Posts with the tag health care

Progress in LGBT Health Care

Lisa V. Gillespie — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:16:25 EST

The organization Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays is offering a new guide designed to help healthcare providers offer more effective care to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender patients.
The guide, “Straight for Equality in Healthcare,” is a first step in acknowledging that patients can even be LGBTQ. The guide offers “case studies” where nurses and doctors express unease when suspicious that a patient may be LGBTQ. They don’t know how to ask, don’t want to assume and don’t know how that patients issues may different from a straight person.

Scenario: a young boy is in the coming out process and wants to know what he should be doing to be safe (teaching heterosexual safe sex in school is still a huge hurdle, my hunch is that it’ll be a while before LGBTQ sex is explored), but he doesn’t want to out himself to this doctor, who knows his family. It’s an uncomfortable situation. Unless the doctor has it in his/her head to ask, the boy probably isn’t going to bring it up. And will not know the implications of detrimental actions. He gets all his info from friends or does not get it at all.

It is a first step. The likelihood of LGBT people having appropriate messengers and/or messages is rare within traditional settings, given societal assumptions of heterosexuality and the fact that most health professionals are poorly informed about the health care risks of LGBT patients. A 1998 survey of all U.S. medical schools found an average of only 2.5 hours devoted to this topic in the 4-year program. Beyond communication, there is a lack of knowledge about LGBTQ health over all and how it might differ from heterosexual health. Should a lesbian use a dental dam (female condom)? Can a lesbian get an STD through sex? If a doctor does not know these questions, what is a patient to do?

Heterosexuality is still assumed in most medical settings. This guide is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to change the institution.

National Review: ‘Death Panel,’ Pelosi, May Kill Your Family!

Erin Rosa — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:58:47 EST

At least, that’s according to the top story this morning on the right-leaning National Review’s website (with a very unflattering picture of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi):

Of course, deliberate misinformation about health care is nothing new. End of life planning was 86’d from reform after many on the far Right distorted facts and called the planning “death panels,” in an effort to scare middle America into thinking the government wanted to kill the elderly.

But even weirder, is the fact that the actual story the magazine linked to with the headline doesn’t even remotely address the issue of end-of-life care. Instead, it’s just a short blurb from an ABC interview with Pelosi on health care.

So why the need to mention a ‘death panel?’

The only answer one can really discern is that the magazine, which bill's itself as having "writing of unsurpassed quality," went really, really, far out of its way to try and tarnish efforts to pass health care reform. Wonder what late magazine founder, William F. Buckley, Jr., would think of all of this?

Obama Bringing Health Care Reform Back to Life

Erin Rosa — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:58:52 EST

Originally posted by Natasha Bowens, Advocacy Associate for Campus Progress.

Today is the big day. No really, this time health care reform is really going to strap some wheels on and start moving (after all, abortion coverage is back in the news and you know it’s not a real political discussion unless the abortion debate is involved). The President just had to get everybody together and tell them to stop their bickering and come to a compromise on health care reform. Although the strategy behind the Administration’s moves to push health care reform thus far can be questioned ( i.e. why they foolishly gave up on the public option), the President is trying to stand strong and keep health care reform from falling apart as it did in ‘93.

Speaking of 1993, I can’t decide whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing that the current bill proposed by Democrats reflects that of the Republican bill during Clinton’s presidency. I’ll let you marinate on that for a minute.

Either way, Congress and the Administration are trying to move forward, because it is what has to be done in order to start the slow climb to actual health care reform.

The President released his new proposal for health care reform this week to be used as a basis for the discussion in today’s summit (yes we have already seen a proposal from him, yes the new one packs less of a punch, and yes it is pretty much the Senate bill with a few key improvements – surprise our powerful leader is starting from center again).

However, we find ourselves in a dire situation with the health of our nation, mounting deficit and the corruption that keeps rearing its ugly head in the health insurance industry (are we really shocked that huge companies like Wellpoint would raise rates, manipulate data to boost profits and then try to defend their insidious actions? After all they are behind the effort to kill this health care bill). So, it is clear now more than ever that we have to keep fighting for strong reform.

