The current log jam in health care reform isn’t paralysis by analysis — it’s partisanship and power-grabbing and just a smidgin of ego.

According to the Times’ article, Genentech supplied information to one of their lobbyists, Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok. The firm used the information to ghost-author statements for representatives, who would often not alter the statements or just barely alter them, making many representatives statements nearly identical.

“We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record,” [Robert Brady’s (D-PA) chief of staff, Stanley V. White] said. “I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”

…

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

As I’ve said before, lobbyists and special interest groups are driving this health care reform and they’ll be the direct beneficiaries, not the uninsured, underinsured or the down-trodden.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read “The Washington Influence Machine”, By Andy Kroll TomDispatch.com, September 15, 2009
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

Therefore I oppose the notion that my tax dollars can be used for an elective abortion. I don’t mind helping pay for an abortion that is the result of rape, incest, or a pregnancy that threatens the mother’s life but I do not want to facilitate abortion as a form of birth control or a way to maintain someone’s perceived quality of life sans children. If a man and a woman don’t want to have children, it is their responsibility and theirs alone to ensure they don’t get pregnant. It is not the shared responsibility of the community or the nation to bail them out of a situation they had the power and means to avoid. If a couple is in a financial position where child birth would be disastrous to all involved (the parents and the child or children) then it’s the responsibility of the parents to do whatever it takes not to have a child. It isn’t the tax payer’s responsibility to help pay for the consequences of their actions. I understand that no contraception is 100% effective but even that does not make it the tax payer’s responsibility to help pay for someone else’s abortion. The bottom line is that if you are in such dire straights that another mouth to feed would be disastrous, you should either explore abstinence or adoption or take financial responsibility for an abortion, should you chose to have one.

H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would overturn existing legislation (the Hyde amendment) that already prevents tax payers’ dollars from funding elective abortions. The Stupak-Pitts amendment ensures that the spirit of the Hyde amendment lives on. Women can still have abortions, they just can’t be funded by tax dollars, which is already the case and has been since 1976.

H.R. 3962 is being used to advance an agenda cloaked in “women’s rights.” It is not a woman’s right to require anyone else to help pay for an elective abortion.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

It seems pretty simple to me; no federal tax dollars authorized or appropriated by H.R. 3962 will be used to fund elective abortions. It doesn’t say that women can’t have abortions. It doesn’t say a policy can’t pay for an abortion. It simply says that funds authorized or appropriated by H.R. 3962 can’t be used for elective abortions.

But house democrats wrote a letter to Momma Pelosi stating the amendment “represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled.” What a great example of hyperbole. Or is it outright misinformation?

First and foremost, the amendment does not target a range of anything. It implicitly targets only elective abortions. Secondly, it doesn’t differ much from the pre-existing Hyde amendment, which already accomplishes the same thing (which would change if H.R. 3962 is passed into law without the Stupak-Pitts amendment).

So far I can’t find any specific examples of how Stupak-Pitts would restrict women’s ability to access even a small range of reproductive health services. Where in its 95 words does Stupak-Pitts reach much further than the Hyde amendment, as Planned Parenthood asserts? Inquiring minds want to know.

Of course, Planned Parenthood advanced the argument that abortions are a form of birth control and this amendment would make that option too expensive for women:

The Stupak/Pitts amendment would purportedly allow women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider to cover abortion. But such abortion riders do not exist because women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies…

Abortion is not an option simply because you ‘didn’t intend to become pregnant.’ If you really, really don’t intend to become pregnant, than you really, really ensure you have protection…multiple forms if you’re that serious and even abstinence if you’re hard-core.

The bottom line is that even though I’m pro-choice from a libertarian point of view, I don’t want my tax dollars funding abortions that are simply a means of birth control. For that reason, even though I don’t support H.R. 3962 as a whole, I support the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

The LA Times has a nice overview of the Stupak amendment, which I was able to provide to Ray before he blocked my Twitter account. According to the LA Times:

The main effects of the amendment would be to stop anyone receiving a federal subsidy from buying a comprehensive health insurance policy that covered elective abortions, and to bar the proposed government-run insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) from covering such procedures. The amendment would allow insurers to offer “supplemental” policies that covered abortions, but their customers could not use federal subsidies to buy them.

