Generic Diflucan Without Prescription

cytotec

Corporate disclosures about the federal health-reform legislation passed this spring continue to trickle in, with some striking differences in how companies see the measure.

Most of the disclosures are simply additional companies disclosing the tax-hit we (and others) have already written about, stemming from changes to a federal subsidy for retiree-health plans. Some of the more recent disclosures: Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB), with a $40 million charge; Beckman Coulter (BEC), at $8 million; Verizon Communications (VZ) at $962 million; Eaton Corp. (ETN) at $23 million; Exxon Mobil (XOM) at $200 million; Eli Lilly (LLY) at $85.1 million; and Norfolk Southern (NSC) at $27 million.

But what really interests us is how some of the biggest players in healthcare are talking about the new law in their filings. Take Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY), for example. In its April 29 earnings release, the company said that first-quarter sales fall by $49 million, and pre-tax income by $42 million, thanks to “higher rebates to Medicaid and Medicaid manged care organizations.”  Another $21 million was due to the retiree prescription subsidy tax change. In its 10-Q filed the same day, Bristol Myers said it expects other additional costs, including more discounts to certain rural hospitals and cancer hospitals, among others, and steep discounts on some prescription drugs for Medicare patients. Bristol Myers observes, without any apparent joy, that it will get 12 years of protected sales for “biologic” products before facing competition from cheaper generics, and says that it expects “the negative impact of healthcare reform in 2011 to be approximately twice the impact expected in 2010.”

Contrast that with health insurer Aetna (AET) and drug-store giant Rite Aid (RAD). Both took a more positive approach toward the new legislation.

While warning that it “is reasonably possible that Health Care Reform, in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and financial results,” Aetna also says in the 10-Q it filed on April 29 that “Health Care Reform presents us with new business opportunities.” (The company’s litany of the measure’s provisions on pages 35-37 of the filing is a good summary of the bill from an insurer’s perspective.)

Just how it will balance out remains to be seen. “Many significant parts of the legislation require further guidance and clarification in the form of regulations,” Aetna said in the filing. “As a result, many of the impacts of Health Care Reform will not be known until those regulations are enacted, which we expect to occur over the next several years.”

Moreover, the insurer makes the case that the broader repercussions go beyond the specifics of the new federal laws:

“Health care reform will significantly alter the federal structure that shapes the state regulation of health insurance, and states will be required to significantly amend numerous existing statutes and regulations. … we expect many states to consider legislation to extend coverage to the uninsured through health insurance exchanges, increase the limiting age for dependent eligibility, restrict health plan rescission of individual coverage, mandate minimum medical benefit ratios, implement rating reforms and enact an autism benefit mandate.”

Rite Aid, meanwhile is practically upbeat in the 10-K it filed on April 28, thanks in part to the end of the so-called  ”donut hole” in Medicare prescription coverage, which left many seniors paying a significant portion of their drug costs. “We expect the estimated additional 32 million people who will be covered by health insurance in 2014, and the closing of the ‘donut hole’ in Medicare Part D to be good for our business,” the filing notes. That donut-hole issue is one that Bristol Myers cited as a negative, thanks to the discounts on brand-name drugs it will have to provide to Medicare recipients under the change.

Other disclosures are shedding additional light on some of the longer-term effects of the legislation. Medical device maker Teleflex Inc. (TFX), for example, noted in its April 28 10-Q that “the expansion of medical insurance coverage should lead to greater utilization of the products we manufacture,” counterbalancing to some degree the 2013 onset of a 2.3% excise tax on medical-device sales. Teleflex is one of the first companies we’ve seen quantifying the impact of the law beyond the retiree-health provision, saying the excise tax could cost it $16 million a year. Still, the company notes, “As this new law is implemented over the next 2-3 years, we will be in a better position to ascertain its impact on our business.”

So there you have it. Consider it the yin and the yang of the new legislation.

Image source: MAMJODH via Flickr

————

Please help footnoted improve by taking our annual survey. Reader feedback is important to us. All questions are optional, but we will choose one winner at random for a free quarterly subscription to FootnotedPro, a $3,000 prize.

MIAMI — The Miami-Dade County Health Department and Florida International University will establish the first Academic Health Department in Florida.