Here are a few things the President’s proposal would do for America:

Extending dependent coverage for young adults up to age 26
Banning insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions
Increasing subsidies to low-income families in order to purchase coverage
Creating federal oversight to curb insurance industry abuses and unfair rate increases
Giving tax credits to help small businesses afford health insurance

And that’s just naming a few, check out the full proposal here for more info.

So what will happen today? Well, tune in here to see for yourself. The Sunlight Foundation will be streaming the discussion live all day and will have some cool live blogging as well as links to the campaign contributions from health insurance lobbyists that members are receiving as each of them speaks. You can submit your own questions about the debate on the site. One thing is certain, you can expect “party of no” members to give the same old attacks against health care reform, while not producing solutions themselves. Check out The Wonk Room’s guide to GOP ideas expected during today’s summit.

What will happen after today? It seems that Congress is firm in its decision to pass legislation within the next 60 days and use a political technique to pass the legislation without the 60 vote supermajority needed (since that supermajority was lost when Senator Kennedy’s seat was filled by Scott Brown). There is some opposition to using this technique, called reconciliation, but it is a very common technique that has been used many times in the past, even with health care. So it seems this will be the way forward and, one day soon, Americans will make it to the first step in solving our health care crisis.

We are already seeing legislation pass that aims to clean up other parts of the health care system. Just yesterday the House passed a health insurance antitrust bill which Rep. Tom Perriello ( D- VA) concluded should make health insurers a bit scared of the long-needed regulations to come.

Obama Bringing Health Care Reform Back to Life

nbowens — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:14:12 EST

Today is the big day. No really, this time health care reform is really going to strap some wheels on and start moving (after all, abortion coverage is back in the news and you know it's not a real political discussion unless the abortion debate is involved). The President just had to get everybody together and tell them to stop their bickering and come to a compromise on health care reform. Although the strategy behind the Administration's moves to push health care reform thus far can be questioned ( i.e. why they foolishly gave up on the public option), the President is trying to stand strong and keep health care reform from falling apart as it did in '93.

Speaking of 1993, I can't decide whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that the current bill proposed by Democrats reflects that of the Republican bill during Clinton's presidency. I'll let you marinate on that for a minute.

Either way, Congress and the Administration are trying to move forward, because it is what has to be done in order to start the slow climb to actual health care reform.

The President released his new proposal for health care reform this week to be used as a basis for the discussion in today's summit (yes we have already seen a proposal from him, yes the new one packs less of a punch, and yes it is pretty much the Senate bill with a few key improvements - surprise our powerful leader is starting from center again).

However, we find ourselves in a dire situation with the health of our nation, mounting deficit and the corruption that keeps rearing its ugly head in the health insurance industry (are we really shocked that huge companies like Wellpoint would raise rates, manipulate data to boost profits and then try to defend their insidious actions? After all they are the powers that be behind the effort to kill this health care bill). So, it is clear now more than ever that we have to keep fighting for strong reform but also recognize that this proposal is doing some great things for America:

Extending dependent coverage for young adults up to age 26
Banning insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions
Increasing subsidies to low-income families in order to purchase coverage
Creating federal oversight to curb insurance industry abuses and unfair rate increases
Tax credits to help small businesses afford health insurance

And that's just naming a few, check out the full proposal here for more info.

So what will happen today? Well, tune in here to see for yourself. This site will be streaming the discussion live all day and will have some cool live blogging as well as links to the campaign contributions from health insurance lobbyists that members are receiving as each of them speaks. One thing is certain, you can expect "party of no" members to give the same old attacks against health care reform, while not producing solutions themselves. Check out The WonkRoom's guide to GOP ideas expected during today's summit.

(Young) Voices of the Uninsured

Kay — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:26:30 EST

Today the Nation has some really heart-wrenching stories about real people without health insurance. The stories are in the people's own words, and the tone ranges from defeated to angry. The first story is from J. Travis Rolko, an uninsured college student who has been that way since s/he was 18.

I have been living with these conditions too long and I really don't want to do it anymore. I've been suicidal for a while and my one hope was health insurance reform (specifically the interim high-risk pools, ban on rescission, and the extension of maximum age on a family plan to 27). I've been happier for the past month since the Senate bill was passed, but stunningly, that all went away because of the sudden rise of Brown's support which virtually no one saw coming. Politicians almost always defend lack of progress by citing how slow Congress moves and how it's not an institution that makes sudden and/or radical changes, but this election at least partially proves them wrong.
So my hope is almost completely gone and I don't want to continue living with these conditions.

