once again....by their actions......

[ProblemAgain]

GOP WOULD BAR POOR FROM HEALTH CARE ALTOGETHER

By Cynthia Tucker 22 hours ago

During a Republican primary debate in the last presidential election cycle, there was a dispiriting moment in which tea party audience members cheered at the idea that a comatose uninsured American -- unable to afford health insurance -- would be left to die. That infamous outburst, among others, has prompted GOP bigwigs to try to cut back on primary season debates, hoping to limit appearances that might expose the party's baser impulses.

Related Stories

• The Democratic Message on Obamacare Comes Down to 'Republicans Woul... The Atlantic Wire
• [video] Eric Cantor Aims to Shed GOP's 'Party of No' Reputation MarketWatch
• Utah GOP governor rejects full Medicaid expansion Associated Press
• The Battle to Expand Medicaid in Arkansas The Fiscal Times
• The GOP's big bet against leadership The Week (RSS)

But that mean-spirited and contemptuous attitude toward the sick is alive and well in the Grand Old Party, as its maniacal (and futile) resistance to Obamacare has made clear. Now, one Republican politician is pushing that callousness to new lows: He wants to bar the uninsured from hospital emergency rooms.

Last week, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal criticized a decades-old federal law that requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds and have emergency facilities -- and that's most -- to treat any patient who walks in needing care, regardless of his ability to pay. "It came as a result of bad facts," Deal said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "And we have a saying that bad facts make bad law."

Deal says that many people use emergency rooms unnecessarily, and those patients inflate health care costs. He is factually correct. But there are other facts that undercut his arguments and reveal his hypocrisy.

First off, Deal is among those red-state Republicans who have vociferously opposed the Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance available to hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't otherwise afford it. If more people had health insurance policies that paid for doctors' visits, fewer would use emergency rooms for routine complaints.

Second, Deal, like many Republican governors, has refused the Medicaid expansion made possible by Obamacare, even though the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the cost for the first three years and 90 percent until the year 2022. That expansion is the best chance many Georgians without means have for getting health insurance.

So, to sum up, Deal hates Obamacare and refuses its Medicaid expansion, which would keep the working poor out of emergency rooms. In addition, he wants to deny them access to emergency rooms unless they can pay. Really, governor? Don't you insist that your values are "pro-life"?

It's no wonder that GOP strategists shuddered when audience members responded so cruelly during the CNN/Tea Party Express debate in September 2011. It portrays the party as pitiless -- a reputation unlikely to attract a majority of voters.

Quiet as it's kept, most Americans support keeping Obamacare, despite the relentless pounding it has taken from Republicans. (And despite a website rollout that was infuriatingly incompetent.) A new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56 percent of Americans favor keeping it in place, while just 31 percent want to repeal it. (Twelve percent want to replace it with a GOP plan.)

That's likely because most voters, no matter their reservations about Obamacare, know that the Republican Party has no good solution for the millions of Americans who work every day but still don't earn enough money to buy a health care plan. Americans have struggled with the nation's dysfunctional health care "system," and they know it's overdue for an overhaul.

Meanwhile, as the mid-term elections draw closer, the GOP struggles to come up with a plan that pretends to overhaul the health care system. Looking to avoid being painted as mere obstructions, House Republican honchos are working to draw their caucus together behind a bill that would replace Obamacare with a workable alternative.

But the most sincere plan so far -- one offered by Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla. and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- would probably offer policies too skimpy to do any good once a policy-holder gets sick.

Besides, even that replacement idea seems unlikely to draw broad support among the far-right tea partiers, who believe that allowing the uninsured poor to die is the appropriate government response to the health care crisis.

That's a hulking bit of hypocrisy for a party that advertises itself as "pro-life." Deal's latest proposal is one more reminder of how little that label means.

[exedir]

First, most Americans do want access to health care, and they do, whether they are insured or not.  This is in part to the underlying "floor" of what anyone can get when sick and sick enough to be brought into the system of care, which is usually through the ER of a hospital that has a walk in or brought in policy.  Those of us in the business call this uncompensated care which a few decades ago was called charity care or in some instances community care.  This access is added to by free clinics and public health services that have traditionally funded by governmental and charitable organizations both denominational and otherwise philanthropic.  

This has been changed by the adoption of Medicare and Medicaid in the sixties were massive amounts of funds were pulled into the health care delivery system and institutions and physicians received windfall funding that help accelerate the cost of care and level of care given to previous marginal patient demographics.  The overall effect was to change what was health care delivery to the business of health care delivery as requiring the highest generation of revenue for service rendered across the patient population. 