The Miami-Dade County Health Department is planning to consolidate its administrative and program offices at FIU’s Modesto A. Maidique Campus, bringing part of its workforce to southwest Miami-Dade and forming a partnership that will strengthen the educational experience of students pursuing health careers.

An Academic Health Department is an organized partnership between schools of public health, medicine, nursing and allied health sciences with public health departments. These partnerships create dynamic academic-practice collaborations, which effectively pool the assets of all institutions involved.

The administrative and program offices of the Miami-Dade County Health Department are currently housed in eight different locations around the county, causing operational difficulties and inefficiencies, as well as logistical challenges, said Lillian Rivera, administrator of the Miami-Dade County Health Department.

“Through this partnership, we can cut costs and become a more efficient department,” Rivera said. “We also look forward to playing an important role in preparing students pursuing careers in public health and related professions to meet the 21st century challenges associated with the health needs of our population.”

The Miami-Dade County Health Department offices will be located in FIU’s Academic Health Sciences Center, which includes the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, the Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, the College of Nursing and Health Sciences, and the College of Arts and Sciences. The Academic Health Sciences Center is expected to generate 66,000 new jobs and have an annual economic impact of more than $8.9 billion by 2025.

By consolidating administrative offices at FIU, the Miami-Dade County Health Department is expected to save the state at least $8 million over the next 25 years. The building, estimated to be 90,000 square feet, comes with an authorized budget of up to $32.5 million. The project is included within the 2010-2011 budget passed by the Florida Legislature. Pending the governor’s approval, the building will be financed through a bond and repaid through Department of Health lease payments.

The health department component of the new complex will complement a previously funded $23.3 million Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work academic facility and a new $10 million Ambulatory Care Center funded by a grant from Miami-Dade County.  The clinic and academic facility are in the planning and design stages.

“We are thrilled to welcome the Miami-Dade County Health Department as our new neighbor,” said Sweetwater Mayor Manny Maroño. “By bringing well-paying jobs to our area, the new Health Department facility represents a tremendous economic boost. This is a great example of how strategic partnerships can benefit our community.”

The planned facility will increase joint teaching, research, and clinical training opportunities for FIU students, faculty and health professionals in the health department. The move also will expand opportunities for both institutions to collaborate in attracting grants that can help improve health care in the region.

The collaboration between FIU and the Miami-Dade County Health Department also has the potential to create internship opportunities through which FIU students would work with public health experts in a clinical and research environment. The facility will include a public health teaching clinic with an environmental laboratory and a nutrition/ breastfeeding program.

“This is the kind of innovative, mutually-beneficial, strategic partnership that will enhance the education of our students with real life experience,” said Fernando Treviño, dean of the Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work. “At the same time, it will improve the local state-run health facilities and save the state significant money. It’s a win-win situation.”

 Media Contacts:  Maydel Santana-Bravo  at 305-348-1555 or Olga Connor at 786-336-1276.

-FIU-

About the Miami-Dade County Health Department:
The Miami-Dade County Health Department is part of the Florida Department of Health. The mission of the Miami-Dade County Health Department is to promote and protect the health of our community through prevention and preparedness today, for a healthier tomorrow.

About FIU:
Florida International University is one of the 25 largest universities in the nation, with nearly 40,000 students. More than 100,000 FIU alumni live and work in South Florida. Its colleges and schools offer more than 200 bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programs in fields such as engineering, international relations and law. As one of South Florida’s anchor institutions, FIU is worlds ahead in its local and global engagement, finding solutions to the most challenging problems of our time. FIU emphasizes research as a major component of its mission. The opening of the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine in August 2009 has enhanced the university’s ability to create lasting change through its research initiatives. For more information about FIU, visit http://www.fiu.edu.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing via email or rss to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

generic revatio online

Those vulnerable Democrats whose votes for health care reform were predicated on the conceit that it would not add to the nation’s bloated deficit have today found themselves in a precarious position, as a new report by federal regulators indicated the health care remake will add $311* billion to the national deficit over the next ten years.

A report released Thursday by economic experts at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) found the new legislation would add 34 million uninsured Americans to the coverage rolls, but at a significant cost — one that neither the president nor his party anticipated as they approach the midterm elections.

