Last night, while watching TV, I heard a blip on the news about how woman are being told that we don’t need those nasty ol’ mammograms anymore until we are 50 years old…and even then, only once every two years. My jaw just dropped. I thought it was some ridiculous rogue group that were shooting their mouth off, but no…it’s our government telling us that.

By now I’m sure most have already heard this news, so I guess I’m just writing this to blow off some steam and write my own views on this subject.

Ok…first let’s look at this government task force that has decided women should be the first in line to be thrown under the health care bus in order to save our government and the health insurance companies the costs of caring for us. According to the Chicago Tribune, this is “an influential group” called The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, a government sponsored group whose work is closely followed by doctors and insurance companies.

Now, maybe I’ve been living in a cave, but I’ve never even heard of this group before. Apparently, they consist of four public Health/Preventative Health, two Family Medicine, two Pediatricians, and two Ob/Gyn doctors. Not one Cancer Surgeon, Oncologist, or Radiologist is in this group…not one.

Oh…and it gets better. This government task force also recommends that they don’t have “sufficient” evidence that women over the age of 75 should have mammograms. Yup…no big deal ladies, once you’re old you can just die and get out of the way.

Women do have some advocates who are fighting for us, though. Dr. Daniel Kopans, senior radiologist in the breast imaging division at Massachusetts General Hospital said, “This will be disastrous for women’s health.” Dr. Robert Schmidt, a professor of radiology at the University of Chicago Medical Center said, “It’s arrogant and irresponsible”, “It’s wrong to keep changing recommendations and give conflicting messages to women.

It doesn’t seem to matter to this task force that deaths from breast cancer has dropped 30% since 1990. On Uppity Woman’s blog…which has a great post about this story today, I read in her comment section that a comment on an NPR site, written by a mammogram tech said this:

One in every 6 women now gets breast cancer. From 50-60 your risk quadruples. From 60-70 your risk quintuples. Between 50 and 70 is the most dangerous time to get breast cancer. To decrease mammograms to every two years is a death wish for women in this age demographic. The # 1 cause of breast cancer is diet, the 2nd cause environmental effects and the LAST is hereditary. I have seen as young as 19 years old with double mastectomy to 90 year olds with Breast cancer. Cancer doesn’t care what age you are or what sex you are.

Breast cancer strikes 211,000 U.S. women each year and kills more than 40,000, making it the leading cause of cancer and second-biggest cancer killer (after lung cancer) among women. But I guess if this farce of a task force says women don’t need it…we should all just relax, right?

Now, to get personal. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when screening found a lump on her breast when she was 70 years old. Her mother was found to have breast cancer when she was 75 years old and had a mastectomy. In my mother’s case, she was able to have a lumpectomy because it was found early enough. After the removal of a couple of her lymph nodes, she was given radiation and chemotherapy. Had my mother not had that mammogram then, she would be dead today. I can’t even imagine what my life would be without her in it. Coincidently, just last week I brought her in for her annual mammogram and she will be seen by her Oncologist next week to go over the results. Since her surgery, she has been on medication that has been shown to help keep women from recurring cancer. This medication is very expensive and it’s no surprise to me that since this health care bill has been going through Congress and now the Senate, there are grumblings from Medicare that they don’t want to pay for this pill anymore. This was never an issue until our government has been pushing this new health care bill.

This so-called government task force is making this recommendation and cherry picking data for one reason only…to help keep costs down for this ridiculous health care bill that’s in the Senate and that Obama is determined to sign. The bill in Congress has already shown that they want to cut Medicare spending and what better way to do that than to not pay for the costs of breast cancer screening for women over the age of 70?

* Report: Bill would reduce senior care – Medicare cuts approved by House may affect access to providers. WP.

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation’s largest public health programs.

The American College of Radiology, representing professionals who perform mammograms, addressed the fears of those who see the new health care reform as limiting tests and procedures to stem rising health care costs. In an article in the Chicago Tribune this morning, Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging Commission said; “I just don’t understand what would make the (task force) change their recommendations when there really is no significant change in the data. This has to be about costs.”

Breast cancer can’t be ignored or wished away by a bunch of government bureaucrats. But of course, they can get away with this as long as we stay silent. This isn’t just a women’s issue. Guys, if you have a wife that you dearly love, do you want to take the chance on her missing a diagnosis for breast cancer because your health insurance will decide to only pay for tests on the recommendation of this government task force? Would you want your teen or adult daughter to succumb to breast cancer because she was told that self-examination is useless?

*******************

For more information on the Congressional Health Care bill, Quipster had a great post up yesterday (which is where I found the information on the proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts).

Below is another great article written on this issue…

Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Radiology Director Responds to New Mammography Screening Recommendations

“Women need a clear message: early detection offers a woman the best chance for a cure, and mammography is essential for early detection of breast cancer. The Seattle Cancer Care Alliance continues to support annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40 as does the American Cancer Society. In fact, according to the ACS, 17 percent of breast cancer deaths in 2006 were among women who were diagnosed between ages 40 and 49.

“We know that digital mammography significantly improves the detection of cancer in young women and in women with dense breast tissue. These well-documented facts are not included in the analyses that led to the change in recommendations. It is important that women receive their mammograms at centers with the ability to provide high quality exams and that all women understand the importance of mammography for the early detection of breast cancer.”

“Failing to identify those women in their 40s with cancer and having them wait until they are screened at age 50 is a disservice. By then breast cancer can be advanced and more difficult to treat.”

UPDATE I: READ HOTAIR WHICH HAS AN EXCELLENT POST WHICH ALSO LISTS THE NAMES AND SPECIALTY OF THOSE ON THE TASK FORCE. THEY NOTE: “Not a single Oncologist in the group,not one!