I'd like to see Senators tell this young person that s/he just has to keep living this way.

Abstinence-only Still Ineffective, Still Funded

Andrew Bluebond — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:15:35 EST

After President Obama’s successful effort to remove abstinence only sexual education funding from the 2010 Omnibus Spending Bill, it seemed that the debate over federal funding for abstinence only programs would go away for a bit. Alas, it hasn’t. Abstinence only programs continue to push for federal funds, and this time they hope they will come through health care legislation despite new evidence that supports the growing consensus that these programs don’t work.

Last month, Rob Stein at the Washington Post reported that abstinence only groups are hoping to cash in on the $50 million set aside in the Senate version of the bill for abstinence-based programs designed to reduce teen pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association said that she was “optimistic” and “hopeful” that abstinence programs would receive these funds.

New Reports Show Massive Spending Against Health Care Reform in 2009

nbowens — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:43:52 EST

*This post was written by CP Advocacy intern, Yosef Getachew

In a recent article written by the National Journal, it was revealed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce not only spent the most money on health care lobbying last year but had also doubled what it had spent in 2008. As a result, the lobbying group spent $123.3 million in 2009 compared to $62.3 million in 2008 for all lobbying activities. Furthermore, a majority of this money was spent in the 4th quarter of 2009, which was the height of the health care debate. The massive amount of spending done by the traditionally conservative lobbyist group demonstrates its efforts in derailing health care reform for millions of Americans:

The top-spending groups on health care reform generally spent about as much lobbying last year as they did in 2008 — with one notable exception. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce stood out not only for consistently outspending other groups, but also for nearly doubling its lobbying spending over the previous year. In the fourth quarter of 2009 alone, the group’s outflows easily topped the amount spent by any other group all year.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wasn’t the only one who spent millions of dollars to lobby against health care reform. An article written by Think Progress reports that health insurance companies spent a total of $38 million in 2009 to impede the progress of health care reform.

A protest lead by Health Care for America Now was held today to fight back against the U.S Chamber of Commerce. Campus Progress attended the protest, which took place right on the steps of the lobbyist group’s building. Protestors shared stories and vehemently condemned the actions of lobbyist efforts as they urged Congress to finally pass health care reform.

The Democratic Legitimacy of Health Care Reform

Dylan Matthews — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:28:11 EST

(Flickr/Subconsci Productions)

In light of the Massachusetts Senate race and polls showing popular opposition to comprehensive health care reform, opponents of reform will try to paint efforts to continue the fight as going against the peoples' wishes. This was happening before the Massachusetts election was even decided. Weekly Standard editor, and noted fan of needless death in both hospitals and battlefields, William Kristol, wrote Monday, "I very much doubt, if Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts, that Nancy Pelosi will be able to persuade 217 other House Democrats to jam Obamacare down the throats of the American people."

These arguments would make sense if the federal government made decisions based on polls it conducted of the populace, or by referendums in randomly selected states. But it doesn't. Voters register their opinions through elections, and that is the only form of expression that's at all relevant. And a look at the numbers there show a country that voted overwhelmingly for representation that would reform health care.

If you add up the populations of all the states where at least one Senator voted for the health care reform bill, the total is about 229 million, or 74.5 percent of the country. This is slightly misleading, though, as it does not account for states where one Senator did not vote for the bill and the other did. So I calculated the figure again, only dividing by two the population of states where this split occurred. The total is 192 million, or 62.767 percent of the country.

Let's be clear. The vast majority of the country voted to elect representatives who support health care reform. It is the obligation of the Congress to fulfill that mandate and pass comprehensive health care reform. That the undemocratic nature of the Senate and the filibuster makes this difficult is unfortunate, but not an insurmountable barrier.

