fires.

Enough is enough.  Hate speech, and inciting violence is a CRIME, and it should be FULLY enforced to the FULL EXTENT of the law.

And Republicans who continue to consider themselves Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for being any part of these attempts to intimidate through violence.  Maybe that is why only 23% of the U.S. population are willing to call themselves Republicans now.  Even Republican strategists are now starting to call themselves Independents or Conservatives to avoid the connection.

There is no legitimate claim of “integrity”, “taking the higher road”, or justification for being in a position of "leadership" when their only position has been to deny rights to access affordable Health Care for average Americans, which Republican Congressmen and women currently enjoy at the expense of American taxpayers, while inciting violence against those who disagree with them.

The face of the leadership of the Republican Party are those of thugs who lead TERRORISTS against their own neighbors, in an attempt to intimidate or beyond that, actually act on suggestions of violent acts.  This is not representative government by majority rule.  That is anarchy. 

When average Americans who oppose the Health Care Bills become aware of their specific reforms, they very often change their minds, according to a recent Kaiser survey.

KNOWING THE DETAILS MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Percentage of people who said they were MORE likely to support health care reform legislation after becoming aware that it would:

Give tax credits to small businesses to cover employees: 73%

Create health insurance exchanges to help people get coverage: 67%

Leave most people’s existing coverage unchanged: 66%

Prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more for people with preexisting conditions: 63%

Expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people: 62%

Allow children coverage under parents’ insurance until age 26: 60%

Help close the Medicare Part D “doughnut hole”: 60%

Guess What?  ALL of these are included in the new legislation.

Now what do you think of the Health Care Insurance Reform Legislation?

And, what do you think of all of the Republicans in Congress, who voted AGAINST IT?

US Representatives and Senators who voted FOR and AGAINST Healthcare Reform

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 165

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

      H R 3590      RECORDED VOTE      21-Mar-2010      10:49 PM
      QUESTION:  On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
      BILL TITLE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

---- AYES    219 ---

---- NOES    212 ---

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111^th Congress - 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Grouped By Vote Position

Grouped by Home State

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 

"No cooperation for the rest of the year! 
  They poisoned the well..." 
     -- Insane with rage McCain,
 
  . 
 
 

How Can A "News" Organization Actually Be Serving "The Public Good" When They Are Intentionally Being One-Sided and Fraudulent in Their Reporting?  (The Fairness Doctrine was revoked by the FCC in 1987 under Reagan, so licensees were no longer obligated to sell or give time to specific opposing viewpoint groups to meet Fairness Doctrine requirements as long as they continued to maintain their public Trustee obligations, with the exception of the personal attack and political editorializing rules that remain in effect, but which FOX continues to ignore.)

Since the FCC's founding, the act of determining whether a licensee has fulfilled its responsibilities under the "public interest, convenience and necessity" standard of the Act has varied a great deal depending upon the composition of Commission and the various orders or requests from Congress. The FCC enjoys broad authority under section 303 to do the following:

• Approve equipment and set standards for levels of interference
• Assign frequencies and power
• Classify stations and prescribe services
• Issue cease and desist orders
• Levy fines and forfeitures
• Make regulations for stations with network affiliations
• Prescribe qualifications for station owners and operators

Perhaps the FCC's most important powers are those associated with licensing. These powers allow the FCC to license or short-license broadcast licenses. It can also withhold, fine, revoke or renew broadcast licenses and construction permits based on its own evaluation of whether the station has served in the PUBLIC INTEREST. Even though the FCC can revoke a license, it has not used this authority much over its 60-year history.

About half of the population of Europe died during the Black Plague.  There were no “cures” then.

Royalty ran away to their summer castles, while the dead corpses were piling up in the streets, and few took them away for fear of dying themselves.  In the meantime, because of the many dead contaminating the air and water sources, even more died from the cholera and typhoid epidemics, killing off black plague survivors.

So, if we have these same plagues today, and people are dropping like flies, regardless of their wealth and social station, because there is no health care for the middle income or poor, so they can’t get treated, don’t you think that that increases YOUR chances of getting ill by contracting the disease?

Our current health system can’t keep up with the speed of catastrophic events that spread beyond the control of our CDC.  It is designed to serve the lowest number of patients at the highest profit margins.

