The Weekly Pulse: Good and Bad News on Health Care


There has been good news and bad news in healthcare this week. On
the plus side, momentum continues to build for healthcare reform on
both a national and state-by-state level. Unfortunately, those sneaky rules changes at the Department of Health and Human Services appear to be a done deal.

Let’s start with the bad new first to get it out of the way.  It’s a done deal, folks. RH Reality Check continues its coverage of the eleventh hour rules changes
at the Department of Health and Human Services which will give federal
employees the unprecedented right to refuse to give out birth control
based on their demonstrably false religious belief that hormonal
contraception is abortion. Despite massive public outcry, the rules
have reached the final stage before they officially take effect.

The ever-optimistic Amanda Marcotte sees these tactics as the final stage in the anti-abortion movement’s battle to control women’s bodies.

Unable to enact large-scale bans of contraception and
abortion, anti-choicers have declared a form of trench warfare against
the women of America for possession of the uteruses of America. In real
trench warfare, you “win” a “battle” by gaining a few feet of
territory. In the trench warfare of reproductive rights, anti-choicers
consider a few women inconvenienced, humiliated, or even forced to
become pregnant or give birth against their will a victory worth
savoring.

The good news is that either President Obama or Congress can repeal these rules.

Let’s refocus on the positive movement for serious healthcare
reform.  In a sign that Democrats are serious about the issue, Sen. Ted
Kennedy has left the Judiciary Committee
to focus on this issue. Kennedy has been fighting for universal
healthcare since he was first elected in 1962 and describes the current
political moment as the “opportunity of a lifetime” to win this
battle.  John Nichols notes in The Nation that Kennedy’s strong voice for civil liberties will be acutely missed on the Judiciary Committee.

Meanwhile, Ezra Klein of The American Prospect dispels a misconception about Tom Daschle’s
proposed health bank, an agency that would review treatment options and
decide which were cost-effective targets for government insurance
coverage. Some critics fear that the Federal Health Board would somehow
interfere with consumer choice by throwing the massive buying power of
the federal government behind some treatments and not others, thereby
affecting the relative costs of treatments for everyone. Ezra notes
that only 26% of the population is on public insurance and that even if
Daschle’s plan passes in its strongest form, anyone who didn’t like the
options available from public insurance could buy supplemental private
coverage.

In a separate post, Ezra argues that increased federal government
spending on state-administered programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP could
be an important part of an economic stimulus package.
In a recession, more people need their healthcare benefits because
wages go down and jobs are lost, but fewer jobs and lower wages mean
less tax revenue for the states. States can’t deficit spend like the
federal government. So, without federal help, states are forced to
either cut back health coverage or take money away from economically
stimulating projects like infrastructure. An infusion of federal
dollars could help people in need and help states avoid cutting
beneficial spending.

However, Florida’s expanded Medicaid pilot project is being
criticized by a group called Florida Community Health Action
Information Network, who claim that the program has not lived up to its promise in part because patients are having trouble accessing the care and providers are dropping out of the program.

A group called Health Care for All Pennsylvania
vows that their state will take the lead in achieving healthcare for
all. They argue that single-payer healthcare is a “simple concept -
health care would be provided privately at hospitals and clinics, but
paid for publicly by the government." They contend the plan would
eliminate the insurance “middle man.”

In one of today’s more bizarre health stories, we find tobacco giant Philip Morris likening itself to the NAACP
in order to get out of paying compensation to smokers who were harmed
while the company knowingly misled them about the health effects of
tobbacco. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones explains:

In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Philip Morris,
America’s largest cigarette company, compared itself to the NAACP. And
to a South Carolina death row inmate illegally denied due process. And
to indigent criminal defendants not afforded adequate legal
representation. And it did so to win a case against an elderly African
American woman named Mayola Williams whose husband died from lung
cancer in 1997, after smoking three packs of Marlboros a day for more
than 40 years.

Over at AlterNet, Martha Rosenberg reports that meat industry
advocacy groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association are
sponsoring “scientific” studies
that purport to show that eating meat is better than the rest of the
scientific community seems to think, which are getting published in
prestigious medical journals. In June, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study called “The Recommended Dietary Allowance of Protein: A Misunderstood Concept.”

In its Oct. 15 issue, it had to print a correction
stating that author Sharon L. Miller was “formerly employed by the
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association” and author Robert R. Wolfe
received money from the Egg Nutrition Center, National Dairy Council,
National Pork Board and Beef Checkoff through the National Cattlemen’s
Beef Association.

Do they graze their cows on Astroturf, too?

Kind of makes you wonder who’s funding the slew of new research purporting to show that high fructose corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar.

Here’s something that might cheer you up, if you’re feeling
depressed about pseudoscience and creeping theocracy. In a special
series, YES! Magazine explores various answers to the question: How can
we have happy people and a happy planet?

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • http://www.applemacosx.net invalid-0

    Well my experience tells me that a reform can look good on paper and is maybe bad in daily life. We will see in the next month what it is worth.

  • invalid-0

    I have a thought for you to ponder. If someone beleives that providing birth control is unethical, do they not have the right to refuse to do so. Perhaps, if you take a step back you might see that you would have your ethical beleifs imposed on those federal employees. That imposition of beleifs is the very matter which causes so much fury against the anti-choice advocates.

  • invalid-0

    “If someone beleives that providing birth control is unethical, do they not have the right to refuse to do so.”

    No, anymore than they have the ‘right’ to refuse service to someone because of their race or sexual orientation. This is bigotry, pure and simple. What folks like you do have the right to do is to seek employment where you aren’t required to dispense contraceptives or, as I’m sure many of us would prefer, come in contact with women at all.

  • therealistmom

    If I am a doctor and a practicing Jehovah’s Witness, should I be able to be an emergency room physician? Should I be able to deny giving blood transfusions because I find it to be morally reprehensible?

     Or should I be the one who needs to find a place in the health care profession where I won’t have to give blood transfusions?

     To most thinking people the answer is obvious.  If my religious or moral beliefs keep me from providing service to my patients, then it is my responsibility to find a job better suited to my belief system. Why is it different when it is birth control instead of blood?

  • invalid-0

    No, they don’t have that right. Their beliefs end where my body begins, if you are discriminating against me because I am a woman, which these personal religious beliefs do (I don’t see these so called practioners asking men if they are married before dispensing Viagra, if they did, they would have repealed this BS “law” before it even started. This is all about being against single women having a sex life, and these women trying to prevent pregnancy.) If a healthcare practioner has religious beliefs that interfere with the care of patients, I suggest these federal employees find another job, NOT be allowed to deny care. Denying care is their beliefs being IMPOSED on women!! It’s as simple as that. We don’t care about the fury of anti-choicers, believe me. This will be repealed, and SOON. COUNT ON IT!

  • invalid-0

    The good news is that either President Obama or Congress can repeal these rules.

    Someone needs to take a high school civics class. The rule could be blocked by Congress, or Health and Human Services could begin the laborious process of issuing a new regulation reversing course. “Repeal”? Not so much.