The Senate Doesn't Wear 'I'm With Stupak' T-Shirt

Kay — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:27:40 EST

Today, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) is smiling. (Flickr/jdlasica)

The Senate released its health care bill last night, named the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (you can read it yourself, in PDF form). The Senate bill has some things about abortion that give the pro-choice community hope after the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The New York Times has a nice side-by-side comparison of the two bills, and on abortion, the Senate bill looks much closer to what the pro-choice community was pushing for initially in the House bill -- closer to what's called the Capps amendment. Huffington Post reports that Capps herself is somewhat happy with the Senate compromise. "'I am pleased that the Senate has adopted a reasonable, common ground approach on this difficult question,' she said in a statement."

The Senate bill allows insurers to decide if they want to include abortion in each plan (much as they do now, and 87 percent of private plans already choose to provide such coverage). The Senate plan also says that private plans that receive federal subsidies to make the plans more affordable to individuals can provide abortion coverage, so long as they don't use the federal money to pay for the abortion coverage. The Senate bill also allows the public option to provide abortion, again, as long as it federal dollars aren't used to pay for it.

Under the Senate bill, each state is required to have at least one plan that provides abortion coverage and at least one plan does not include abortion coverage.

But, as Eleanor Clift pointed out at Newsweek, the abortion fight isn't over yet:

There are two numbers to watch: (1) Can an anti-abortion amendment offered by, say, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, or pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, get 60 votes? Probably not, but Reid will have to get 60 votes to even proceed with debate on the bill. (2) Getting that 60 could mean putting stronger anti-abortion language in the bill to get those red-state Democrats.

But in the meantime, the pro-life community is pretty mad. The National Right to Life, one of the biggest pro-life groups in America, said in a statement that the Senate bill "substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs ... National Right to Life will continue to fight for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment."

There's also funding set aside for abstinence only education:

Leave it to the United States Senate to ... restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

If the Senate language survives reconciliation, the Title V program will be extended through 2014. This will not, however, bring abstinence funding back to the levels of the past decade. In 2008, Title V grants accounted for just under 25 percent of the federal abstinence budget (the rest of the budget came from other abstinence-only funding sources not restored in the Senate bill, including Community Based Abstinence Education Grants and the Adolescent Family Life Act).

On another reproductive health front, abstinence only groups are declaring victory. “It is encouraging that the hard work of grassroots constituencies from across the country have prevailed to ensure these common-sense programs will continue,” said executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, Valerie Huber to The Americano. But abstinence-only programming has been scientifically proven to be ineffective.

UPDATE: Jodi Jacobson over at RH Reality Check has a more in-depth look at abortion in the Senate health care bill.

Study: 'Industry-Wide Effect' of Stupak Amendment Will Eliminate Abortion Coverage

Kay — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:06:54 EST

(Flickr/Brian Rendel)

Via TPMDC, a George Washington University School of Public Health study of public health shows that the Stupak-Pitts amendment would eventually eliminate all abortion coverage. "We conclude that treatment exclusions required under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange," the study says.

The study also calls out the rider alternative, an add-on women could purchase separately to cover abortion (incidentally, this is how many insurance providers handle coverage for pregnancy now), as bullshit:

In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling. This bar is in addition to the challenges inherent in administering any supplemental policy. These challenges would be magnified in the case of medically indicated abortions because, given the relatively low number of medically indicated abortions, the coverage supplement would apply to only a handful of procedures for a handful of conditions. Furthermore, the House legislation contains no direct economic incentive to create such a market. Indeed, it is not clear how such a market even would be regulated or whether it would be subject to the requirements that apply to all products offered inside the exchange. Finally, because supplemental coverage must of necessity commingle funds with basic coverage, the impact of Stupak/Pitts on states’ ability to offer supplemental Medicaid coverage to women insured through a subsidized exchange plan is in doubt.

In other words, the Stupak/Pitts amendment is just as bad as feminists have been saying all along.

Despite Recession, Pharmaceutical Prices Surging

Erin Rosa — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:21:11 EST

After threatening to oppose health care reform legislation if lawmakers continue their push to reduce medication prices, the pharmaceutical industry has now dispensed another bitter pill for the consumer to swallow.

Just this last year, the business has increased its wholesale prices for brand-name drugs by nearly 9 percent, or more than $10 billion dollars.

Why? In a New York Times report there are hints to what’s really going on:

The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.

Drug makers say they have valid business reasons for the price increases. Critics say the industry is trying to establish a higher price base before Congress passes legislation that tries to curb drug spending in coming years.

