Between Bill O'Reilly in this clip, CSPAN callers (who I'm convinced are often paid to call and start spewing talking points), and our elected representatives, we are witnessing the Great Revival of the Emergency Room Lie.

It goes like this: Everyone has access to health care because emergency rooms have to treat people who walk through their doors. You can hear the expanded version in the video above, or tune into CSPAN between House votes on the replay of today's shenanigans to hear your 'everyday caller' talk about it. With citations to the law, even.

Ezra Klein would like us to remember young Diamonte Driver, the uninsured 12-year old who died from an abcessed tooth. He had access to emergency services.

In February 2007, Deamonte Driver died of an infected tooth. But he didn't really die of an infected tooth. He died because he didn't have consistent insurance. If he'd had an Aetna card, a dentist would've removed the tooth earlier, and the bacteria that filled the abscess would never have spread to his brain.

Deamonte Driver was 12. His insurance status wasn't his fault.

Because who thinks an abcessed tooth is something one can get treated in an emergency room, after all? Sure, Deamonte Driver had access to the emergency room. He even went to the emergency room, finally. He was there long enough to die.

Washington Post, 2007:

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.

A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.

Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-overlooked concern in the debate over universal health coverage: dental care.

That's how that 'everyone gets care in an emergency room' thing works. No preventive. No basic services. You go when it's escalated to an emergency, when it costs a fortune for treatment and the chances of death or permanent disability are even higher.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: 359

PLAYS: 1079

Embed

Monday I wrote about the friend who was having a great deal of difficulty getting a straight answer from Anthem Blue Cross of California about her options after they raised premiums on her current policy 20%. Their current tactics are part of their larger war and temper tantrum about having to cover people with pre-existing conditions because for insurers, it has always been about pre-existing conditions. All of the other issues aren't a big deal, but they wanted the right to discriminate against insureds, and the Affordable Care Act robs them of that right. Not soon enough, unfortunately.

The audio file must be heard to be believed. In it, the representative spends a full ten minutes trying to talk this customer out of switching to another policy that would be regulated under the Affordable Care Act. He begins with this bizarro threat:

Continue reading »

Paul Krugman discusses what he calls "the pundit delusion," in which pundits believe the day-to-day inside baseball (the stuff they love to endlessly recycle) is what determines the fate of the administration, when it really comes down to how well people are doing economically:

What should Mr. Obama have done? Some political analysts, like Charlie Cook, say that he made a mistake by pursuing health reform, that he should have focused on the economy. As far as I can tell, however, these analysts aren’t talking about pursuing different policies — they’re saying that he should have talked more about the subject. But what matters is actual economic results.

The best way for Mr. Obama to have avoided an electoral setback this fall would have been enacting a stimulus that matched the scale of the economic crisis. Obviously, he didn’t do that. Maybe he couldn’t have passed an adequate-sized plan, but the fact is that he didn’t even try. True, senior economic officials reportedly downplayed the need for a really big effort, in effect overruling their staff; but it’s also clear that political advisers believed that a smaller package would get more friendly headlines, and that the administration would look better if it won its first big Congressional test.

In short, it looks as if the administration itself was taken in by the pundit delusion, focusing on how its policies would play in the news rather than on their actual impact on the economy.

Republicans, by the way, seem less susceptible to this delusion. Since Mr. Obama took office, they have engaged in relentless obstruction, obviously unworried about how their actions would look or be reported. And it’s working: by blocking Democratic efforts to alleviate the economy’s woes, the G.O.P. is helping its chances of a big victory in November.

Can Mr. Obama do anything in the time that remains? Midterm elections, where turnout is crucial, aren’t quite like presidential elections, where the economy is all. Mr. Obama’s best hope at this point is to close the “enthusiasm gap” by taking strong stands that motivate Democrats to come out and vote. But I don’t expect to see that happen.

What I expect, instead, if and when the midterms go badly, is that the usual suspects will say that it was because Mr. Obama was too liberal — when his real mistake was doing too little to create jobs.