The result should have been the most inclusive coverage possible to provide service to Americans possible, but it didn't and that is the genesis of the ACA to attempt to cover those that are poor but with income or otherwise are not be definition included in the other programs already in existence.  Why this individuals lack coverage is a long story of economic missteps and previous lack of definition in the law as to coverage, but nonetheless, about 40 million or so were estimated to not have been  a doughnut hole where no coverage or low coverage was included.  One of those demographics holes was easily changed by law requiring dependent child of 26 or younger be carried on their patients policies.  However, the problem seemed to be the working poor that neither got group coverage or individual coverage from existing policies either because of cost or limits of coverage. 

The ACA's unique feature was to wrap that doughnut hole around mandating more inclusive coverage that previously offered and to provide a cost cutting subsidy for those whose incomes would be significantly neediness by having an individual policy to fit their medical needs existing and anticipated from the government.  The catch was that of those that were eligible for coverage had to take the coverage, or, face a financial penalty that grows in time for not enrolling and paying a premium.   Even tho ObamaCare would be inclusive of most of those not covered by an insurance plan...there remain those that don't have coverage.  These are the most difficult persons to identify and service in part due to the individual habits, physical and mental limits,  of those that might be eligible to "disappear" due to a host of social, cultural and behavior barriers to being involved in any form of health care delivery short of emergency and near death events experienced by the patient.  The expansion of Medicaid offered in the ACA, attempts to deal with these problems, by providing inclusive coverage for those that don't have health insurance and need to have the insurance to participate in the delivery system in a way the delivery system was designed best to serve patient populations.

What we have here are wonderful ideas and motives that aren't going to work as designed or otherwise provided in the law.  ObamaCare will not be repealed, it will be fixed, but the fix is going to be hard, and not to everyone's liking and advantage.  And yes, it is going to be dealing with the cost that is the most difficult problem over time.  Ultimately the challenge is the system of how we provide and use medicine that needs to change to be efficient and effective over the wide spectrum of patient care, from preventative, to chronic and acute care.

[ProblemAgain]

Republican Lawmaker Apologizes For Saying Men Should Be Able To Rape Women If Abortion Is Legal

The Huffington Post  | by  Samantha Lachman

Posted: 02/28/2014 11:49 am EST Updated: 02/28/2014 2:59 pm EST

Abortion Rape Civil Rights Maine Politics Maine HuffPolitics Blog Politics Politics News State Lawmakers Video Rape GOP Lawrence Lockman Rape Politics News

A Republican state lawmaker who has been criticized by the Maine Democratic Party for his past statements about homosexuality, rape and abortion, said Wednesday that he regrets the comments, the Morning Sentinel reported.

Democrats called for state Rep. Lawrence Lockman’s resignation after blogger Mike Tipping chronicled Lockman's public statements since the 1980s in a blog post Tuesday.

Among other declarations and protestations concerning the IRS, HIV/AIDS and homosexuality, Lockman, then president of the Pro-Life Education Association, said in a letter sent in 1990 that he didn't see why rape shouldn't be acceptable if abortion is legal.

"If a woman has [the right to an abortion], why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman?" Lockman wrote. "At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t [in most cases] result in anyone’s death."

Lockman released a statement Wednesday in which he said he regrets his comments.

"I have always been passionate about my beliefs, and years ago I said things that I regret," the statement read. "I hold no animosity toward anyone by virtue of their gender or sexual orientation, and today I am focused on ensuring freedom and economic prosperity for all Mainers."

[ProblemAgain]

5 Things Kentucky Could Spend $73 Million On Instead Of A Fake Noah's Ark

The Huffington Post  | by  Shadee Ashtari

Posted: 03/01/2014 9:15 am EST Updated: 03/01/2014 9:59 am EST

Print Article

• share 7220
• tweet 430
• Email 80
• Comment 1592

• 

More:

Ark Encounter Education: Kentucky Ken Ham Noah's Ark Ken Ham Bill Nye Kentucky Animal Abuse Kentucky Cancer Kentucky Poverty Kentucky Kentucky Noah's Ark Ken Ham Answers in Genesis Kentucky Heroin Noah's Ark Politics News

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that enough money had been raised to begin construction of a 510-foot replica of Noah's Ark as part of a multimillion-dollar Ark Encounter project.

The Ark Encounter will sit on 800 acres of land in Williamstown, Ky., and will be developed “in phases over many years,” according to a press release from Ham's Answers in Genesis organization. The first phase alone will cost an estimated $73 million.

The project had stalled over funding. But according to Answers in Genesis, it received the needed boost after Ham engaged in a widely viewed television debate on creationism and evolution with Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

In addition to more than $14.4 million in private donations, a municipal bond offering by the city of Williamstown has cleared the way to start construction in May.

“God has burdened AiG to rebuild a full-size Noah’s Ark -- as a sign to the world that God’s Word is true, and as a reminder that all men are sinners, and we all need to go through the 'door' to be saved,” Ham wrote in August 2013.

