AMA, 51 Other Medical Organizations, oppose Gun Violence, Duh.

Letter from AMA and 51 other Medical Organizations. PDF here.

January 8, 2013

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The undersigned medical organizations, together representing the vast majority of practicing physicians and medical students in the United States, share the nation’s grief and sadness over the recent tragic school shootings in Connecticut. As physicians, we see first-hand the devastating consequences of gun violence to victims and their families.

We offer our experience and expertise in finding workable, common sense solutions to reduce the epidemic of gun violence—indeed the overall culture of violence—in America. We also urge the nation to strengthen its commitment and resources to comprehensive access to mental health services, including screening, prevention, and treatment.

The investigation into the Connecticut shootings is still continuing, and the issues surrounding such violence are often complex and can vary significantly from case to case. Strategies for preventing gun-related tragedies must also be complex and carefully considered. The relatively easy access to the increased firepower of assault weapons, semi-automatic firearms, high-capacity magazines, and high-velocity ammunition heightens the risk of multiple gunshot wounds and severe penetrating trauma, resulting in more critical injuries and deaths. Even for those who manage to survive gun violence involving these weapons, the severity and lasting impact of their wounds, disabilities and

treatment leads to devastating consequences for families affected and society, and contributes to high medical costs for treatment and recovery. Renewing and strengthening the assault weapons ban, including banning high-capacity magazines, would be a step in the right direction.

Many of the deaths and injuries resulting from firearms are preventable. More resources are needed for safety education programs that promote more responsible use and storage of firearms. Physicians need to be able to have frank discussions with their patients and parents of patients about firearm safety issues and risks to help them safeguard their families from accidents. While the overwhelming majority of patients with mental illness are not violent, physicians and other health professionals must be trained to respond to those who have a mental illness that might make them more prone to commit violence.

Funding needs to be available for increased research on violence prevention in general, and on the epidemiology of gun-related injuries and deaths in particular, as well as to implement available evidence-based interventions. Of equal importance is providing sufficient access to mental health services. While we strongly supported the passage of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008, unfortunately, the promise of better access to psychiatric treatment will not be a reality absent requisite federal and state funding. This effort should be combined with an education campaign that reduces the stigma of seeking mental health services.

Newtown, Connecticut has now been added to the sad litany of recent mass shootings, including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Arizona, and Aurora. As we come together as a nation to mourn the most recent victims of senseless gun violence, we must make a real and lasting commitment to work together on meaningful solutions to prevent future tragedies. We stand ready to work with Congress and the Administration to make progress in protecting our communities, especially our children, from this epidemic of violence.

Sincerely,

American Medical Association

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Academy of Pain Medicine

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine

American College of Emergency Physicians

American College of Mohs Surgery

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

American College of Osteopathic Internists

American College of Phlebology

American College of Physicians

American College of Preventive Medicine

American College of Radiology

American College of Surgeons

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

American Geriatrics Society

American Osteopathic Association

American Psychiatric Association

American Society for Clinical Pathology

American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Association of American Medical Colleges

College of American Pathologists

North American Spine Society

Renal Physicians Association

Society of Critical Care Medicine

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

 

California Medical Association

Colorado Medical Society

Connecticut State Medical Society

Medical Society of Delaware

Medical Society of the District of Columbia

Illinois State Medical Society

Maine Medical Association

MedChi, The Maryland State Medical Society

Massachusetts Medical Society

Michigan State Medical Society

Minnesota Medical Association

Nebraska Medical Association

Nevada State Medical Association

Medical Society of New Jersey

New Mexico Medical Society

Oklahoma State Medical Association

Oregon Medical Association

Rhode Island Medical Society

South Dakota State Medical Association

Tennessee Medical Association

Texas Medical Association

Vermont Medical Society

Medical Society of Virginia

Washington State Medical Association

Wisconsin Medical Society

Sphere: Related Content

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It - NYTimes.com

It speaks for itself…

LINDSTROM, Minn. — Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It - NYTimes.com

Sphere: Related Content

Fear Mongering With Medicare - NYTimes.com

 

The Obama administration’s proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage plans — the private insurance plans that cover almost 30 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries — are fair and reasonable. As it happens, they are also mandated by law. Yet Republicans, sensing a campaign issue, are telling older and disabled Americans that the administration is “raiding Medicare Advantage to pay for Obamacare.” The health insurance industry, for its part, is warning that enrollees will suffer higher premiums, lower benefits and fewer choices among doctors if the cuts go into force.