This is taken from the amendment itself:

No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Clearly the amendment is not taking issue with a woman’s right to an abortion. It’s merely trying to prevent elective abortions from being funded by tax dollars–dollars provided by many folks who morally object to abortion. Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you’re on (I happen to be pro-choice), you can still appreciate the desire for many people to not have their tax dollars pay for something they feel goes against their most sacred, religious or moral beliefs.

And to all the RayBeckerman’s out there; be a part of a much needed informed debate about healthcare and stop slinging the useless drivel that contributes nothing to the discussion.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

(4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW.—The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if—
(A) the litigation alternatives contained in the law consist of certificate of merit, early offer, or both; and
(B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.

Malpractice insurance is one of the largest expenses a physician incurs and that cost is passed on, which directly increases the cost of healthcare. If this bill truly intended to drive down the cost of health care, tort reform would be included. The fact that it explicitly removes any limits on attorneys’ fees or caps on damages clearly indicates which special interest group has a stake in this bill and it isn’t a patient advocacy group.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

The House health care bill: great on coverage, fairly financed, affordable. http://bit.ly/2uWVUu #hcr #publicoption

Yet another example of misguided union backing of the current administration.

For example, today we found out that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) would vote to block health care reform in its current form and after that announcement, Twitter was abuzz with people proclaiming he was owned by Aetna. The message below was repeated ad nauseam.

RT @stunetii WHO OWNS SEN LIEBERMAN? 2005-10 cycle funding: 10TH master= Aetna Inc, $65,200. #p2 #hcr #corruption http://bit.ly/4g9HLN #hc

As I’ve said here and alluded to here; we should be reforming government right now, not health care. Lobbyists have too much leverage and the government is rife with fraud, waste, and abuse.

The petition does no justice in establishing a valid reason to define health care as a right. Instead, it argues that ‘we’ve been trying to reform health care since 1912, we are already paying for universal health care but don’t have truly universal health care, we have a bill sitting in limbo that will establish health care as a right (H.R. 697), and the U.S. Constitution implies that health care is a right.’

He quotes part of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which states the following:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The statement “in order to…promote the general welfare” is what he’s leveraging to establish health care as a right. The sticky bit is that the constitution strives to promote the general welfare, not to provide for the general welfare.

Mr. Kucinich’s argument that Article 1, Section 8 supports health care as a civil right is simply incorrect. Article 1, Section 8 states the following:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This section is meant to benefit the republic, not its citizens. It clearly states “of the United States” whereas the Preamble used the term “to ourselves.” By arguing that Article 1, Section 8 pertains to the citizenry, he opens up the argument that Congress is authorized to pay citizens’ debts and to defend them, i.e. a federal police force.

The Founding Fathers knew that a federal government had no business in the personal lives of its citizens because it is so far disconnected from them, that it can’t possibly understand all their personal needs and how best to provide for them all. State and local governments are better equipped to provide for the needs of their citizens because they are physically and ideologically closer to the citizens and most importantly, directly elected by the citizens.

Establishing health care as a right is not the right answer to the question of how to reform health care. Health care is a commodity. In order to provide health care, someone has to directly or indirectly give you their time, for which they must be compensated, otherwise it becomes slavery. By establishing health care as a right, you indirectly state that citizens have a right to the time of health care providers, which becomes an extremely slippery slope.

The federal government should be promoting the general welfare of its citizens by encouraging states to continue their social experiments with health care reform. States like California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are all already in the process of such experiments and are leading the way for other states to do the same.

Among the reasons is the simple fact that human beings can sustain an interest in a particular subject only over a limited period of time. The concentration, the emotional fervor, even the physical energy, a particular experience that is exciting, challenging, and inviting, can last just so long–this is true of the gamut of human behavior from sex to conflict. After a period of time it becomes monotonous, repetitive, an emotional treadmill, and worse than anything else, a bore. From the moment the tactician engages in conflict, his enemy is time.

]]> http://SocietyAndPolitics.com/2009/09/24/whats-the-rush-in-passing-reform/feed/ 0