UPDATE II: Per blogger SFIndie…. Please let your voices be heard! “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Agency For Healthcare Research And Quality (check their website). This is the “for more information, contact” person. I’ll be contacting her and letting her know exactly how I feel:”

Therese Miller, Dr.P.H.
Project Coordinator
Center for Primary Care, Prevention, & Clinical Partnerships
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
540 Gaither Road
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 427-1585
Fax: (301) 427-1597

………………

Editor’s Note: Please also see Pat Racimora’s excellent cartoon and fine commentary, “New Recommendations, Let Health Care Rationing Begin.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be endorsing Rep. Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Senate special election, choosing her House colleague over Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is seeking to become the first female senator in the state.

Pelosi will be heading to Boston tomorrow morning to make the formal endorsement.

In her statement, Pelosi noted Capuano’s support for the historic health care legislation that she shepherded through the House. Coakley said she opposed the legislation that passed through the House because it contained a provision restricting federal funds from going to abortion providers.

“Saturday the House of Representatives passed a historic health care bill that was a great victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “Mike Capuano not only cast a courageous vote for this historic legislation, but was a constructive force in improving this bill and moving it to the Senate.”

This would be the “historic” bill featured the Stupak amendment which has pro-choice legislators, feminists and organizations like NOW and NARAL furious. And here’s why. According to Planned Parenthood:

“…This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes…

“While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money…

“Rep. Stupak’s amendment would dramatically shift current federal policy related to abortion coverage and would undermine the principle of abortion neutrality in health care reform. A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have.”

Once again, women are the first to be asked to make “compromises” so the man can get his “historic” legislation passed. Where have I heard that before?

And let me get this straight – Capuano’s payback for voting for this thing is the endorsement of the Speaker of the House?

Attorney General Martha Coakley is a fierce advocate for women, children and working families. She’s squeaky clean, tough, and principled but that’s not good enough for Ms. Pelosi? Is she so threatened by having another tough woman in a position of power in government? Could this be more payback for the fact that Martha Coakley endorsed Hillary and refused to give up her vote at the Convention? Or that Coakley has her own ideas about health care and refused to endorse Pelosi’s 2,000 page monstrosity because of the Stupak amendment?

Here is AG Coakley’s statement regarding her opposition:

The House’s vote is in many ways a significant step toward the goal of health care reform. However, I am deeply disturbed that the House adopted the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would deny millions of women access to reproductive services. The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.

Boston Globe weighed in on the issue pointing out that Capuano is mired in the typical Washington wheeling and dealing, supporting the Stupak Amendment but now that Pelosi is taking a great deal of heat for her action, Capuano now looks to be waffling:

…Capuano’s message to voters quickly became mired in inconsistency.

“You deserve leaders that don’t try to thread the needle,’’ he said at his Monday night rally. Yet, in this case, he threaded it, and then blasted Coakley for saying she wouldn’t do the same. Then, instead of sticking with the principle he said he believed in, Capuano shifted. He said he would vote against health care legislation if a final version included the restrictive amendment.

So he was ‘for’ it before he was ‘agin’ it? I prefer Coakley, who did not feel the need to equivocate and stated, “I do not believe we have to take a step back on women’s rights to get health care reform.”

In the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman stated:

“We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats — most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan — demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health-care exchange. And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.”

Guess Capuano doesn’t care to thread the needle on that one.

Pelosi led the charge last year saying Republicans would overturn Roe v. Wade if elected, thereby threatening Hillary’s Democratic holdouts if they failed to fall in line and support Barack Obama. The DNC made a big show of how they were the only party to protect women. Yet in order to pass this health care behemoth that most in Congress did not have the time to read, Pelosi’s first act was to throw pro-choice women under the bus. Here’s hoping Pelosi’s endorsement will not help Capuano’s sagging primary bid.

Capuano is lagging behind in the four-way Democratic primary against Coakley, according to public polling. A Suffolk University poll released today showed Coakley leading with 44 percent of the vote, Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca in second with 17 percent, and Capuano in third with 16 percent.

The special election primary will be held December 8 and the winner will be the favorite to fill the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy. Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) is holding the seat on an interim basis.

Ultra liberal Massachusetts has never had a woman Senator. Now that we have a chance at someone who would really stand up for the working voter and for women, Pelosi says no deal?

What say you?

I want to see true health care reform. And the House just passed something that lots of people seem to be very excited about. Hoping to be part of the celebration, I did the only thing any one of us should do before jumping on board with HR 3926 —read the damn thing!

I went to an official site and started browsing though this 1,990 page tome. Here’s what I found…

The House has done it again! This bill cannot be comprehended. I don’t care who you are, it would take weeks, months maybe, to fully digest the whole thing and discern its intended meaning. I just copied two pages—376 and 377– at random to prove my point:

1 (b) DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section
2 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(V) of the Social Security Act, as in
3serted by subsection (a)(3), shall not apply to payment
4 for days before January 1, 2010.
5 SEC. 1102. INPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITY PAY
6MENT UPDATE.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886(j)(3)(C) of the So
8cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(j)(3)(C)) is amended
9 by striking ‘‘and 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2010’’.
10 (b) DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment
11 made by subsection (a) shall not apply to payment units
12 occurring before January 1, 2010.
13 SEC. 1103. INCORPORATING PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVE
14MENTS INTO MARKET BASKET UPDATES
15 THAT DO NOT ALREADY INCORPORATE SUCH
16 IMPROVEMENTS.
17 (a) INPATIENT ACUTE HOSPITALS.—Section
18 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
19 1395ww(b)(3)(B)) is amended—
20 (1) in clause (iii)—
21 (A) by striking ‘‘(iii) For purposes of this
22 subparagraph,’’ and inserting ‘‘(iii)(I) For pur
23poses of this subparagraph, subject to the pro
24ductivity adjustment described in subclause
25 (II),’’; and3962 SK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
(Page 377 starts here)
1 (B) by adding at the end the following new
2 subclause:
3 ‘‘(II) The productivity adjustment described in this
4 subclause, with respect to an increase or change for a fis
5cal year or year or cost reporting period, or other annual
6 period, is a productivity offset in the form of a reduction
7 in such increase or change equal to the percentage change
8 in the 10-year moving average of annual economy-wide
9 private nonfarm business multi-factor productivity (as re
10cently published in final form before the promulgation or
11 publication of such increase for the year or period in
12volved). Except as otherwise provided, any reference to the
13 increase described in this clause shall be a reference to
14 the percentage increase described in subclause (I) minus
15 the percentage change under this subclause.’’;
16 (2) in the first sentence of clause (viii)(I), by
17 inserting ‘‘(but not below zero)’’ after ‘‘shall be re
18duced’’; and
19 (3) in the first sentence of clause (ix)(I)—
20 (A) by inserting ‘‘(determined without re
21gard to clause (iii)(II))’’ after ‘‘clause (i)’’ the
22 second time it appears; and
23 (B) by inserting ‘‘(but not below zero)’’
24 after ‘‘reduced’’.