Standard Flu shots can’t be manufactured fast enough, let alone distributed fast enough, because our current health care system doesn’t have the equipment to make it, the personnel to dispense it, and because it is designed to provide only enough services for those who can afford to pay for it.  And contrary to the Bush Administration policy of demanding that all medications made available in the U.S. , be manufactured in the U.S., it was buying standard flu vaccines from foreign countries, because U.S. manufacturers complained that they couldn’t make enough profit on them, so they wouldn’t make enough to go around for America’s citizens.

Remember when the vaccine for the Avian flu was only available from a foreign country?   That country happened to be Switzerland, and the company was Hoffman La Roche.  It operates world wide.  It didn’t do the research and development for the Avian flu vaccine, Tamiflu, but rather bought distribution rights from a U.S. firm, Gilead Sciences.  Gilead gets 10% of every dose sold.  Donald Rumsfeld was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997 to 2001, and held enough stock to be one of, if not THE largest stock holder in the company.  Donald Rumsfeld left Gilead Sciences to become the Defense Secretary.  Once the Bush Administration started pushing the Avian Flu scare, and ordering Tamiflu stockpiles through companies that Donald Rumsfeld owned stock in ($1 Billion worth), their stock value went up 720%.  In 2005 Donald Rumsfeld was reported to be considering selling some shares of his stock, but Rumsfeld publicly claimed that he wouldn’t sell his shares because he “didn’t want to be accused of insider trading.”  Instead, he reportedly bought up an additional $18 million worth of stock.  Since the Bird Flu hysteria of 2005, the stock value has gone up another 56%, even though there hasn’t been a widespread Avian Flu pandemic as was predicted by the Bush Administration.

Recently, it was disclosed that Baxter’s International Research Facility out of Orth-Donau, Austria had released contaminated flu virus material to facilities in at least four other countries.

The contaminated product, a mix of H3N2 seasonal flu viruses and unlabelled H5N1 viruses, was supplied to an Austrian research company. The Austrian firm, Avir Green Hills Biotechnology, then sent portions of it to sub-contractors in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany.

The contamination incident, which is being investigated by the four European countries, came to light when the subcontractor in the Czech Republic inoculated ferrets with the product and they died. Ferrets shouldn’t die from exposure to human H3N2 flu viruses.

Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a “serious error” on Baxter’s part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.

On Friday, the company’s director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected.

“It was live,” Christopher Bona said in an email.

The contaminated product, which Baxter calls “experimental virus material,” was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine — including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly — at a facility in the Czech Republic.

People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted.

Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.

While H5N1 doesn’t easily infect people, H3N2 viruses do. If someone exposed to a mixture of the two had been simultaneously infected with both strains, he or she could have served as an incubator for a hybrid virus able to transmit easily to and among people.

A Health Care System which can’t properly protect us from the actions of corporations that make errors from incompetence, or intention, can’t respond fast enough or effectively enough to stop rampaging epidemics.  We need more doctors, more nurses, and more facilities to handle more people here at home.

The largest health care insurer in the country only has 30 million policy holders.  That is less than ten percent of our total population.  On the other hand, the largest driver’s insurance policy insurer (State Farm) has 40 million policy holders.  So, it isn’t as if they can’t handle a few million more policy holders.

But having more doctors, nurses and facilities, would mean that there would be shorter waiting lists for people (one of the biggest complaints Republicans have against opening up health care access to more people).

Having more doctors, nurses and facilities, would mean that there would be more PEOPLE EMPLOYED, improving our economy.

Having more doctors, nurses and facilities, would mean that there would be a larger pool of certified, qualified professionals that patients and hospitals can choose from, so that they don’t have to depend on doctors and nurses who are compromised because they are drug addicted or drunk from being overstressed from overwork.

Having more doctors, and nurses, would mean that hospitals and clinics would have more professionals to choose from to insure that the people they hire are the BEST qualified to do the job, rather than hiring whomever is available, because, there is a lack of qualified people available to fill the jobs. 

Having more doctors, and nurses, would also mean that people who get sick, can get proper care EARLY enough to prevent their illnesses from becoming so severe that the patient has to suffer from a long term chronic condition; and the costs of treatment would be kept to a minimum, because they are getting preventive treatment BEFORE the condition gets so severe or out of control.

Ask the firefighters out there what it is like, not to have enough equipment, personnel, or water to put out an out of control forest fire.  That is what our next epidemic will look like, if we don’t prepare for it, except the trees will be PEOPLE.

February 24, 2010

White House Health Care Reform Summit

Click below to see the entire Summit online:

Click Here to see President Obama's Proposal.