Some of this could in fact happen, although the industry has cried wolf before and continues to thrive. But the key point is this: Over the past decade, enrollees in Medicare Advantage have received lots of extra benefits, thanks to unjustified federal subsidies to the insurance companies. Now they will have to do with somewhat less, unless the insurers are willing to absorb the cuts while maintaining benefits. Enrollment in these private plans, offered by companies like UnitedHealth and Humana, has more than doubled since 2006, in part because of lower premiums and extra benefits, like gym memberships, that are not included in traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

Fear Mongering With Medicare - NYTimes.com

Sphere: Related Content

Rooting for Failure - NYTimes.com

 

It’s hard to remember a time when a major political party and its media arm were so actively rooting for fellow Americans to lose. When the first attempt by the United States to launch a satellite into orbit, in 1957, ended in disaster, did Democrats start to cheer, and unify to stop a space program in its infancy? Or, when Medicare got off to a confusing start, did Republicans of the mid-1960s wrap their entire political future around a campaign to deny government-run health care to the elderly?

Of course not. But for the entity of the Obama era, Republicans have consistently been cheerleaders for failure. They rooted for the economic recovery to sputter, for gas prices to spike, the job market to crater, the rescue of the American automobile industry to fall apart.

I get it. This organized schadenfreude goes back to the dawn of Obama’s presidency, when Rush Limbaugh, later joined by Senator Mitch McConnell, said their No. 1 goal was for the president to fail. A CNN poll in 2010 found 61 percent of Republicans hoping Obama would fail (versus only 27 percent among all Americans).

Wish granted, mission accomplished. Obama has failed -- that is, if you judge by his tanking poll numbers. But does this collapse in approval have to mean that the last best chance for expanding health care for millions of Americans must fail as well?

Does this mean we throw in the towel, and return to a status quo in which insurance companies routinely cancel policies, deny health care to people with pre-existing conditions and have their own death panel treatment for patients who reach a cap in medical benefits?

Rooting for Failure - NYTimes.com

Sphere: Related Content

“Secretary of ‘splaining” - NYTimes.com

 

“I have agreed to give this talk today because I am still amazed at how much misunderstanding there is about the current system of health care, how it works, how it compares with what other people in other countries pay for health care,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd assembled in a hall around the corner from a montage of black-and-white photographs of the 1992 presidential campaign. The audience of about 250 included Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, and Speaker Davy Carter of the Legislature and Michael Lamoureux, president of the State Senate, both Republicans.

Despite the bipartisan show, health care is a contentious topic in Arkansas politics that conservatives have seized on in local campaigns. Mr. Pryor did not attend the event for risk of being too closely associated with the health care law, according to one person with knowledge of his plans, but who was not authorized to discuss them publicly. A campaign spokesman has said that Mr. Pryor had a scheduling conflict.

With the new insurance markets set to open on Oct. 1 for an initial six-month enrollment period, the White House has asked cabinet officers and other presidential appointees to step up efforts to promote the law. The administration has also recruited actors and entertainers and is seeking athletes and disc jockeys to whip up enthusiasm. Last week, the singer Katy Perry retweeted a Twitter post from President Obama encouraging young people to sign up for coverage. He responded, “Thanks for spreading the word.”

Mr. Clinton’s speech, which the White House broadcast live on its Web site, was not the first time that the former president, whose own attempt to sell a universal health care law failed drastically in his first term, has stepped into the debate over the new law. At the Democratic National Convention last September, Mr. Clinton delivered an endorsement of Mr. Obama that included concrete, well-received explanations of his policies, including on health care. That speech in particular signaled to the White House that Mr. Clinton could be an effective surrogate to sell the highly complicated Affordable Care Act.