I swear I didn’t change a thing, including how the words are split.

There are another 1,988 pages a lot like these two.

God help us all.

Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?

No, no, I am not going to focus on their insanity this morning. Rather, the run for the ages was none of those things. It was the running of the 2009 Breeders’ Cup, with a stacked field you wouldn’t believe. There was Mine That Bird, with Calvin Borel on board, the little wonder horse who won the Kentucky Derby this year (and who had had a stellar career in Canada with rider Chantal Sutherland guiding him to a number of victories). And Summer Bird, the Belmont Stakes Winner of 2009. And yes, they have the same sire, Birdstone. The Preakness winner, Rachel Alexandra, with her historic win*, did not make the trip. Her owner and trainer did not want her running on the artificial surface of Santa Anita. Still, as I said, the field was LOADED with exceptional horses. A number of fillies have raced in the Breeders’ Cup Classic, but none have ever won it.

There was quite a bit of drama as they were loading the horses into the starting gate for the Breeders’ Cup Classic. The horse at the number 12 position (out of 13 horses), Quality Road, would not load. It was a tense few minutes as they tried to get him in. He was bucking, rearing, and would have none of it. They put a blindfold on and tried to trick him into going into the gate. They did get him in, but he freaked out again, scratching his hind leg, which meant an immediate scratch (while they were fairly sure it was nothing serious, they weren’t going to take any chances). All of the horses had to be unloaded, and reloaded, into the starting gate, which makes for a tense situation for all of them, and can be quite confusing for the horses.

A little more about Zenyatta. Not only was she undefeated – 13 wins under her belt, but she is a beast – a huge horse at 17 1/2 hh. For comparison, the great horse, Secretariat, was 16.2hh (the same as my Jordan). She loves the crowd, and plays up to them, with a straight-legged front step and pawing of the ground. To say she rises to the occasion is an understatement.

And now, the 2009 Breeders’ Cup Classic – the culmination of the horse-racing season:

Amazing, right? Did you hear Mike Smith say he didn’t even take her through all of her gears? (If she still has more gears to go, I’d sure love to see them. Wow – it’s unimaginable.) How she slowed a bit to pose for the crowd as they roared? And how about her affect as she came back to the stands? Head held high, prancing for the crowd? What a champion. Undefeated, bad start out of the gate, wrong lead, and she STILL wins it against a formidable field. No wonder she is in the discussion for Horse Of The Year, against another amazing filly, Rachel Alexandra. But today was most definitely Zenyatta’s day.

And watching the Breeders’ Cup beats the hell out of having my head explode over the House of Un-Representatives…

*As a reminder, here was the Preakness with Rachel Alexandra going for the first win of the Preakness by a filly since 1924:

Amazing horse – definitely a Horse of the Year contender.

First the taxpayers’ treasure was raided to bail out Wall Street firms. Now it’s happening to 13 of them again, this time by putting their employees ahead of the highest risk groups among us ordinary folks to receive the H1N1 vaccine. Melanie Sloan, the Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington put it best: “In what world do Wall Street employees deserve to be vaccinated ahead of high-risk children, pregnant women and health care workers?”

So, while millions of our vulnerable citizens falling into the Center for Disease Control’s high risk category are still waiting for vaccinations to become available, some fat cats have pushed their way to the head of the line again.

Business Week reports:

A spokeswoman for Goldman, who asked not to be named, said the company had just received the vaccine and did not yet have information as to how it would be distributed, saying that Goldman will supply vaccine only to those who qualify as high-risk, per the CDC requirements. Citigroup had not responded with a comment as of the evening of Nov. 2.

However, as CREW Director Sloan so slyly responds:

Although CREW has been unable to uncover the demographic makeup of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase, it seems safe to assume the vast majority of their employees are not pregnant women, infants and children, young adults up to 24 years old, and healthcare workers.

How did this happen? No one appears to be talking yet, except, perhaps, money.

This is rich. We know about Obama’s many, many czars. Mark Steyn believes Obama has another one, someone of whom you have heard, but who isn’t on the usual list,

Obama Makes Bush His Blame Czar. You know, he has a point – we’ve been hearing for months now “He did it!” from Obama on all sorts of issues.

Steyn begins his piece writing about “Barack’s Rock,” Valerie Jarrett:

Valerie Jarrett announced the other day that “we’re going to speak truth to power.”

Who’s Valerie Jarrett? She’s “Senior Adviser” to the president of the United States – i.e., the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. You would think the most powerful man in the most powerful nation would find a hard job finding anyone on the planet to “speak truth to power” to. But I suppose if you’re as eager to do so as his Senior Adviser, there’s always somebody out there: The Supreme Leader of Iran. The Prime Minister of Belgium. The Deputy Tourism Minister of the Solomon Islands. But no. The Senior Adviser has selected targets closer to home: “I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power. When we saw all of the distortions in the course of the summer, when people were coming down to town hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death.”

Ah, right. People “putting up signs.” Can’t have that, can we? The most powerful woman in the inner circle of the most powerful man on Earth has decided to speak truth to powerful people standing in the street with handwritten placards saying “THIS GRAN’MA ISN’T SHOVEL READY.” Was it only a week ago that I wrote about this administration’s peculiar need for domestic enemies?