But perhaps God's message could be spread by means other than building a really big boat. Here are five ways Ham's $73 million might have otherwise served the people of Kentucky:

Feed hungry children.

According to Map the Meal Gap 2013, one in four children in Kentucky do not know how they will receive their next meal.

In 2012, the poverty rate in Kentucky jumped to 19.4 percent, or 823,000 people, making it the fifth poorest state in the U.S., according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Child poverty in particular increased from 23.5 percent in 2008 to 26.5 percent in 2012. And 35,891 public school students in Kentucky were homeless during the 2011-12 school year, Northern Kentucky News reported in March 2013.

Donate to cancer research, prevention or patient support.

Kentucky has the highest cancer death rate in the country -- 227 per 100,000 people. It also has the highest rate of tobacco smokers at 25.6 percent.

Invest in broke schools.

Years of education cuts have made Kentucky the 14th worst state in school funding, according to a September 2013 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The state spends less per child in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did before the 2008 recession.

Save abused animals.

Last year, for the seventh consecutive year, Kentucky was ranked the worst state for animal protection laws. The state is in dire need of stricter animal abuse laws and more funding for food, medicine and housing for severely abused and abandoned animals. Even veterinarians in Kentucky are prohibited from reporting suspected animal cruelty.

Combat the crippling heroin problem.

Heroin is a burgeoning medical, legal and fiscal issue for Kentucky, with statewide overdose deaths increasing by 550 percent between 2011 and 2012, according to a November 2013 study by Northern Kentucky Heroin Impact Response. In 2012, heroin cases made up nearly 20 percent of all drug overdose cases before the Kentucky Medical Examiner -- a 3.22 percent increase from the previous year.

The state lacks adequate treatment resources, addiction and mental health specialists, and law enforcement funding, especially in the northern region. Northern Kentucky’s substance abuse funding from state and federal sources for 2013 was just under $2.4 million, roughly $5 per capita below the state average.

[grammyk]

I, too, find the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" party in the health care debate to be breathtaking.

I have gotten into several "conversations" on FB about the ACA and have finally given up - the conservative side just hates Obama and everything he does; they see no "reason" except that insurance companies should not be restrained under capitalism.

I think single payer is the only answer, with "extras" purchased through private insurance companies (ie. elective surgeries, etc.)  How long will it take for us to get to that point??

I think a lot of the problem is that the majority of people are covered by employer-based insurance policies and have no idea what  a)their insurance companies are paying out for various tests, procedures, surgeries, etc. and b) what their coverage is costing the employer (they just look at their co-pays).  

I work in the health care field and see this up-close and personal on a daily basis but you can't reason with people who have no intention of being unbiased.  I don't agree with all of the ACA or it's recent "exemptions" but at least it's a step in the right direction.  IMHO 

[Ioruach]

Couldn't agree with you more, grammyk. The shallowness of their thinking is quite impressive, really. No, the ACA is imperfect. To long and complicated, but to a great extent I think that was a result of Republican opposition and attempting to accommodate them.  And, yes, single payer, perhaps starting by removing the age limitation from the Medicare law and finding a funding mechanism for the expansion. We could start by imposing a tax on employers, but at the same time give them a break because they no longer would have the task of administering a health insurance benefit for their employees. But it would spread the burden by taxing employers that currently do not provide health insurance coverage. And, as you suggested, individuals could buy supplemental coverage for "extras" including Medicare deductibles and co-pays. That's what we do today.

[grammyk]

I agree that the ACA is as it is because of Republican obstruction.  The individual mandate was their idea, after all, but when Obama agreed they decided they hated it.  They really seem to hate the idea of providing health care, or anythiing, actually, to the poor.  I think that extending Medicare downward by age is a great idea.  It could be funded by workers, as we pay for Medicare tax now, and employers - likely less expensive than private insurance company costs, I'm thinking.

[exedir]

I'm not sure how one item gets to the other, but, given the ACA was political in construction and motivation to pass, it was not necessarily,  a viable solution of the health care delivery and financing for now and in the future.  And yes, there are two very distinct problems involved here; what we do with medicine, why we do it and to what result, and how we finance the care that is given from multiple sources to aggravate enough revenue to provide care as we know it.

The ACA is being slowly spread out as to what it can do and as such, going to be exposed for the faults that make it up as to the details of the Act and the impossible implementation that has preceded the roll out and as the specific operational failures continue to multiply and compound of the ACA by the administration.  And yes, many of these were unforced and self-inflected and will carry into the 2014 election.  And yes, the ACA will be one of the features of the 2016 election as to what is to be done with it, either from the Republican or Democrat side.  And if it is HRC  in 2016, she already has the creds from the Clinton first term on an inclusive, single payer finance system.

However, before we even get to 2016 the ACA will have to fixed in many, so many respects that what actually shows up as the ACA by campaign of 2016 could be quite different in substance and intent.