On Wednesday, the former president carefully laid out Mr. Obama’s plan without delving into politics. But his mere involvement in selling the law provides him with a platform to reframe the failed battles of “Hillarycare” from his own administration.

“It would not be in her interest to be running for president and have this be a huge controversial issue in 2016,” said Robert J. Blendon, a professor of health policy at Harvard who closely follows public opinion of the law. “The Clintons have a lot of interest in getting this up and working and making it a legacy for the Democratic side.”

Reading glasses perched on his nose, Mr. Clinton struck a professorial tone as he explained in extensive detail the intricacies of the act. He laid out who would qualify for federal subsidies to help pay for the cost of coverage through the new markets and even ticked off Web addresses and phone numbers where Americans could find information.

Clinton Urges Americans to Sign Up for Health Care Exchanges - NYTimes.com

Sphere: Related Content

Hurray for Health Reform - NYTimes.com

Hurray for Health Reform - NYTimes.com: It’s said that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. If the same principle applies to legislation, the Affordable Care Act — which was signed into law two years ago, but for the most part has yet to take effect — sits in a place of high honor.

- Sent using Google Toolbar

Sphere: Related Content

Five Obamacare Myths - NYTimes.com

Five Obamacare Myths - NYTimes.com

Sphere: Related Content

The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism | Rick Perlstein | The Baffler

The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism | Rick Perlstein | The Baffler

Ever wonder why right wing talk sponsors are so loyal?

In 2007, I signed on to the email lists of several influential magazines on the right, among them Townhall, which operates under the auspices of evangelical Stuart Epperson’s Salem Communications; Newsmax, the organ more responsible than any other for drumming up the hysteria that culminated in the impeachment of Bill Clinton; and Human Events, one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite publications. The exercise turned out to be far more revealing than I expected. Via the battery of promotional appeals that overran my email inbox, I mainlined a right-wing id that was invisible to readers who encounter conservative opinion at face value.

Subscriber lists to ideological organs are pure gold to the third-party interests who rent them as catchments for potential customers. Who better suits a marketing strategy than a group that voluntarily organizes itself according to their most passionately shared beliefs? That’s why, for instance, the other day I (and probably you) got an advertisement by way of liberal magazine The American Prospect seeking donations to Mercy Corps, a charity that helps starving children in the Third World. But back when I was getting emails every day from Newsmax and Townhall, the come-ons were a little bit different.

Dear Reader, I’m going to tell you something, but you must promise to keep it quiet. You have to understand that the “elite”would not be at all happy with me if they knew what I was about to tell you. That’s why we have to tread carefully. You see, while most people are paying attention to the stock market, the banks, brokerages and big institutions have their money somewhere else . . . [in] what I call the hidden money mountain . . . All you have to know is the insider’s code (which I’ll tell you) and you could make an extra $6,000 every single month.

Soon after reading that, I learned of the“23-Cent Heart Miracle,” the one “Washington, the medical industry, and drug companies REFUSE to tell you about.” (Why would they? They’d just be leaving money on the table: “I was scheduled for open heart surgery when I read about your product,” read one of the testimonials. “I started taking it and now six months have passed and I haven’t had open-heart surgery.”) Then came news of the oilfield in the placenta.

“Dear NewsMax Reader,” this appeal began, leaving no doubt that whatever trust that publication had built with its followers was being rented out wholesale. “Please find below a special message from our sponsor, James Davidson, Editor of Outside the Box. He has some important information to share with you.”

Here’s the information in question: “If you have shied away from profiting from the immense promise of stem cells to treat disease because of moral concern over extracting stem cells from fetal tissue, pay close attention. You can now invest with a clear conscience. An Israeli entrepreneur, Zami Aberman, has discovered‘an oilfield in the placenta.’ His little company, Pluristem Life Systems (OTCBB: PLRS) has made a discovery which is potentially more valuable than Prudhoe Bay.”