The Senior Adviser seems to have forgotten that she is the power. Admittedly, this is a recurring lapse on the part of the administration. There was Barack Obama only the other day, blaming everything on the president – no, no, silly, not him, the other fellow, the Designated Fall Guy who stepped down as head of state in January to accept the new constitutional position of Blame Czar. Musing on problems in Afghanistan, Obama blamed the “long years of drift” under his predecessor. The new president – OK, newish president – has been Drifter-in-Chief for almost a year but he’s too busy speaking truth to the former power to get on top of the situation. It could be a while yet. In his more self-regarding moments, such as his speech to the United Nations, he gives the strong impression that the “long years of drift” began in 1776.

Indeed, Ms. Jarrett thinks throwing around phrases pulled from those who are actually in the trenches will give her some street cred. You don’t think anyone fell for that hooey, do you? Just in case you know anyone who did, you can tell them that she is a lawyer, married to a doctor, and was on the Chicago Stock Exchange. So, yeah, not exactly a career in the Peace Corps., or hell, even AmeriCorps. Just more posturing on the part of the Obama Administration.

Just like Obama’s blame shifting. Just more posturing to protect his carefully crafted image:

Rocco Landesman, head honcho at the National Endowment for the Arts, seems closer to the reality of the situation. In his keynote address to the 2009 “Grantmakers in the Arts” conference, Landesman hailed Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar”. He didn’t mean a “powerful writer” as in a compelling voice, gripping narrative, vivid characterization, command of language, etc. He meant a “powerful writer” as in Caesar was king of the world, and now Obama is. He came, he saw, he stimulated: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.”

I suppose so. He could invade somewhere and force the natives to accept degrading roles in NEA-funded performance art. He could take out the Iranian nuclear program by carpet-bombing it with unreadable literary novels. That is, if you “accept the premise” that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Rocco Landesman may, but it’s not clear, from his actions (or inactions) in Eastern Europe, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the president does. But, even so, it seems an odd pitch to “American artists.” Rocco Landesman, Speaking Goof to Power, isn’t the first Obama groupie to enjoy the kinky frisson of groveling obsequiousness, but he’s set an impressive new standard in public revelation thereof. Rocco’s aunt, Fran Landesman, is the great lyricist of “Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most” as well as “The Ballad Of The Sad Young Men.” But surely there are few sadder middle-age men than her nephew, prostrating himself before his master as the most literate global colossus in two millennia.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but I take his point. Still, there are a whole bunch of sad “middle-age men” who would fit that bill. Chris Matthews springs immediately to mind.

Speaking of the NEA:

Meanwhile, Larry David is now doing televised NEA exhibits on his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Christians are said to be “angry” at him because of an episode in which, after he accidentally sprays his urine on a picture of Jesus, his assistant mistakes the droplets for tears and calls in her mother to witness the miracle of Christ weeping. Ha-ha! Oh, those brave transgressive artists! Of course, Christians aren’t “angry” in the sense that two U.S. residents arrested last week are. The pair – one an American citizen, the other Canadian – were so “angry” about the Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that they hatched a plot to kill the artist and his editor. As many commentators pointed out, Mr. David’s splashy stunt is a dreary provocation: It’s easy to be provocative with people who can’t be provoked. If he were to start urinating in a more Mecca-ly direction, he’d find an entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.

But I liked the point made by the Anchoress, a writer at the magazine First Things: Putting Muhammad, et al aside, if Larry David had a yen to urinate hither and yon, wouldn’t it have been “braver” to have done it to the religious icon du jour? That’s to say, Barack Obama. And then maybe Ashton Kutcher could have marveled at how even Obama’s image was empathizing tearily with all 687 million Americans without health insurance. Or, alternatively, dribbling warm champagne from his Norwegian Nobel banquet toast. C’mon, Larry. Sure, you might not have a career afterward, but, unlike any Islamo-provocations, you’re not gonna get killed. Just fired, and probably damned as a racist. But at least you wouldn’t be a simpering suck-up to power like Rocco Landesman and the other creeps.

“Religious icon du jour” – priceless. I mean, c’mon, obviously he is – just check out that Chia commercial. And I wouldn’t hold my breath on the end of sucking-up, but that’s just me:

At some point the Caesar cult has to manifest itself in an achievement – I mean a real achievement, not merely some dud prize handed out by Norwegian Lefties. Afghanistan is his now: Notwithstanding “years of drift,” whether it winds up as victory or defeat is his call. It’s Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s economy. The stimulus bill is his stimulus, and for $787 billion it created 30,000 new jobs (according to the government) or (according to the Associated Press) 25,000. Either way, you do the math. It’s Obama’s unemployment rate, Obama’s dollar, Obama’s debt. Pace Valerie Jarrett, the truth is you are the power. And those on the receiving end of it are going to be speaking a lot louder in the months ahead.

Yep, it surely is all Obama’s now. And not for nothing, but it isn’t like the Democrats didn’t control both houses for two years before Obama got into the White House. There is a lot for which Bush is responsible, but at some point, Obama needs to stop making him the Blame Czar, and start doing his job.

But first, another reason to be angry at insurers, especially if you are female, and living in one of thirty-nine states in the union, as this article highlights, Women Pay Up To 50% More For Health Insurance Premiums. Now, maybe I was just naive to not realize this was happening, but happening it is. This article focuses on the state of Colorado:

Checking the “female” box when buying health insurance is likely to cost extra — perhaps up to 50 percent more than a man would pay for the same coverage.

Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.

But outrage over how women are treated in the individual health insurance market is mounting as stories emerge of companies refusing to cover maternity benefits and denying coverage because of past domestic violence or cesarean sections, including a Colorado woman who was told she would have to get sterilized to qualify for insurance.

Federal proposals, as well as pending state legislation, would ban gender-rating and require maternity coverage, even as the insurance industry warns that lowering premiums for younger women could mean higher premiums for most everyone else.