The White House is lining up the players for implementation of the health insurance reform provisions coming up in September.

Via the Billings Gazette:

HELENA — Liz Fowler, a key staffer for U.S. Sen. Max Baucus who helped draft the federal health reform bill enacted in March, is joining the Obama administration to help implement the new law.

Fowler, chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee, which Baucus chairs, will become deputy director of the Office of Consumer Information and Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“Liz Fowler is an extremely knowledgeable and dedicated adviser, and while I’m very proud of her new position, she will certainly be missed at the committee,” Baucus said in a statement Tuesday.

Baucus, D-Mont., led the Democrats’ efforts in the Senate the past two years to draft and pass a major health-reform bill, which President Barack Obama signed into law March 23.

Fowler's appointment has fired up a hot discussion about her past association with Wellpoint.

Marcy Wheeler:

This is the kind of “oversight” that resulted in the BP disaster.

And remember Obama’s lobbyist restrictions? The ones that prevent someone from working in the Executive Branch on an issue that they’ve lobbied Congress on for two years? Fowler was not a registered lobbyist; rather, she was the VP of Public Policy and External Affairs. But in any case, it appears that Fowler returned to MaxTax Baucus’ staff on March 4, 2008, so nothing prevents the former VP of WellPoint from writing the “consumer and oversight” rules that are the only thing protecting Americans from policies — like WellPoint’s — that screw consumers.

Marcy is correct: Fowler was not a registered lobbyist, nor was she acting as a lobbyist in her two years with Wellpoint. In fact, if you look over Fowler's entire career, she is a career public servant. One might even argue that private industry and Ms. Fowler were not a great "fit", as noted here:

As far as I have been able to tell, she has spent most of her career in public service. She spent her early years in at Hogan & Hartson, worked for Senator Pat Moynihan, Rep. Pete Stark and Senator Max Baucus, and then later rejoined Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee in 2008.

So what exactly is the problem? She's not a lobbyist; most of her career has been spent in public service; and she was the head of a 20-person team that drafted the Senate Finance Committee version of the reform bill.

Fowler headed up a team of 20-some Senate Finance Committee staffers who helped draft the bill in the Senate. She was Baucus’ top health care aide from 2001-2005 and left that job in 2006 to become an executive at WellPoint, the nation’s largest private insurer.

It's worth noting that the Senate Finance Reform committee version was certainly included in the Senate version of what ultimately became the Affordable Care Act, but so too were provisions from the Senate HELP Committee's version. Harry Reid, as you might recall, combined pieces of both to make the Senate bill, and that version included a watered-down, ineffective public option which was ultimately stripped away from the final version because Joe Lieberman wanted to punish liberals more than he wanted to see people have access to health care.

Liz Fowler didn't take out the public option. She didn't kill it. And she didn't lobby against it. Is it possible that she simply has a different policy opinion from others? Or that she actually doesn't have a different opinion but made a calculation about what was possible with this Senate Finance Committee?

Health care, whether it's government-run single payer or covered by private insurers, is one of the most complex areas of public policy there is. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act needs policy wonks at the helm. If Liz Fowler is anything at all, she is a policy wonk, one who has earned a doctorate and a law degree, and who has spent her entire career in the policy area of health care.

Seems like a natural choice to me. Don't forget she also worked for Pete Stark (an ardent single payer advocate). Why does the Wellpoint 2 years carry more weight than the Stark/Moynihan? Because it fits the narrative or because there's evidence of malfeasance? If there's evidence, where is it? A difference of opinion over policy does not mean corruption is afoot.

Something to consider, anyway.

See update below for some preliminary money trail notes

It's bad enough to have states spending taxpayers' money on a frivolous effort to repeal health care reform, but it's mind-blowing to see how deep the Republican party's involvement was in those lawsuits.

One Wisconsin Now has released an email (PDF) it obtained showing a direct line between the Wisconsin Attorney General's office and the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC).