Davidson concluded by proposing the lucky investor purchase a position of 83,000 shares of PLRS for the low, low price of twelve cents each. If you act now, Davidson explained, your $10,000 outlay “could bring you a profit of more than a quarter of a million dollars.”

Not long after I let the magic of the placenta-based oilfield sink in, I got another pitch, this one courtesy of the webmasters handling the Human Events mailing list and headed “The Trouble with Get-Rich-Quick Schemes.” Perhaps I’m a little gullible myself; for a couple of seconds, I believed the esteemed Reagan-era policy handbook might be sending out a useful consumer advisory to its readers, an investigative guide to the phony get-rich-quick schemes caroming around the right-leaning opinion-sphere. But that hasty assumption proved sadly mistaken, presuming as it did that the proprietors of outfits likeHuman Events respect their readers. Instead, this was a come-on for something called“INSTANT INTERNET INCOME”—the chance at last to “put an end to your financial worries . . . permanently erase your debts . . . pay cash for the things you want . . . create a secure, enjoyable retirement for yourself . . . give your family the abundant lifestyle they so richly deserve.”

Sphere: Related Content

Partisanship guides American attitudes on health-care reform - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG

Partisanship guides American attitudes on health-care reform 

Predictably, individual views on the law's effects -- for good or ill -- also fell along party lines. Twenty-two percent of Democrats say the ACA has had an overall positive effect on their lives, compared to only 4 percent of Republicans. Similarly, 42 percent of Republicans deem the overall effect as negative, compared with 9 percent of Democrats.

"Republicans are much more likely to see negative effects of the ACA, including some effects (increased taxes or a decline in quality of care) which are almost certainly not linked to the Affordable Care Act," Taylor said. "Democrats tend to see positive effects that [also] may be real or imagined."

Although the poll numbers appear mixed, Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA in Washington, D.C., believes that public attitudes will lean more toward the positive as 2014 approaches and more of the law's key elements are enacted.

Sphere: Related Content

I am a job creator: A manifesto for the entitled - The Washington Post

I am a job creator: A manifesto for the entitled - The Washington Post

I am the misunderstood superhero of American capitalism, single-handedly creating wealth and prosperity despite all the obstacles put in my way by employees, government and the media.
I am a job creator and I am entitled.
I am entitled to complain about the economy even when my stock price, my portfolio and my profits are at record levels.
I am entitled to a healthy and well-educated workforce, a modern and efficient transportation system and protection for my person and property, just as I am entitled to demonize the government workers who provide them.
I am entitled to complain bitterly about taxes that are always too high, even when they are at record lows.
I am entitled to a judicial system that efficiently enforces contracts and legal obligations on customers, suppliers and employees but does not afford them the same right in return.
I am entitled to complain about the poor quality of service provided by government agencies even as I leave my own customers on hold for 35 minutes while repeatedly telling them how important their call is.
I am entitled to a compensation package that is above average for my company’s size and industry, reflecting the company’s aspirations if not its performance.
I am entitled to have the company pay for breakfasts and lunches, a luxury car and private jet travel, my country club dues and home security systems, box seats to all major sporting events, a pension equal to my current salary and a full package of insurance — life, health, dental, disability and long-term care — through retirement.

 There's lots more and it is all dead on!

Sphere: Related Content

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says 'Obamacare' adds trillions to the deficit

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney says 'Obamacare' adds trillions to the deficit

Here, we’re fact-checking Romney’s claim that "Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt." It’s a topic we’ve researched before.

We asked the Romney campaign for their evidence for this statement, but we didn’t hear back.

For claims about laws that are not yet fully enacted, our go-to source is the Congressional Budget Office. It’s a nonpartisan, widely respected agency with an expert staff that generates projections and reports about how proposed laws affect the federal budget.

The Congressional Budget Office is not always right in its projections. In recent years, for example, it overestimated how much it would cost to cover prescription drugs for seniors in Medicare. The program actually came in under projections.