Overview of the President's Proposal

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

• It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today.  This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
• It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.
• It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.
• It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
• It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years – and about $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.

The President’s Proposal bridges the gap between the House and Senate bills and includes new provisions to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. 

It includes a targeted set of changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate-passed health insurance reform bill.  The President’s Proposal reflects policies from the House-passed bill and the President’s priorities.  Key changes include:

• Eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid;
• Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap;
• Strengthening the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families;
• Strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid;
• Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans;
• Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.

More Senate Democrats are signing on everyday to Sen. Michael Bennet's letter, which calls for the Senate to pass a public option using reconciliation.

Since Monday, we've added Senators Tim Johnson, a moderate Democrat from the conservative state of South Dakota, Debbie Stabenow -- a powerful Senate Finance Committee member from Michigan -- and Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

That gets the letter from 0 signers to 23 in exactly one week and we're just getting started. The Hill reports DSCC Chairman Senator Robert Menendez says he expects many more Democrats will sign the letter too.

"There is a lot more people who I believe will join," Menendez said on MSNBC. "When you get to a certain number, there is a tipping point and people who may have felt like it's not possible may feel it's possible."

Now, it's time for Democrats to put Republicans on defense. Polling shows overwhelming support for a public option -- Nevada 56% -- Minnesota 62% -- Illinois 68% -- swing states, blue states, conservative states -- Missouri 57% -- Virginia 61% -- Iowa 62% -- in state after state after state.

The momentum keeps building with 119 House Democrats, 23 Senators and

We did it!
1,124,457 Voices for Real Health Care Reform!

Today, (Feb 24, 2010), the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act - Legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.  

This exclusion of health insurance companies from anti-trust regulations was originally enacted at a time when insurance companies and hospitals were often functioning at financial losses, because those institutions were acting as Good Samaritans, and providing the best service they could provide, to their fellow man, regardless of the cost to themselves.

Today, the insurance companies are making Billion$ in profit$, while denying policy holders treatment they need to live, and jacking up premiums just to increase their PROFIT$.  The top 5 health insurance companies increased their profits by 56%, while cutting 2.7 MILLION policy holders.

They are making profits, even during a deep recession, as more and more Americans DIE from lack of quality healthcare and health insurance.  45,000 Americans DIED last year alone, BECAUSE they didn't have healthcare insurance.

Watch comments by Democratic Congressman Weiner on the floor of the House.

Here's a partial transcript of the debate:

WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!

LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.

WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren. [...] Make no mistake about it. Every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That is why —

LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down once more.

WEINER: Look, the point is very simple, there are inequities in the present way we distribute insurance. There are winners and there are losers. The winners are the insurance industry. [...] There is not bipartisanship on this particular issue. The people who sit on this side (the Democrats side of the chamber), at the risk of offending anyone, generally support the idea of standing up for the American people in their battle against big insurance. And the people generally speaking who sit on this side (Republican side), of the chamber and specifically speaking as well in a lot of cases, simply won’t permit that to happen and haven’t for a generation. Well, that is going to end now. [...] Enough of the phonyness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it!” (applause)

At the end of the debate the House voted 406-19 to repeal health insurance company's exemption from anti-trust regulations.

Who, might you ask, could possibly be so cold and inhumane as to vote against this bill?  ALL of them were REPUBLICANS!

Here's the Roll Call: The roll call of the vote is now up. GOP Reps. Akin (MO), Boehner (OH), Brady (TX), Broun (GA), Buyer (IN), Franks (AZ), Garrett (NJ), Jenkins, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Lamborn (CO), Linder (GA), Moran (KS), Paul (TX), Price (GA), Ryan (WI), Sensenbrenner (WI), Tiahrt (KS), and Westmoreland (GA) voted against it.

True to their corporate masters, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan (1st CD) and GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (5th CD), stood against the people, so that health insurance companies could continue to rake individuals and small businesses over the coals, with rate increases that bankrupt them and put them out of business.

Are you STILL voting for them???!!!  REALLY???

In response to Republican Representatives Ryan (1^st CD), and Sensenbrenner (5th CD), voting against the bill to repeal the health insurance companies’ anti-trust exemption - I would like to put forth the following data to demonstrate how wrong they are in their positions.

A letter from the GAO in 2008 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09363r.pdf), clearly demonstrates a continuing consolidation of market share by a handful of Health Insurance companies increasing their dominance over 2005 and 2002.