“When we have major legislation anticipated, we see a run-up in price increases,” says Stephen W. Schondelmeyer, a professor of pharmaceutical economics at the University of Minnesota. He has analyzed drug pricing for AARP, the advocacy group for seniors that supports the House health care legislation that the drug industry opposes.

Another important fact to note is that since drug patents in the United States can generally last up to 12 years, generic prescriptions, and their lower prices, are still out of reach for those who depend on recently developed drugs.

Pharmaceutical Biz To Balk At Health Care Reform?

Erin Rosa — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:56:36 EST

The pharmaceutical lobby, predominantly represented by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), has supported recent health insurance reform efforts in the past.

But that might change, soon, if lawmakers keep provisions to reduce the prices of medications in a health care reform bill that was approved by the House of Representatives last week.

David Brennan, CEO of the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca and board chairman of PhRMA, doesn’t take kindly to the idea of cheaper drugs for consumers, Huffington Post reports:

David Brennan, head of pharma giant AstraZeneca, told the Huffington Post that he was pleased with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee for standing by "the principles which we said are really important." The three parties entered into an agreement, before the health care debate heated up, that saw the pharmaceutical industry committing $80 billion to reform in exchange for various assurances -- the primary one being that the government would not use its purchasing power to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices.

The House, however, hasn't played by those rules

…
"Right now the answer to that is yes," Brennan said, when asked if the support would change to opposition. "We said there were principles we didn't want to see violated. And if those principles -- price controls, Medicare rebates, moving dual eligibles back from Medicare and back into the Medicaid discount program -- if those things happen, I can't see how we could be supportive of the program."

Meanwhile, UnitedHealth group, the largest health insurance carrier in the country, has been caught spamming its 75,000 employees with E-mail, encouraging workers to call Congress to oppose health care reform in the Senate.

Student Profile: Meredith Place

Tobin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:47:36 EST

My advice for young progressives is to start advocating and sharing your ideas with the world. I am tired of young progressives who say that what they do or say will not make a difference. Young people have proven after the last election that we are extremely influential and we will fight for our convictions. Therefore, it is now our duty to continue our politically active reputation that we won after the election of Barack Obama. It is your job, as a young progressive, to become an active citizen! Whether that is writing to your Congressmen, participating in a political organization, going to DC to protest, or running for office, it is time to become active!

-Meredith

Mock U: Conservative Think-tanks Unveil Aggressive Plan for Health Care Reform

Delaney Rohan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:10:52 EDT

Today, conservative think-tanks Conservatives for Patients’ Rights and FreedomWorks unveiled what they see as a promising response to President Obama’s plan for health care overhaul. The user-friendly initiative, still in its beginning stages, is an iPhone application intended to give Americans impersonal access to quality health care.

“Now, Americans won’t need comprehensive health care reform,” FreedomWorks Chairman and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey concluded after extensive meetings with rich, publicly insured conservative legislators.

“We realized that our ‘Don’t get sick!’ plan was a bit insensitive, so we partnered with Apple and WebMD to propose something for the common folk,” proudly stated Rick Scott, a Conservatives for Patients’ Rights spokesman.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the effort. “It’s totally consistent with free-market ideology. Therefore, it’s totally frickin’ rad and gonna fix stuff good! Ipso facto!” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised in a press statement issued earlier today.

The free application, which is still in development, will ostensibly analyze a user’s symptoms to determine a narrow set of potential diseases. To cover the costs of providing the service, the application will bludgeon the user with a series of obnoxious advertisements.

“For example, if you have a sore throat, an ad for Tropicana orange juice will pop up. Fatigue? How about a Monster energy drink?” Apple CEO Steve Jobs explained in a press conference earlier today.

FreedomWorks and Conservatives for Patients’ Rights hope lawmakers will adopt their idea into their final heath care reform plan. The application, believed to placate the nation’s 50 million angry uninsured, is expected to drive hoards of people willing to settle for less to the polls in support of conservative, government-hating candidates in 2010. The hope: big gains for right-wingers, a group desperately trying to reconnect with people in a hip, new way.

“If there’s one thing people love, it’s the technological substitution of a basic human need. For example, TV for friends, Twitter for conversation, or an electric car for moral substance. After noticing this, it was really just a matter of time,” Armey explained.