But for claims about deficits, we consider the Congressional Budget Office, often called the CBO, to be the standard by which we fact-check claims.

The CBO said this about the health care law back in 2010: It lowers the deficit, by about $124 billion over 10 years.

And in 2011, when Republicans offered a bill to repeal the health care law, the CBO said that increased the deficit, by about $210 billion over 10 years.

Now, is the CBO infallible? Certainly not. And good questions have been raised about some of the CBO’s methods in accounting for the health care law’s effects. We reported on some those concerns in great detail in a fact-check of statement from U.S. Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. He said the law was "accelerating our country toward bankruptcy." We rated that Mostly False.

The CBO itself acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding its estimates. Its reports regularly warn that uncertainty increases as it makes projections farther into the future.

Sphere: Related Content

Incivility Is a Partner in Health Care Reform Indicates Benepath CEO | Jul 23, 2012

Incivility Is a Partner in Health Care Reform Indicates Benepath CEO | Jul 23, 2012

There is another glitch looming large in the health care system. It is called incivility. “Incivility is the latest, but not the newest, issue to come to the fore in the health care system,” Clelland Green, RHU, CEO, and president of Benepath, Pennsylvania, indicated. “It is not new, but it does seem to be getting worse over time. Medical health professionals hand it out and conversely, put up with it, so it’s a two-way street with a dead end if this keeps escalating.”

Most know incivility to be intimidating, rude, disruptive or unwanted behavior aimed at someone else. It is typically an offensive, hostile or intimidating action that charges the environment in a highly negative manner. It has always been around, but seems to be getting worse. Victims of the potshots taken at them suffer real and distressing symptoms that may include humiliation, stress, depression, anger and an inability to sleep. “Call it what you want, incivility, relational aggression, lateral violence, or call a spade a spade and say that incivility is really bullying, by a slightly nicer name, but not by much,” Green added.

Bullies exist in every walk of life and for those who have the misfortune to run across them, they find themselves on the receiving end of abnormally aggressive actions and behavior that allows the individual to get control and power over others. Bullying exits in the workplace, in groups and in individual interactions. In a medical setting, it may be one nurse bullying another, management bullying a nurse, a nurse bullying a patient and vice versa, and the list goes on.

 The hard, cold fact of incivility is that it shreds workplace morale and interferes with patient safety. This type of behavior in a medical setting is far more widespread than we may imagine. The end result of working in this kind of hostile atmosphere is lower productivity, less inclination to take the initiative and fear, anger and stress and an increase in medical malpractice.

The statistics that show that bullying in workplaces across the nation is highly prevalent, with roughly 37 percent affected by it, at least 12 percent who have seen it transpire, 45 percent whose health has been impacted by bullying and a disturbing number of 40 percent who are subjected to it, but do not report it. “As it relates to the medical health profession,” said Green, “the bottom line is civility must be present for there to be professionalism. It is just that simple. Patients do not go to hospital to be subjected to this kind of behavior or attitude. Medical professionals need to get a grip.”

Sphere: Related Content

The Conservative Misinformation Campaign About Obamacare Has Worked Really, Really Well | Mother Jones

The Conservative Misinformation Campaign About Obamacare Has Worked Really, Really Well | Mother Jones

Andrew Sprung draws my attention to a Kaiser quiz about Obamacare from a few months ago, and you'll be unsurprised to learn that most Americans don't know much about it. I put the responses into graphical form, and what's most interesting, I think, is to look at the right side of the chart: the questions that were most frequently gotten wrong.

All of them are tied together by a single thread: they've been the main targets of the conservative misinformation campaign against the Affordable Care Act. The tea party folks have never spent much time talking about low-income subsidies or tax credits or Medicaid expansion or pre-existing conditions. And guess what? Most people know how the law works in those areas.¹

But conservatives do spend a lot of time rabble-rousing about death panels and illegal immigrants and Medicare cuts. And they also spend a lot of time bewailing the "government takeover" of healthcare, which includes things like the public option ("a new government run insurance plan") and a supposed mandate that small businesses will all be required to offer health insurance for their employees. Sure enough, those are the areas where misunderstanding is highest.