From their press release:

The emails One Wisconsin Now obtained indicate [Wisconsin Dep. AG] Taffora had contacted [RSLC Political Director] Cannatti looking for lawsuit information. Cannatti's response, which was sent at 9:09 the morning immediately following passage of the health reform bill, suggested Taffora talk to Bryan Stirling, the Deputy Attorney General of South Carolina, who Cannatti said was "coordinating efforts" between the Republican Attorneys General filing the lawsuit.

Among the largest contributors to the RSLC is the American Justice Partnership, created by the National Association of Manufacturers. The American Justice Partnership has donated $2 million to RSLC since 2006 and its website features advertisements run by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce against Kathleen Falk in 2006, Van Hollen's opponent. WMC spent an estimated $2.5 million in Van Hollen's razor-thin victory. The page, also featuring WMC ads for pro-corporate Supreme Court Justices Mike Gableman and Annette Ziegler, is available at: http://americanjusticepartnership.com/partners.php

Van Hollen needs to explain why instead of consulting legal experts and constitutional scholars, he was relying on advice from political consultants," said Ross. "It's a gross abuse of power when the Attorney General puts politics above the law."

Van Hollen's office is refusing to release the full extent of email communications regarding the potential lawsuit requested March 24 by One Wisconsin Now. The request sought documents and communications between the Attorney General's office about the potential lawsuit dating back to January 1, 2010. Van Hollen claims the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege, though it is clearly not the citizens of Wisconsin, his only true clients, that Van Hollen is trying to protect.

We all know these lawsuits are politically motivated. That's no surprise at all. Attorney Generals are elected to oversee the legal interests of the people of the state they represent. They are not elected to do the bidding of high-rolling Republican donors.

And yet, they are. I'll have more on the players in this particular drama as soon as I can put it all together for you. In the meantime, here's a picture of the ugly truth.

Update #1: Following the money, honey:

Ken Cuccinelli, VA Attorney General - Filed one of the earliest lawsuits on March 23, 2010. Received a $15,000 contribution from the RSLC sent February 16, 2010.

Greg Abbott, TX Attorney General - Filed one of the earliest lawsuits on March 23, 2010. Received a $50,000 contribution from the RSLC sent December 18, 2009.

Wayne Stenehjem, ND Attorney General - Joined other states on April 5, 2010. Received $25,000 contribution from the RSLC sent March 16, 2010.

Finally, the RSLC-TENNESSEE PAC received a transfer of $200,000 on December 18, 2009. I'm still tracking down where the funds went after that transfer. Because it is state-based, it depends upon the state disclosure system and what information they release.

Stay tuned.

DOWNLOADS: (1868)

PLAYS: (5949)

Embed

Do you want to know why men are superior? "Because every Sperm is Sacred."

John Boehner clearly isn't upset over abortions in his latest screed. It's all about banning contraceptives now. Now, there's something that the GOP should get behind if they really care about being a pro-life party.

Dante Atkins:

The GOP's assault on women in light of the health insurance reform law may have started with a special ops attack on nursing mothers, but Minority Leader Boehner has just significantly expanded the theater of operations. See, Leader Boehner is outraged that contraception could be funded through Medicaid:

"Tucked into the health reform legislation is a controversial provision allowing states to expand coverage for family planning services under Medicaid without a waiver from the federal government. Democrats had tried to insert the language into the Recovery Act in January 2009, but pulled back after it became a lightning rod for GOP attacks ... Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) championed the provision in the Senate, adding it to the Senate Finance Committee version of the legislation during mark-up, sources said, and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pushed for it in the House. ... ‘How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?’ House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of the provision, according to Reuters.”

There are two major sources of concern here. First, the fact that Leader Boehner is attacking birth control funding just goes to show that the forced birth cult wing of the Republican Party isn't really interested in snowflake babies. After all, it would stand to reason that making contraception readily available would make a significant dent in the number of unplanned pregnancies. Rather, they are far more concerned with making sure that women--especially poor women--suffer consequences for daring to have sex unless they make sure to do it with a strong, powerful man who they know can provide for them--in other words, the medieval model of gender relations.