Colorado women age 40 and under shopping for health insurance in the individual market, not through an employer, pay from 10 percent to 59 percent more than men, according to analysis by the National Women’s Law Center.

They pay more even when maternity coverage is not included. And in many cases, a female nonsmoker pays more for health coverage than a man who smokes.

“Women should not be penalized because their plumbing works differently and needs ongoing maintenance,” Colorado Insurance Commissioner Marcy Morrison told a state health care task force.

Holy smokes. Did you know this?? So, being a woman is a pre-existing condition? That’s a pretty difficult one to overcome. Especially since we’re the only ones who can get pregnant, which has its OWN set of issues:

As a state lawmaker, Morrison fought insurance companies to stop “drive-through deliveries” so women could stay in the hospital longer after childbirth. She said gender-rating is discrimination tied to decades-old salary disparity, particularly in female-dominated professions such as nursing and teaching. And she is skeptical of insurance company claims that “the sky is going to fall” and premiums would rise if gender-rating were outlawed.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s national association, proposed ending gender-rating and the practice of rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions. In exchange, insurance companies want powerful legislation that would compel everyone to buy insurance.

Discrimination against women in the insurance market goes far beyond premium rates, reform advocates said.

And you are not even going to believe how:

Sterilization Suggested

Take, for example, Centennial resident Peggy Robertson, who was denied insurance by Golden Rule Insurance Co. because she delivered her second child by cesarean section in 2006. Maternity benefits weren’t even part of the package.

Robertson, whose husband is a self-employed chiropractor, contacted the International Cesarean Awareness Network and filed a complaint with the state Division of Insurance, arguing the denial was unfair and that the company had asked her offensive questions during the application process.

Later, she received a letter from Golden Rule telling her the company would consider covering her if “some form of sterilization has occurred since the caesarean-section delivery.”

“It was just really horrific and terribly insulting,” said Robertson, a stay-at-home mom of two boys. “You felt like you were a herd of cattle or something.”

Robertson’s recent testimony before the U.S. Senate health committee in part prompted Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., to write a letter to Senate leaders adding his voice to the call for reform to ban gender-rating and other “harmful insurance industry practices.”

Since denying Robertson, Golden Rule, an Indianapolis-based division of United Healthcare, now covers women who have had cesarean sections but only with increased premiums to cover the risk of a future cesarean birth or with exclusionary riders — clauses that deny coverage for cesareans for a certain number of years or forever.

“This helps us extend coverage to more people while keeping premiums lower for all of our customers,” said Ellen Laden, public relations director for Golden Rule. “The real issue is how to deal broadly with providing access to health care for everyone while still keeping health insurance from being cost-prohibitive.”

Sterilization??? What, are we back in the mid-1950’s or something?? I noticed that they didn’t suggest sterilization for MEN, which makes a lot more sense for the health insurers since it’s CHEAPER, and doesn’t require hospitalization. This is just staggering in this day and age. Thank heavens there are people fighting this suggestion:

Bennet and others, including the National Women’s Law Center, are calling for an end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy and surviving domestic violence or sexual assault — a problem revealed in a recent report from the law center.

Along those lines, there is another big issue that applies to women only:

Lack Of Maternity Benefits

Another common frustration among women who buy insurance individually — and there are 125,000 such women in Colorado — is that maternity benefits are almost nonexistent.

Suzanne Pariser, a Denver lawyer and mother of 2-year-old Willa, is putting off expanding her family because she cannot find an affordable insurance plan that includes maternity coverage.

“That’s the main reason we’re not having a baby right now,” she said. “We definitely want to have another child.”

Pariser is annoyed that insurance company executives, in essence, are determining her family planning.

“My anger is mostly that insurance companies view having a baby as a medical complication that costs them money,” she said. “They view it as a disease.”

The only plan she could find that offered maternity coverage was more expensive in the long run than paying out of pocket to have a baby, Pariser figured.

Costs vary by hospital or birthing center, but the average bill for a vaginal birth with no complications is about $7,500 and for a cesarean section, $13,200.

Viewing having a baby as a “disease.” That is quite an indictment, especially taken in conjunction with suggesting sterilization.

Back to the overall concept of gender-biased insurance:

The insurance industry in Colorado has not taken an official position on statehouse bills that would ban gender-rating in the individual market and require maternity coverage. Their stance likely depends on national reform — and in particular, whether federal law will force everyone, even the healthiest people, to buy insurance.

But industry officials point out that higher premiums for women are based on analysis from actuaries, which show women are much more likely to visit the doctor. The rate at which women visit primary care physicians is more than 50 percent higher than for men, according to the New America Foundation.

By about age 50 or 55, men typically begin using health services more than women, and premiums for older men are typically more expensive than those for older women, said Ben Price, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans.

“The insurance industry is engaged in its own internal discussion on this issue, and health plans here in Colorado are of course taking a fresh look at gender-rating and many other issues that have been raised as a part of the debate both in Washington and here in Colorado,” he said.

Officials with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado have “strong reservations” about eliminating gender-rating and requiring maternity coverage. The practice is rampant in the auto insurance industry, they argue.

“The most expensive purchase in auto (insurance) is the young, invincible male; they are the risk-takers,” said Rebecca Weiss, director of government affairs. “For some reason, auto insurance doesn’t seem as inflammatory to people as health insurance.

“Shouldn’t health insurance premiums be based on some degree on how many medical services you receive so that everyone is paying according to what they are using?”

I am no doctor, or health insurer, but if women go go the doctor more often, isn’t it possible that will keep them out of the hospital more often? Unless it’s for a “disease” like having a baby or something. Ahem. But you know what the bottom line is: “

It Would Raise Prices”

Insurance companies probably would have to raise prices on other groups to make up the difference if they were forced to lower prices for younger women, said Tom Gosselin, director of small-group underwriting at Anthem.

“It definitely would raise the prices, is the simple thing,” he said. “You are now charging the 22-year-old guy who has no concept in the world about having a baby for maternity. He’s more likely to choose not to have health insurance at all.”