That's why I disagree with Andrew that misinformation about small businesses amounts to a "foot fault" by current standards of public discourse. In a way, he's right, of course: it's not a major flash point and it hasn't gotten a lot of news coverage. But there's a reason it's the single most misunderstood issue. The Rush/Fox/Drudge axis has been screaming about the government takeover of healthcare for three years now, and it's sunk in. Most people believe it. That's why, faced with a question most of them really have no idea about, their immediate reaction is to believe that, in fact, government is once again planting its jackboot directly on the necks of America's small businesses. It's a small issue, but it's also a bellwether that the broader conservative misinformation campaign has burrowed very deeply into the American psyche.

Sphere: Related Content

The Republican turn against universal health insurance

The Republican turn against universal health insurance

In 2007, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina sent a letter to President George W. Bush.

DeMint said he would like to work with Bush to pass legislation that would “ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage.”

Read that closely. DeMint does not say he wants legislation that would ensure all Americans have “access” to coverage — the standard rhetorical dodge of politicians who don’t want to oppose universal coverage, but also don’t want to do what’s necessary to achieve it. He says that he wants legislation that ensures all American actually have coverage. He says that without making sure every American has coverage, “the health care system cannot be fixed.” For good measure, DeMint wants to achieve this “while protecting current government programs.”

It is amazing how crazy - and mean-spirited - conservatives have become. None of that WWJD girly nonsense for the new conservative movement.

Sphere: Related Content

AlterNet: 10 Reasons Most People Like Obamacare Once They Know What's Really In It

AlterNet: 10 Reasons Most People Like Obamacare Once They Know What's Really In It

There are two Affordable Care Acts. There's the legislation passed by Congress in 2009, and then there's the mythical Affordable Care Act – the perfidious “government takeover” decried and demagogued by so many conservatives (and quite a few liberals). The former is quite popular, the latter gets decidedly mixed reviews.

Don't take my word for it. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found Americans split down the middle, with 41 percent approving of the law, and 40 percent saying they didn't like it (PDF). But then Kaiser asked about 12 specific provisions in the legislation, and found that, on average, 63 percent of respondents approved of the nuts and bolts of Obamacare. Of the 12 measures they tested, only one – the controversial mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty – received the approval of less than half of Americans (35 percent).

Or consider this divide: while only 12 percent of Republicans had a positive view of the law overall, 47 percent, on average, viewed its specifics favorably.

Follow the link to read the ten reasons...

Sphere: Related Content

The Ryan proposal compels Americans to buy insurance—just like Obamacare does. - Slate Magazine

The Ryan proposal compels Americans to buy insurance—just like Obamacare does. - Slate Magazine

Ryan's roadmap would reshape Americans' access to health insurance mainly through two provisions, both of which pressure people to purchase private health insurance to an extent and through mechanisms that are materially indistinguishable from the supposedly toxic Obamacare mandate. One of these Ryan proposals—as yet little noticed by pundits or politicians—is almost an exact copy of a provision in the Affordable Care Act. * It would repeal the current exclusion from employees' income of employer contributions to their health insurance premiums, thus terminating the subsidized employer-sponsored group health regime that covers nearly 60 percent of all Americans. In its place, the Republican plan would substitute a refundable tax credit, to be provided to individuals who purchase health insurance (or to employers who purchase health insurance for their employees). When this new arrangement takes effect in 2022, the tax credit would be set at $2,300 per adult and $1,700 per child, not to exceed $5,700 per family.

Like this Ryancare tax incentive, the "individual mandate" section of the ACA, which the White House calls the "individual responsibility" provision, constitutes a pay-or-play option. Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, when the ACA provision takes effect, individuals who do not qualify for exemption on hardship or other specified grounds, must either carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty as part of their annual income tax filing. The ACA caps individuals' penalty liability at 2.5 percent of household income above the filing threshold, or a flat dollar amount ranging from $695 to $2,085, depending on family size.

