You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (208)

Good for Dr. Nancy for shooting down some of Blackburn's typical partisan hackery here.

From Think Progress:

On MSNBC this afternoon, Dr. Nancy Snyderman took Blackburn to task for getting the “public health message lost in the politics.” “Now, there’s nothing that came out of this panel recommending rationing,” said Snyderman. “Just a prudent use of screening tests.” When Blackburn tried to claim that the guidelines meant “bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow,” Snyderman pointed out that Blackburn was acting as a “bureaucrat” standing between patients and “the best possible evidence”. [...]

As the Washington Independent’s Mike Lillis notes, the concern of the congresswomen about rationed mammograms is especially ironic considering that they oppose legislation that “would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.”

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (943)

PLAYS: (2775)

Dr. Nancy Snyderman talks to NOW's President Terry O'Neill about how the Stupak amendment caught NOW off guard, but that the issue has galvanized young women. O'Neill said she felt the amendment essentially over rules Roe v Wade. And I agree completely with O'Neill when asked by Dr. Nancy if this was a 'most fundamental violation of church and state' that the Catholic bishops inserted themselves into this political debate.

O'Neill: You know that's the first thing that I said. I don't know where the Internal Revenue Service is, but I hope they're paying attention.

And as Dr. Nancy noted again, it's two white men making policy about women's reproductive decisions.

While we're on the subject, what Digby said...

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)

Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings.

Continue reading...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1706)

PLAYS: (2225)

Dr. Nancy Snyderman sums up how a lot of us feel about this absolutely horrid Stupak amendment. No, it's not fair and it is outrageous. It's bad enough we've got one party that wants to keep women living in the 1950's. We don't need two. And we don't need the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops writing legislation for Democrats.

Snyderman: Kelly I must admit this one caught me by surprise because I thought the public option was going to be the real rallying cry for Saturday. Because the Hyde amendment was in place over the summer we kept saying no federal money spent on abortions, and then the Stupak came in, really tightening the chance for a woman’s right to choose. Clarify for me.

O’Donnell: Yes, this issue has been bubbling under the surface for quite a while now and those who have strong views about abortion rights have been paying attention but you’re right, more generally we’ve been focused on the public option. What this would do is restrict the ability to have insurance coverage pay for abortion services. Now looking at the House plan it would create a public option and a market place that they call the exchange which would basically be a menu of insurance plans that people could choose from and if any of those plans take federal money or if as an individual you receive federal subsidies you would not be able to get abortion coverage. One alternative is to be able to purchase what they call a rider, an extra sort of mini-insurance plan specifically targeted for covering abortion services. But women, especially on the progressive side really stood up against that and said that would really require women to anticipate someday having the need for an abortion and they really strongly oppose that. But this amendment passed.

Why? Well certainly it had Republican support because you have a stronger abortion opposition on the Republicans side, but among Democrats there is a group that really feels strongly about abortion rights as well and they wanted to make very clear that no federal money could in any way be traced to abortion services and they had a lot of pressure from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who wanted to see health care pass but wanted to be certain that no federal money would be in any way connected with to the potential for abortion services. So this really became a hot-button issue over the weekend and as you mentioned the Hyde amendment which goes back thirty years, which prohibits federal money being used for abortion with the exception of rape, incest or life of the mother, this now brings it into the issue of insurance coverage and even private plans if people get help from the government to pay for that insurance, they would be subject to this new rule.

Snyderman: Kelly, you know what I find so infuriating about this? I mean, absolutely infuriating? And this isn't about being pro-choice or pro-abortion or any of the hot button lingo. We know women pay more for insurance than men. We know women are restricted in the states. And now it's basically, if you're a 50 year old woman and you're in a monogamous relationship you suddenly find yourself pregnant, you better know that have an abortion rider in order to access health care that you thought you had? It is one more pressure on women. I mean, I'm surprised that frankly there isn't more outrage over the fact that ...this isn't fair!