FreedomWorks leaders say their plan will stop any effort for a government-run public option dead in its tracks. “Capitalism rules, socialism drools,” Armey bellowed.

The user is expected to already have an iPhone. “What kind of a loser doesn’t already have an iPhone?!” Armey asked incredulously.

Program developers expect the application to be available sometime before Christmas.

A Frusterated Left

Jake Blumgart — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:48:54 EDT

Good New York Times piece on liberal frustrations “despite being in what, on the surface, is a commanding political position.”

“On the surface” are the key words there. There is a well-documented tendency in the lefty blog-o-sphere, among political radicals, true blue progressives etc. to blame the Democrats, and specifically Obama, for squandering their “commanding political position” on moderate and incremental reforms. There certainly are some Democrats who hinder the process, Blue Dogs and Senate moderates mostly. They aren’t left-wing, and most have never claimed to be. But without them there would be no commanding majority. Without them we wouldn’t even be able to make incremental reforms.

And that is the chief reason our political system is so broken.

Coburn, Seriously?

Jake Blumgart — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:18:21 EDT

From TNR.

Arch-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposes, in the pages of the Advocate no less, that GLBTQ communities come out in favor of market solutions to health care reform, particularly for the the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

It will be interesting to see how Coburn, who has railed against GLBTQ people for years, would explain this attempt at outreach to his more reactionary constituents. It'd be even more interesting to see him explain his 2004 quote to the Advocate:

The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda.

Oops.

"Deficit Neutral" Health Care Reform

MichaelCollins — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:13:03 EDT

Absurdity upon Absurdity

Michael Collins

The health care debate and general political climate compound absurdity upon absurdity.

First we're told that our health care is only worth the time and effort if the remedy has no negative impact on the budget. No deficits allowed. The deficit risk defines your chances for health and longevity.

The Hypocrisy of Progressive Media on Health Care

C_Jefferson — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:44:27 EDT

As the health care debate roils on in Congress, Americans everywhere continue turning to the media for facts and opinion about the bill currently in the forefront of US politics. But can your favorite news outlets be trusted to talk to you straight about health care reform?

Not necessarily, it would seem.

Perusing the job postings at Double X, Slate's "by women" news site, one comes across an editorial assistant position described thusly: "The position is an open-ended contract position, full-time, without benefits." That's right, no benefits for a full-time Double X employee, despite the fact that in the past the site has published more than a few articles in support of progressive health care reforms.

Double X's parent company, The Washington Post Company, also owns Newsweek, which in July ran a cover story by Ted Kennedy that extolled the merits of health care for all. Kennedy died five weeks later.

Elsewhere, at the left-leaning WNYC, a public and NPR-member radio station broadcasting from Manhattan, a recent hire who wishes to remain anonymous has confirmed that her job, too, comes without health benefits.

Even Gawker, which makes no bones about its distaste for conservative values, is rumored to have weak--or totally nonexistent--health care coverage for its many employees.

The hypocrisy is palpable. Call it the cognitive dissonance of the modern American progressive media outlet. One the one hand, the goal should be to give information you believe in to a deserving public. On the other: How to stay in business in an awful economy if every employee is treated fairly and given great benefits?

Campus Progress Rallies with Obama for Health Care

nbowens — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:26:39 EDT

On Thursday September 17, 2009, President Obama held a health care rally at the University of Maryland. He spoke directly to students and young people about the importance of health care reform and addressed the impact that our broken health care system is having on this generation.

Campus Progress was in attendance and gathering pledges of support for Obama's health care plan from hundreds of young people as they stood in line to hear the President speak.

Many of our network members and students spoke to reporters about their concerns with the health care system and their reasons for supporting reform.

Other than a handful of anti-abortion protestors and anti-reform hecklers that thought dressing up for halloween was a good way to somehow get their message across, the rally attendees were all in support of the President's call for reform and excited to have him addressing the issue as it pertains to young people.

Check out a detailed blog about the rally on Funding our Future!

Do you deserve to die?

MichaelCollins — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:19:15 EDT

The Forgotten Question in the Health Care Debate

Rationed care. Image

Do you deserve to die?

Do your friends and family?

Michael Collins