Under both provisions, the result is the same: People who choose to carry health insurance have a lower tax bill than they would if they chose not to. In terms of their respective potential impact on individuals' bank accounts and tax liability, the manner in which they affect individuals' financial incentives, and hence the constraining effect on individuals' financial choices to either buy or forgo health insurance, the two "mandate" provisions are identical. (Indeed, in most cases, the financial difference for the individual taxpayer made by the Republican tax credit would be greater—i.e., more "coercive"—than the ACA tax penalty.)

Sphere: Related Content

Sorry, The CBO Did Not Say Health Reform Kills 800,000 Jobs | The New Republic

Sorry, The CBO Did Not Say Health Reform Kills 800,000 Jobs | The New Republic

From Jonathon Chait on the "job killing" myth:

Other provisions in the legislation are also likely to diminish people’s incentives to work. Changes to the insurance market, including provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions and that restrict how much prices can vary with an individual’s age or health status, will increase the appeal of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers. As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would. (CBO)

In other words, people who are only working because they desperately need employer-sponsored health insurance will no longer do so. They're not going on the public dole -- they're just people who have the means not to work full-time and will be free to make employment decisions that aren't premised upon an individual health insurance market that shuts them out. Some workers will choose to retire early because they now have the ability to buy their own health insurance. This is what Republicans call "destroying jobs."

Now, CBO does show a very minor effect of higher taxes discouraging the work incentive. But this is a very small portion of what is a fairly small effect to begin with. Basically the analysis shows the effect of giving workers with preexisting conditions access to a health care system that doesn't lock them into the employer-provided system. Apparently, in the conservative view, being chained to your desk at some big company until you're 65 and unable to retire or start your own business because the individual market is rife with adverse selection is defined as "freedom."

Sphere: Related Content

George Lakoff: The Wisconsin Blues

George Lakoff: The Wisconsin Blues

Scott Walker was just carrying out general conservative moral policies, taking the next step along a well-worn path.
What progressives need to do is clear. To people who have mixed values -- partly progressive, partly conservative -- talk progressive values in progressive language, thus strengthening progressive moral views in their brains. Never move to the right thinking you'll get more cooperation that way.
Start telling deep truths out loud all day every day: Democracy is about citizens caring about each other. The Public is necessary for The Private. Pensions are delayed earnings for work already done; eliminating them is theft. Unions protect workers from corporate exploitation -- low salaries, no job security, managerial threats, and inhumane working conditions. Public schools are essential to opportunity, and not just financially: they provide the opportunity to make the most of students' skills and interests. They are also essential to democracy, since democracy requires an educated citizenry at large, as well as trained professionals in every community. Without education of the public, there can be no freedom.
At issue is the future of progressive morality, democracy, freedom, and every aspect of the Public -- and hence the viability of private life and private enterprise in America on a mass scale. The conservative goal is to impose rule by conservative morality on the entire country, and beyond. Eliminating unions and public education are just steps along the way. Only progressive moral force can stop them.
The Little Blue Book is a guide to how to express your moral views and how to reveal hidden truths that undermine conservative claims. And it explains why this has to be done constantly, not just during election campaigns. It is the cumulative effect that matters, as conservatives well know.

Sphere: Related Content

Be wary of ad claims about health care law and brace for a wave of more: PolitiFact Ohio | cleveland.com

Be wary of ad claims about health care law and brace for a wave of more: PolitiFact Ohio | cleveland.com