“We estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during the calendar years 2010-2019,” the report, authored by the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, read. “Although several provisions would help to reduce health care volts growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from coverage expansions.”

The memeorandum also warned the spending hike associated with the legislation may be understated, since the cuts in Medicare may be untenable and impractical.

President Barack Obama insisted the nation’s economic recovery and health care system were inextricably linked, and not reforming the latter could further depress the former. We could not afford not to reform the health care industry, the White House said at numerous junctions in the year-long debate.

“Make no mistake: The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy,” he told the American Medical Association. “It’s an escalating burden on our families and business. It’s a ticking time bomb for the federal budget. And it’s unsustainable for the United States of America.”

Per The American Spectator’s Phil Klein:

But for all the talk over the past year about “bending the cost curve down,” CMS, the agency that is tasked with tracking national health care expenditures, has now projected that the new law will actually bend the cost curve in the opposite direction. That is, up.

Not surprisingly, CMS notes that, “Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals and families with health insurance use more health services than others-similar persons without insurance.” Thus, expanding coverage will mean greater usage of health care services.

Those House Democrats most vulnerable by their votes include Representatives Brad Ellsworth, Kendrick Meek, John Boccieri, Charlie Wilson, Suzanne Kosmas, Melissa Bean, Joe Sestak, Bill Owens and Chris Carney, all of whom contended, at one point or another over the course of the health care debate, that the legislation would not further saddle the federal government with unnecessary and additional expenses.

Their unfortunate colleagues in the upper chamber, via the Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper, include Senators Michael Bennet, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Kirsten Gillibrand, Paul Hodes, Blance Lincoln, Patty Murray, Harry Reid and Arlen Specter.

Suffice it to say: Virtually every Democrat is on the chopping block this cycle.

*The CMS report said spending would increase by $311 billion, not $331 billion, and the post has been updated to reflect that.

SEC. 162. ENDING HEALTH INSURANCE RESCISSION ABUSE.

(a) Clarification Regarding Application of Guaranteed Renewability of Individual Health Insurance Coverage- Section 2742 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended–

(1) in its heading, by inserting `and continuation in force, including prohibition of rescission,’ after `guaranteed renewability’; and

(2) in subsection (a), by inserting `, including without rescission,’ after `continue in force’.

(b) Secretarial Guidance Regarding Rescissions- Section 2742 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(f) Rescission- A health insurance issuer may rescind health insurance coverage only upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection (b)(2). The Secretary, no later than July 1, 2010, shall issue guidance implementing this requirement, including procedures for independent, external third party review.’.

(c) Opportunity for Independent, External Third Party Review in Certain Cases- Subpart 1 of part B of title XXVII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 2746. OPPORTUNITY FOR INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL THIRD PARTY REVIEW IN CASES OF RESCISSION.

`(a) Notice and Review Right- If a health insurance issuer determines to rescind health insurance coverage for an individual in the individual market, before such rescission may take effect the issuer shall provide the individual with notice of such proposed rescission and an opportunity for a review of such determination by an independent, external third party under procedures specified by the Secretary under section 2742(f).

`(b) Independent Determination- If the individual requests such review by an independent, external third party of a rescission of health insurance coverage, the coverage shall remain in effect until such third party determines that the coverage may be rescinded under the guidance issued by the Secretary under section 2742(f).’.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply on and after October 1, 2010, with respect to health insurance coverage issued before, on, or after such date.

penisole online

order generic zithromax

The passage of comprehensive health care reform legislation presents tremendous opportunities to improve the way that America’s health care system works.

Reforms to expand coverage hold the potential to help millions of Americans.

But in order to sustain this coverage and assure it provides access to innovative care, we need to focus on helping all Americans get the best care, not just better coverage.

While the new law will result in many more Americans having access to health insurance, changes in insurance coverage alone won’t ensure that they receive high-quality, innovative health care. Instead, how health care reform legislation is implemented will be critical to this effort.

Focusing on quality. Currently, information on the quality and cost of health care is woefully inadequate. However, a number of provisions in the law provide a stronger foundation for addressing quality of care – establishing broad national priorities for quality improvement and taking steps toward implementing nationally-consistent performance measures that focus on outcomes, patient experience, and other aspects of care that really matter to patients.