Eleven states ban gender-rating in the individual insurance market.

A review by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that those states had not determined whether their bans caused health insurance rates to rise.

In Montana, which outlawed gender-rating in 1983, some lawmakers want to repeal the ban, arguing fewer insurers are willing to operate in the state because of it.

Colorado is among several states that have banned gender-rating in the small-group insurance market, which in this state applies to businesses with 50 or fewer employees. For businesses with more than 50 employees, insurance companies can consider age and sex when setting rates — but the risk is spread throughout the company so everyone’s premiums are equal.

Reform advocates argue the policy adversely affects businesses where the workforce is predominantly female, such as child-care centers or home health agencies.

I just wonder if this issue is being addressed by the Congress as it looks at this whole health care reform thing? Seems to me it is a pretty big issue, as is the cost in general:

Care Requires Doctor Visits

A Denver Post review of online health insurance quotes found that a woman living in the same Denver ZIP code with the same date of birth would pay $20 to $35 per month — or up to $420 more per year — than a man for the same coverage. The rates reviewed were for basic, high-deductible plans, ranging from $71 to $158 per month.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado is among those fighting for change in the law, arguing that women are typically the responsible sex when it comes to birth control and that those prescriptions often require an annual doctor visit.

“Under the current health care system, women are penalized for taking responsibility for their own health,” said Toni Panetta, NARAL’s political director.

State Rep. Beth McCann, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the bill banning gender-rating, said insurance companies failed to produce “sufficient factual basis to charge different premiums for women and men.”

“It seems as though it’s somewhat arbitrary,” she said. “It’s a matter of equality and fairness.”

If the state legislation passes during the next legislative session, it probably would take effect about two years ahead of national reform.

Mary Saracino, a self-employed writer in Lafayette who has had to purchase insurance on the individual market, said she is shocked “and, dare I say, angry” that monthly premiums for women are higher.

“It seems highly discriminatory,” said Saracino, 55. “Would consumers put up with that if, say, men had to pay more for tires than women because some statistic says that male drivers are harder on their cars than female drivers?”

Uh, hell to the yes, it seems discriminatory! There just isn’t a whole helluva lot we can do about being female (without getting into the whole issue of gender-realignment surgery, that is). Or want to do anything about it. A whole lot of us are actually happy to be women. To make us pay more money, especially when we typically make less money, for health insurance is reprehensible.

Here are the places you can live without fear of being charged for being a woman:

Some Protection

These 11 states ban gender- rating by insurers in the individual insurance market:

California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. (Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com)

That’s it.

And now for the big surprise. I am telling you, I was really shocked when I learned this. Would you like to take a guess as to how much Insurers actually make in profits? About 2.2% above the amount of money they take in. In fact, they are 35th out of 53 for industries. I have no love lost for insurance companies, especially in light of articles like the one above, but that is startling. It is in complete opposition to EVERYTHING we have heard about them. Are they a pain in the ass to deal with in general, like filing claims, or having claims paid? Often, yes. But are they raking in the cash hand over fist as we have been hearing from Congress on a daily basis? Apparently not. That shocked the crap out of me. That doesn’t immediately absolve them, of course, but it does greatly affect the very foundation for the arguments about health care in this country. Something to consider.

And since we are talking about women and health care, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many of us, myself included, need to take the appropriate actions for our health.

Along those lines, I would like to leave you with the following, a recent interview with Elizabeth Edwards:

A brave soul, Elizabeth is. And one who is in my thoughts and prayers as she continues to live with breast cancer (I am trying really hard not to say something snarky here about her husband…). All the best to her. And to all women who are living with this disease, and hopefully, being cured of it.

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours – he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great – so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

Never heard of him? Well, Wendell Potter Should be a Household Name!

If you care about your health and the health and well-being of your loved ones, you’ve got to know this fellow by name.

Wendell Potter started speaking out against his old company, health insurance giant Cigna, last June and has been busy blowing the whistle hard ever since. As the former head of corporate communications, he knew what was going on in the health care for-profit business, and he realized that it was enough to make us all sick.

So, what does Potter think of the most recent Senate’s bill? He calls it a “gift to the insurance industry.” So much for our elected officials being on our side.

Here are some revealing quotes from his most recent testimony before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee:

In the weeks since my June 24 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I have expressed hope at every opportunity that this indeed might be the year Congress will enact legislation to reform our health care system in ways that will truly benefit Americans for generations to come.

But I have also expressed concern that if Congress goes along with the so-called “solutions” the insurance industry says it is bringing to the table and acquiesces to the demands it is making of lawmakers, and if it fails to create a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, the bill it sends to the president might as well be called the Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.

And he should know what he is talking about—he used to be one of “them.” Potter continues:

While the reforms proposed in various bills before Congress would seemingly restrict insurance companies’ ability to put investors’ needs over those of consumers, Members must realize that provisions of some proposals, including the Baucus Framework, would actually drive millions more Americans, including many who currently have access to comprehensive coverage, into the ranks of the underinsured.

And why might that be?

The insurance industry is insistent on being able to retain what it calls “benefit design flexibility.” Those three words seem innocuous and reasonable, but if legislation that reaches the president grants insurers the flexibility they claim they must have, and requires all of us to buy coverage from them, millions more of us will have little alternative but to buy policies that appear to be affordable but which will be prove to be anything but affordable if we become seriously ill or injured.

As a consequence, these proposals would do little to increase affordable coverage for those currently insured, or stop the rise in medical bankruptcy. They would, however, ensure that a huge new stream of revenue–much of it from taxpayers who would finance the needed subsidies for people too poor to buy coverage on their own–would flow–”gush” might be a more appropriate word–to insurance companies. And much of that new revenue would ultimately go right into the pockets of the Wall Street investors who own them.

And what does he think of a Public Option?