An independent payment advisory board created by the health care reform law "can ration care and deny certain Medicare treatments."
Pat Boone makes this claim as the front man for an ad from the 60 Plus Association that aired this spring and targets five Democratic senators, including Ohio's Sherrod Brown. The law creates a 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board to suggest ways to limit Medicare's spending growth, but the board may be overruled by Congress, and it makes no decisions about individual care. It is specifically forbidden from making any recommendations that would ration care, reduce benefits, raise premiums or cost-sharing or alter eligibility for Medicare. The 60 Plus Association was spending $720,000 on a campaign in Ohio aimed at Brown when PolitiFact Ohio ran the claim through the Truth-O-Meter and called it Pants On Fire.
The national health care reform is "a government takeover of health care."
We've heard it before -- so often that PolitiFact national named it the 2010 Lie of the Year -- and we'll surely hear it again. It has come recently from third-party advocacy ads. While the law gives the federal government a larger role in the health insurance industry, it relies overwhelmingly on the private market. In fact, the reform is projected to increase the number of citizens with private health insurance. PolitiFact has noted that the claim has been proven wrong over and over again. The rating: Pants On Fire.
The Affordable Care Act contains "a series of slush funds, set up to stay on the books automatically, with little or no oversight."
So said House Speaker John Boehner in a news release and video, and again during debate on college student loan rates. PolitiFact Ohio found that the health care bill provides several pools of money that the secretary of health and human services can disburse for purposes designated by the legislation. But slush funds? Merriam-Webster defines a "slush fund" as "an unregulated fund often used for illicit purposes." The money in question is designated for programs specifically defined by the law. Congress also has the power to oversee the bill's implementation. The rating: Pants On Fire.
The health care law "slapped Ohio small businesses with a $500 billion tax increase."
This statement came from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. PolitiFact Ohio found that the $500 billion figure was a fair number for total revenue raised nationally by the 2010 health care law, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at the time of the December 2009 vote on it. But the number for just taxes is lower, probably between $400 billion and $465 billion. The rest was for various other fees and revenue enhancements, and for all new revenue nationwide -- not just for the share to be paid in taxes by small businesses in Ohio. To pick a national number and apply it to one segment of one state is not accurate, simply ridiculous and gets a rating of Pants on Fire.
"Preventive care . . . saves money for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody." Ad claims in support of the health care law have been exponentially fewer than attacks, but this sweeping claim came from President Obama. Is preventive care a good idea? It can often save lives and keep patients healthier, and certain preventive measures may save money as well. But the findings of the Congressional Budget Office and physicians who have studied the medical literature say otherwise, including a Feb. 14, 2008, article in the New England Journal of Medicine that noted that "the vast majority" of preventive health measures that were "reviewed in the health economics literature do not" save money. The rating: False.
"Obamacare . . . will kill jobs across America."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce made this claim in ads that targeted Brown and other Democrats, and "job-killing" is the standard epithet applied to the health care law by opponents. PolitiFact looked at the best projections available when the claim was raised, based on how the law is actually written, and found that they do not suggest that the law will "kill" jobs. PolitiFact also looked at evidence provided by the Chamber to support its claim, including a brief from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has been critical of the law. When the authors were asked whether their brief supported the claim, they responded that "our paper does not provide evidence that the [health care law] would cause job loss." The rating: False.
The health care law "will cut $500 billion from Medicare."
This claim from candidates and advocacy groups has been examined numerous times by PolitiFact national, PolitiFact Ohio and other PolitiFact state operations. The important point there is that $500 billion is not taken out of the current Medicare budget and that nowhere in the bill are benefits eliminated. The $500 billion represents the projected saving by slowing the projected growth in Medicare spending over 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase. The rating: Mostly False.

Sphere: Related Content

The Never Ending Health Reform BS Machine

Just at the beginning of the month, I posted at the Doctors for America Blog about a couple of ridiculous email campaigns that will not die, in spite of  how ridiculous they both were and are.

A friend sent me another one this morning, which is actually a YouTube video (link below). The video is based on previously debunked BS email that was going around in 2009, as noted by Snopes. At the time, Politifact covered it, and you can read the debunking here.

Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 4:57 AM

Subject: THIS WILL KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF!! Please WATCH!!!

More details on your healthcare bill.

Please watch the entire video.... Then forward it to everyone you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium (10:29)!

What is most astounding to me is that you can have a steaming pile of BS, like the original letter, and then take the time and effort to turn it into a video without, apparently, using The Google to see if any of it is true! Who does this stuff?

Sphere: Related Content