Here is a small sampling by state of how concentrated that control was in 2008:

In Alabama, out of 7 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama.  BCBS of Alabama had a 96% market share.

In Alaska, out of 11 licensed carriers, the largest is Premera Blue Cross.  Premera held 77% of the market.

In Delaware, out of 14 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware. BCBS had 58% of the market.

In Iowa, out of 28 licensed carriers, the largest is Wellmark, Inc.  Wellmark, Inc. had 60% of the market.

In Maine, out of 8 licensed carriers, the largest is Anthem BC/BS.  Anthem BC/BS (WellPoint), had 56% of the market.

In North Carolina, out of 27 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.  BCBS had 65% of the market.

In North Dakota, out of 10 licensed carriers, the largest is Noridian Mutual Company dba BlueCrossBlueShield of North Dakota.  BCBS had 91% of the market.

In Rhode Island, out of 4 licensed carriers, the largest is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island. BCBS had 84% of the market.

By Contrast:

In Wisconsin, out of 41 licensed carriers, the largest is United Healthcare Insurance Company.  United Healthcare Insurance Company has 32% of the market.

The lesson is that with COMPETITION, there is LESS of a MONOPOLY.  With less of a monopoly, the consumer has the option to go to a different company if they don’t like the way they are being treated by the company they are currently with, or if they are being charged too much, or if they are being denied coverage.  The more that companies are allowed to monopolize their control of the market, the more they can dictate the terms of their coverage, without giving consumers any choice in the matter.

A TRUST is a MONOPOLY.  The Anti-trust law breaks up the monopolies so that they can’t hold the consumers hostage.

Republicans have been arguing that the Democrats are trying to take over healthcare.  They aren’t.  They are trying to offer an alternative to people who are being priced out of the market, or are being refused coverage or treatment.

The numbers don’t lie.  They demonstrate that a handful of companies are consolidating control and swallowing up smaller companies, until there is no one left to compete with them.

Free-market advocates will tell you that this would create more cost efficiencies in the running of these companies, except that the data shows that in the United States, the administrative costs of Healthcare Insurance (7%) is twice the median for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, (Canada and Japan spend 2-4% on administrative costs), while the overall health spending per capita in the United States is more than twice that of OECD countries (according to a report from the Congressional Research Service put out on Health Care Reform on April 14, 2009).

And despite the diverse names you see on the different companies, the control of those companies is limited to a much smaller number of companies.

WellPoint Insurance Company is the nation’s largest health insurance company, and covers 33.7 million members nationwide.

WellPoint is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and serves its members as the Blue Cross licensee for California; the Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensee for Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri (excluding 30 counties in the Kansas City area), Nevada, New Hampshire, New York (as Blue Cross Blue Shield in 10 New York City metropolitan and surrounding counties and as Blue Cross or Blue Cross Blue Shield in selected upstate counties only), Ohio, Virginia (excluding the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.), Wisconsin; and through UniCare.  This information is off of their own corporate website.

UnitedHealth Group claims that it serves more than 70 million people nationwide (in more than just health insurance).  Their 2009 Financial Statement states that they offer health benefits through UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, and AmeriChoice.

In 2006, Mark Farrah Associates showed the market distribution that year, by geographic area, with UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, HSCS, and other variants of BCBS holding the majority of the Healthcare Insurance market.

In spite of our “best in the world healthcare” (The World Health Organization doesn’t agree with that assessment, by the way.  In 2001 France was ranked #1, with the United States coming up a distant 37^th, out of 191 countries ranked) - up to 98,000 patients died last year in the U.S. because of mistakes by doctors or hospitals.  (According to a 2007 CRS report: The U.S. has the third highest rate of deaths among 26 OECD countries from medical errors.  We also have the third highest rate of infant-mortality.  For deaths resulting from AIDS, the U.S. ranks second.  For deaths resulting from cancer, the U.S. ranks 14^th.  For deaths resulting from respiratory diseases, the U.S. ranks 24^th out of 30, with twice the number of deaths as compared to France, Switzerland and Italy. )  About 45,000 people died last year because of lack of health insurance, and people are currently losing their health insurance at the rate of about 14,000 per day.  There are about 47 million people currently without healthcare insurance.  One in eight uninsured in 2007 (CRS Healthcare Reform report from April 14, 2009), were in household insurance units with incomes of $50,000 or more.  500,000 Veterans and 1.4 Million children live on the street.