But even more alarming is the fact that Boehner and the GOP are now so bold as to think that attacking the pill is a sound political idea. Either Boehner and the GOP are just that out of touch with political reality, or we will have a fierce battle ahead to protect the freedoms we all take for granted.

Throw a few bucks towards Connie Saltonstall's campaign if you can since she's taking on Bart Stupak. He's the one who made this such an issue in the HCR debate.

Stupid ladies. Didn't you know that the pleasure of sex was only for men?

Digby writes:

If anyone ever wondered whether the right is sincere in its concern for fetuses as opposed to the sexual behavior of women, this would seem to spell it out pretty clearly. Boehner is calling provisions for birth control "controversial" and the only thing he can mean by this in this context is that he thinks Americans believe women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to bear children. ("Just keep your legs closed, girl, and you won't have a problem.")Otherwise, it would be "uncontroversial" that a health care bill would provide for family planning and those who care about preventing abortion would be supportive since it would result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. (But then we know that isn't what the religion industrial complex is all about, don't we?)

It is only a matter of time before we start hearing about a new conscience clause for people who don't believe in paying for other people's contraception.

And don't forget ladies, "Every Sperm is Sacred."

Have the Democrats finally realized how to act like winners? (Or, as Bill Maher just put it, use their recently-descended testicles.) Good to know they're not going to curl into the fetal position for a change:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants House Democrats to go on offense during the critical two-week recess that begins this weekend.

Members returning to their districts should tout the new healthcare law’s benefits to their constituents, according to the “recess packet” issued by Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office this week and obtained by The Hill.

“With the passage of health insurance reform, this District Work Period is a critical time to go on offense,” the memo states.

Members should “convey the immediate benefits of health reform to your constituents (such as better prescription drug benefits for seniors, tax credits for small businesses and prohibiting insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick),” the memo said.

[...] Pelosi’s advice to members illustrates that she and other Democratic leaders believe they can capitalize on healthcare to rally before the fall.

The message in the memo wasn’t limited to healthcare.

Lawmakers also should also “demonstrate the work of this Congress to create jobs and strengthen the economy,” and “publicize the benefits of the $800 billion in tax cuts this Congress has enacted” through last year’s $787 billion stimulus package, according to the memo.

(video originally posted here 10/29/09 - more on this below)

Topeka — As President Barack Obama signed into law health care reform, the Kansas House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that was aimed at blocking the federal legislation.

The measure received a 75-47 majority Tuesday but fell short of the two-thirds majority — 84 votes — necessary in the 125-member House to put a constitutional amendment before voters.

The reforms “will take us down the path of socialism,” said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita.

But Democrats criticized the proposed state constitutional amendment, saying that federal health reform will be decided on U.S. constitutional issues regardless of what states approve. They also argued that the state amendment would constrain the Legislature from making health insurance changes sought by consumers. Read on...

This is great news for the residents of Kansas, but could spell trouble for the Representatives who voted against it. I think it would be wise for each member of the Kansas House who voted against this amendment to ask for increased security both at work and at home. I don't suggest this just because Democrats are being targeted by right wing extremists nationwide, but because it appears at least one Kansas militia nut has been following this issue very closely. After further research of the above video I posted last year, it seems the man who gave the interview and posted it - gunnyranger2 - is a well-armed militia member who isn't shy about speaking his mind on YouTube and showing off his arsenal. (parts of video are NSFW)

(h/t MediaMatters)

Remember that old saying, "Elections have consequences"? Well, apparently, Louis Gohmert (R-obviously, TX) doesn't think that should apply to him or his Senatorial cohorts:

Yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) suggested another response to the passage of health reform: eliminating the right of American citizens to elect U.S. Senators. According to a press release from Gohmert's office:

Rep. Gohmert stated, "The usurpation of the rights of the states and of the people perpetrated by the U.S. House last night is blatant, arrogant, and cries out for action. A potentially bankrupting 'mother of all unfunded mandates' needs to be stopped. The courts may or may not do it, but the states are not helpless. Article V of our U.S. Constitution anticipates a time when states perceive a looming crisis and provides an avenue for amending the Constitution. It makes clear that if two-thirds of the states are fed up with the federal government's abusive action, then they simply apply for a convention, and the Congress SHALL call such a convention for proposing an amendment."