Over the past several weeks, I have repeatedly told audiences around the country that the public option should not just be an “option” to be bargained away at the behest of insurance companies who are pouring money into Congress to defeat substantial and essential reforms. A public option must be created to provide true choice to consumers or reform will fail to truly fix the root of the severe problems that have been caused in large part by the greedy demands of Wall Street.

The Baucus plan, would create a government-subsidized monopoly for the purchase of bare-bones, high-deductible policies that would truly benefit Big Insurance. In other words, insurers would win; your constituents would lose.

Potter concludes:

It’s hard to imagine how insurance companies could write legislation that would benefit them more.

So, whether you agree with a public option or not, if the big prizes could actually go to those who know what they are talking about, saw that what they were doing was harmful to us and then speak out, Wendell Potter actually deserves some sort of gold star.

What a welcome relief was this story in my local paper, about an Air Force officer who stepped in to handle a critical situation, and who sought no accolades for her actions. It took some time to actually determine her identity, and I’ll get to that. But first, what happened and what she did:

Bad day on highway? Call in the Air Force

Monday was a day of bad wrecks in North Charleston, but there was at least one angel wearing Air Force wings. She also was in full-speed running mode.

An unidentified Air Force officer helped clear more than a mile of stopped traffic on the Don Holt Bridge so an ambulance could get to the scene of an 18-wheeler wreck. (Photo by Peter Waters)

Then she left as suddenly as she came, without leaving a name. However, the image of that officer clearing cars, one by one, at a time when no one else was doing much, stayed with witness Peter Waters of Mount Pleasant.

“Everyone was sitting in their cars with no clue what to do,” said Waters, who was among the hundreds of drivers stuck for hours during the morning rush. People did nothing even as the ambulance’s lights and sirens flashed and blew, he said, trying to get through clogged lanes.

But things changed once the officer stepped forward.

“One by one, she directed each individual driver to move their car” so that the ambulance could gain a few feet, Waters said.

By prompting each car to inch into a more strategic spot, she opened a path until the ambulance finally made it to the scene, he said.

“Basically in about 10 to 15 minutes she cleared a mile of traffic,” said Waters, who served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War.

What was equally impressive, he said, was that once the ambulance got through all those cars, the officer turned and went all the way back to her car at a full run.

Wow – good for her! That is mighty impressive, but even more so when you read on:

“As she jogged by me, I held out my hand, said ‘great job.’ She said, thank you, and went jogging on back to her car,” Waters said.

“I just thought it was pretty impressive that she did it,” Waters said.

Even more impressive was that she did her run in full uniform, including blue pants, short-sleeve shirt and black standard military dress shoes.

Dang. How’d she do it? Judging from the photo, pretty easily, it seems.

Just to fill in the details, this is what happened to cause the accident in the first place:

The wreck was part of a string of collisions Monday that produced North Area gridlock. The first reports came from the Interstate 26 construction zone. Wrecks there caused a traffic backup nearly eight miles long involving at least three wrecks and 11 cars in the eastbound lanes of I-26, near Remount Road.

The other bad site was a three-car wreck that took place in the eastbound lanes of the Mark Clark Expressway at the Don Holt Bridge. That wreck had eastbound traffic stopped.

The driver of the 18-wheeler, who was assisted by the Air Force officer’s deeds, became involved as he was traveling in the outside and westbound lane of the Mark Clark. He wrecked after slamming on his brakes to avoid rear ending several vehicles stopped in front of him watching the wreck on the other side, police said.

The truck driver was thrown from the cab of the vehicle and landed in the outside “eastbound” lane. Authorities think the fact that traffic was stopped in the eastbound lanes probably saved the truck driver’s life. He was treated for non-life threatening injuries. His identification was unavailable.

Waters said Monday that the Air Force officer deserves a lot of individual credit for doing something when most everyone else on Monday sat dumbfounded in their vehicles.

“This is a perfect example of our military at work, doing a job that needed to be done and taking charge when no one asked,” he said. “There had to be a couple of thousand people on that bridge and she was the one that stepped up. There are unsung heroes out there every day.”

Mighty impressive. She acted like an officer, stepping in where there was a need, and showing real leadership, without wanting any acknowledgment for what she did – helping an ambulance get through to take care of an accident victim.

Well, turns out someone knew who she was, and this headline says a whole lot about her, too, “Captain Says She Did Not Act Alone.” Even after they find out who she is, she doesn’t want the spotlight totally on her. And here is a little bit about this Captain:

The Air Force captain who calmly took control of a traffic snarl and cleared a path for an ambulance to reach a Don Holt Bridge accident site is a C-17 pilot.

Capt. Kari Fleming is the officer who got out of her car during Monday’s morning rush hour and, one by one, prompted a line of halted drivers to move out the way.

Fleming confirmed to The Post and Courier she directed cars at the scene, but she declined to say much more. The Charleston Air Force Base public affairs office later released a statement attributed to her.

“If someone I loved were in the same situation as the gentleman in the accident, I’m sure someone else would have gotten out and done the same thing,” she said. “Besides me, there were two civilian gentlemen that also directed traffic.”

Fleming is a member of the 15th Airlift Squadron and has served more than six years in the Air Force, including the past four in Charleston. She declined to release any other biographical information, including her age or hometown. But government records indicate Fleming is no stranger to command.

She’s a 2003 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy who by 2008 had amassed more than 1,200 flying hours, including 900 in the C-17 and in combat missions. She also was one of several Air Force members discussed in a 2008 statement to a Senate committee by US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley.

Holy smokes – that is mighty impressive. In case you don’t know what a C-17 looks like, here it is:

(Photo by Ned Harris)

They are freakin’ HUGE planes – I see them often flying in the skies here, and never get over just how immense they are. Just the other day, while driving toward the airport, queried how in the world these planes stay up. Amazing. As is the rest of the story:

“Her missions have included, not only delivery of equipment and cargo, but aeromedical evacuation for a fallen airmen (sic) and operational airdrops. I was having a chat with her the other day and I asked her the last time she landed a big airplane in the dirt, and she says she’s done that quite often, landing it on dirt roads and riverbeds. So sir, that’s Capt. Kari Fleming, from Charleston Air Force Base.”