O'Donnell: What you're voicing is what woman after woman on the Democrat side, the progressive side of the party, said on the House floor. They came out one after another, speaking in very strong terms against this amendment. The amendment did pass despite their objections. And they really said it puts, as you describe it so pressure on women to anticipate a need for something that is a very difficult personal experience—there are a lot moral implications. It's not an easy situation for any woman and to now ask them to plan ahead for the potential and to buy an extra policy, those who oppose this amendment say that is simply too much. Nancy.

Snyderman: A white man deciding a woman's…… a woman's responsibility in her own procreation. I mean I ... I find it infuriating. I mean, I really think it doesn't matter what side of the abortion issue or pro-choice issue you're on, the fact that they are now making health care harder and harder for women to navigate the system. I think it's outrageous—just outrageous. Kelly O'Donnell, thank you so much.

And folks it's not about abortion. It really is about one more burden for women navigating the health care system. Before I blow my top, time to turn to Monica Novotny at the news desk. Monica, get me out of here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (64)

PLAYS: (197)

MSNBC Dr. Nancy Snyderman Oct. 21, 2009. Pat Leahy discusses the amendment being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal the anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry. Leahy said he never understood why the industry was ever granted the exemption in the first place and that they do not deserve to have a special shield.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1360)

PLAYS: (5980)

Rep. Anthony Weiner on MSNBC's Dr. Nancy show explaining how the AHIP memo released yesterday is making the case for the public option.

Weiner: But it’s interesting in their analysis they’re not 100% wrong. It is true that the Baucus plan doesn’t cover enough people. And it is true—the health insurance says it straight out on your show a moment ago—they’re going to raise the rates. The only thing that prevents them from doing that—and you almost got your last guest to stumble into saying it—some form of competition, but in a strange way the health insurance industry, not standing up and saying “No, no” they’re not doing enough in the Baucus bill, what they really mean is we thought we were going to get all these new customers and you’re doing all these other things to try to hold down costs—“They ain’t gonna’ work. We’re not going to let you do it”.

Which is why the argument is more profound than ever and Chuck mentioned it, we have to have the public option. If we don’t have it—if you leave them to their own devices—the health insurance industry right now is putting us on notice, “We’re not going to lower costs at all. We’re going to keep on raising costs.” Because that’s their business model.

[…]

If you have the health care industry complaining that we’re going to raise costs because of these changes, it is them putting us on notice that we haven’t put enough cost containment in the bill. You know, the health care industry themselves is putting out a whole report saying that. That should be a tell to the Baucus team that “You know what?” maybe it’s time for them to go back and revisit the public option.

But the other thing that’s interesting here is the deal was always going to be for the health care guys, look, you’re going to get all these new customers that are going to be coming in and that’s going to be the reason you’re going to take a hair cut here. But make no mistake about it, the health care industry keeps raising costs and I think what’s going to happen with the Baucus bill is put new requirements on them, they raise costs and whatever subsidies we’re giving people to buy their own insurance, they won’t be able to afford it and we’ll keep on losing people.

This is the whole argument for the public option is right here laid out by the health care industry right now.

Dr. Laura: Do you think you’ll get it?

Weiner: I think so. I think in a strange way, and obviously they didn’t mean this, the health insurance lobby today fired the most important salvo in weeks for the public option, because they have said, as clear as day, left to their own devices, according to their own number crunchers, they’re going to raise rates 111%. And that’s why, you know we have a petition at CountdownToHealthCare.com where we’re telling people for the moderates in the Senate, the so-called moderates, and for the White House, we need the public option, and the health care industry is making our argument for us.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (959)

PLAYS: (2802)

Howard Dean is right as usual. Dr. Nancy points out the New York Times/CBS poll which says that 65% of Americans are in favor of a public option and asks Dean where the disconnect is. Dean points out the obvious-- the money going into the campaign coffers of elected officials that they're paying more attention to than their constituents.

I agree with Howard Dean. If the Democrats pass a bill without a public option, there is going to be a huge backlash against the party. I know Howard must feel like a broken record at this point, but I'm glad he's still out there pushing for the Democrats to do the right thing.