Ever since the safeguard of State legislatures electing U.S. Senators was removed by the 17th Amendment in 1913, there has been no check or balance on the Federal power grab for the last 97 years. Article V requires a minimum of 34 states to request a Convention which in this case, would be an Amendment Convention for only ONE amendment.

Could he be a bigger whiner? Now, it's true, as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers, senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures to serve, which worked moderately well (with only the occasional accusation of corruption or bribery with which to contend) until the Civil War era. Then the accusations exploded. Per Wikipedia:

After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton defended himself on the grounds that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. Beginning in 1899, Delaware did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

Obviously, this was unsustainable, and so after much pushing and pulling and grumbling from muckrakers like Hearst, the 17th Amendment was passed in 1911 and adopted in 1913. There have been a few attempts to repeal it, most notably by Zell Miller, who called it an 'assault on federalism'.

However, I have news for Rep. Gohmert. Repeal of a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (what are your odds on that, Louie?) and ratification by three-fourths of the states' legislatures. Want to take a look at that electoral map again? Does the phrase "pissing in the wind" have much resonance with you?

Finally, as Media Matters points out, this only undercuts the GOP's crowing of the Scott Brown election:

Remember that conservatives, including Gohmert, argued that the election of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) signaled the public's rejection of the president's plan. Yet, while Tea Party activists flooded Massachusetts and pushed Brown to victory, Gohmert's proposal would have made that effort impossible. The state's overwhelmingly Democratic legislature could have simply appointed a Democrat.

I almost feel embarrassed for John McCain, but I really don't.

The Maverick is really a pony.

Mean old man McCain has a sad:

Democrats shouldn’t expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber’s bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

“There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year,” McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. “They have poisoned the well in what they’ve done and how they’ve done it.”

Oh no! Not obstructionism! They wouldn’t dare try that!

What is amazing is that a Senator is openly saying “Fuck the nation’s business, we’re a bunch of kids,” and no one in the media will point out how worthless and childish the Republicans are. Even worse, no one is even surprised.

Harry Reid responds.

“For someone who campaigned on ‘Country First’ and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it’s absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we’ve gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.

“At a time when our economy is suffering and we’re fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country—not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.”

John McCain should just turn in his paycheck if he's not going to work, but then again, his wife can support him just fine. Maybe all the Republicans can forgo their salaries if they continue to obstruct every piece of legislation.

Digby has more:

I can't help but recall hearing a whole lot of patronizing advice from these same people a few years back when anyone breathed that President Bush might not have legitimately taken office since he lost the popular vote, his brother manipulated the system in Florida and he was was installed by a partisan supreme court decision. Back then it was all "get over it," and "I've got political capital and I'm gonna spend it!" Now, these same people are all screaming that it's a usurpation if the Democrats win the majority and then pass legislation that they don't like.

It's fairly clear that Republicans don't understand how democracy works. You campaign, people vote, you win elections, you get a majority, you pass legislation. They seem to think Democracy means that that elections are irrelevant, majorities are meaningless and that all legislation is contingent upon the permission of the Republican Party.

I'm sorry these people are so unhappy. I know how they feel. I used to hate it when the Republicans passed some disgusting initiative that went against everything I believe in. But I don't recall having a mental breakdown at the notion that they could do it even though I didn't want them to. The idea that they were obligated to do my bidding didn't actually cross my mind.

Elections have consequences, or so I was told by conservatives when Bush won in 2004.