During Monday’s string of North Area traffic accidents, Fleming cleared about a mile of traffic in about 15 minutes. Afterward, she jogged back to her car, dressed in her Air Force blue uniform and shoes.

The driver of the 18-wheeler involved in the wreck, Stephen Fratwell of North Charleston, was treated at the scene for non-life-threatening injuries after being ejected from his rig.

This story does my heart good. An officer who does what needs to be done without being asked, and when identified, shares the spotlight, not wanting it to reflect upon her alone. How refreshing from what we have been experiencing so much of recently – people demanding the spotlight, taking others policies to get the spotlight, saying outlandish things to have the light turned on them. But not Captain Fleming. Not only does she fly a massive airplane, cool in and of itself, and has gone on all kinds of missions, but she dealt with a situation with calm, courtesy, and efficiency, running back a mile to her car in her dress shoes, which couldn’t have been comfortable.

Like I said above, what an impressive person. And what a nice change of pace. Job well done, Captain Fleming!

Update on Captain Fleming HERE (and photo credit).

Can you guess which health care costs are rising the fastest? I’ll even help you out by listing the top five (and portraying them in my toon).

Cancer
Asthma
Trauma (externally inflicted injuries)
Heart Conditions
Mental illness

Got your answer in mind?

If you guessed Mental Illness or Trauma, you would be right. Both have skyrocketed in recent years (even accounting for inflation). According to a study by Medical Expenditure Panel Survey:

In terms of health care expenditures, the same five conditions were ranked as the five most costly conditions in 1996 and 2006. There was an increase in the expenditures for each of these conditions when comparing them over time. The number of people with expenditures associated with these conditions increased from 1996 to 2006 for all conditions except trauma-related disorders.

The biggest increase in number of people accounting for expenditures was for mental disorders (19.3 million to 36.2 million).

The expenditures for mental disorders rose from $35.2 billion in 1996 (in 2006 dollars) to 57.5 billion in 2006. Medical expenditures on trauma-related disorders also increased substantially from 1996 (in 2006 dollars) to 2006, $46.2 billion to $68.1 billion.

When we talk about health problems, we are usually refering to chronic physical illnesses. That the number of people accounting for expenses for mental disorders almost doubled in recent years should be of great concern. But who is talking about this? Who is concerned about the debilitating depression and anxiety caused by the economic collapse and feelings of insecurity?

We have multiple types of mental health professionals, and people who are experiencing emotional distress should consider consulting one. But unlike physical conditions, research reveals that stigma remains attached to seeking help for emotional problems. It’s no problem to announce, “I broke my leg in three places last week” compared to, “I am seeing a psychologist for my deep depression.” Stigma increases isolation which, in turn, can exacerbate symptoms.

However, even those who seek assistance may find it lacking, not because of any shortcoming on the part of the professionals but because one’s insurance allows far fewer sessions than needed to adequately resolve the problem. My colleagues complain that they can often barely scratch the surface before the allotted number of sessions (often as few as 4) are up, especially when the matter is of long duration. Meds may relieve symptoms, but they can’t fix an underlying problem.

My main point for doing this story is to help bring to light the fact that mental disorders comprise a major health issue in terms of cost as well as frequency. Thirty six million people went for help in 2006. That’s a lot of troubled folks. I would bet that number has increased in the last three years. And how many just suffer alone, remaining uncounted?

One ray of hope is us. Most of us can’t perform surgery or find a cure for cancer, but we can reach out to others who are depressed or stressed out. Not every mental disorder can be treated by simple caring, of course, but friendship is a powerful medicine for those who are having trouble coping with a troubled world.

But wait, it gets worse. The White House, through Health and Human Services, isn’t just telling them to STF up, they are THREATENING Humana and these insurance companies in general:

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The mailings in question urge enrollees to contact their congressional representatives and protest the legislation, the memo said.

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government’s “gag order.”

“Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on,” AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Now, all of us who said that Obama was simply going to take Chicago Politics national, raise your hand. Yep – we were all right. Honestly, though, I’d rather be wrong on this, but that ship has sailed. In essence, the White House is saying, “If we don’t like what you’re saying, we’ll come after you.” Nice. Really nice. And we thought Bush was bad. (Remember that? When we were so upset about his “propaganda” through the media? At least he wasn’t threatening private companies who didn’t agree with his proposed policies. Never thought I’d be defending Bush. See what Obama has done to me?!?!)

But I digress.

Remember when all of Obama’s supporters kept touting his legal expertise particularly in terms of the Constitution during the campaign? And I kept saying, “the better to tear it to shreds.” Sure seems to me that’s exactly what he is trying to do with the First Amendment:

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings, and it wrote to all Medicare Advantage plans Monday, saying “such communications are potentially contrary to . . . federal law.” The government regulates communications between the health plans and their members.

Baucus had urged HHS to crack down on the mailings. (Emphasis mine.)

“It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors,” he said in a Monday news release. “The health care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits under the Medicare program — and seniors need to know that,” he said.

The AHIP spokesman countered that if the proposed cuts are enacted, “seniors will face premium increases, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, will lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.”

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said beneficiaries “deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

Peter Johnson provided a VERY good overview of the issue in the video below:

Here’s the question this just begs to be asked: If this plan is so great, why is it unable to withstand any real scrutiny without threats of retaliation for stating what is in it? That, to me, is a big, huge red flag that someone is lying here, and it does not seem to be Humana.

Oh, and since I’m on the topic of the Health Care Bill, here is a HUGE issue that may be facing us if this plan, as it is, goes through:

Holy toledo. So, a gag order to insurance companies for telling the truth, and another possible truth we’re not hearing enough about – there likely will not be enough doctors to care for us under this new plan. Yep, no more First Amendment, and not enough doctors willing to provide care under this plan.

Well,that’s just jake.