Having such information about the performance of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers can provide a trusted basis for changing payments, benefits, and other health care policies. But it’s not just about measuring cost and quality of care; we must also take feasible steps to act on those measures and improve care.

Paying for better care, not more care. Some of the most important payment system reforms are those that pay doctors and hospitals more when they get better health outcomes at an overall lower cost – and that make it easier for doctors and patients to change the way that health care works to make that happen.

Many ideas have been proposed to improve how doctors could work together to reduce complications of diabetes and other chronic diseases, such as by using electronic medical records or working with nurse practitioners who can help patients use their prescription drugs more effectively. The most important reforms on the payment side don’t tell doctors and hospitals what they need to do but support them when they figure out how to do things better.

Supporting improvements with better evidence. Provider payment reforms included in the law represent – as the President likes to say – a lot of the ideas that experts have put forth. The challenge is that we don’t really know which of these will actually work best, so we’ll have to find out quickly which of those reforms really work to improve care and lower costs.

This will require doing a fundamentally better job of running the pilot and demonstration programs in Medicare. Typically, these can take eight to 10 years to test and evaluate proposed reforms – and we don’t have that kind of time to reduce spending growth.

Indeed, more and better information that’s more readily available is needed to support wide-ranging improvements not only in the quality and value of care, but across the health care system. This data can do important things to improve quality and payment system reforms, but can also support other needed changes, such as improvements in medical product safety.

Health care reform has been enacted, but the hard work is far from over. Much more can and must be done to ensure that health care in the U.S. really does become a system of highly innovative care at lower costs for all Americans.

Topics: 2010, affordable health care, America, business, Congress, Democrats, Double Dipping, economic recovery, Economy, Governance, government, health care, Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, Health Care Bill, health care reform, health care system, health insurance companies, health insurance premiums, Health Insurance Reform, healthcare, Individual Mandate, insurance, Insurance Companies, Insurance Exchange, investors, Medicaid, Medicare, middle class, monitor, news, Obama Administration, politics, President Obama, preventive care, private insurance system, quality health care, repeal, Republicans, retiree, small business, States Rights, subsidies, supreme court, tax credits, U.S., unconstitutional, United States, White House

 Print This Article in Plain Text

14 Responses to “Health care legislation as Waterloo – Oliphant (and Benson)”

1. Nick Kelsier Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 5:58 pm

   Oh and Chris, there are pictures of CHeney and Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein and his cronies.

   Have fun choking because that rather shoots down any sense of superiority you get claiming making up stupid claims about Obama and Chavez.

2. Nick Kelsier Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 5:57 pm

   Chris wrote:
   Bush was a humble person, a faithful husband, a dignified person in general.

   He was arrogant and egotistical.

   And as for “faithful husband” that has what to do with being President? No matter what you say he was one of our worst Presidents of all time.

   Bush authorized a fools war in Iraq that did no small part in nearly bankrupting this country. He attacked Iraq despite them having nothing to do with 9-11. He let Osama bin Laden get away and he did little to deal with Al Qaeda. He authorized torture. He sacrificed much of our moral standing with the rest of the world. And domestically he continously screwed over the middle class and the poor while kissing the asses of the rich.

   And you want to claim that Kennedy’s alleged affairs makes him a worse person then Bush? My..you do have a messed up sense of morality. Let me know when you want to bother to have an actual sense of morality. Because thinking that a person who cheated on his wife is worse morally then a person who ordered torture is just this side of being morally depraved.

3. Chris Graham Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 3:02 pm

      Historians are just liberal elitist pricks who look back at history and form an opinion on it. They don’t look at history any more objectively than they look at the present day. “Historian” is just a title given to someone with a hobby in reading history books. And those historians are just using W. as a scapegoat; there was that one American president (I forget his name) who lasted one month in the presidency. He got nothing done in that one month, needless to say, so you would think any objective “historian” would call him the worst. But the “historians” obviously based their conclusion on Bush being the worse simply because they didn’t like him.

      “A loophole or gap in a law is common, and not a sign of incompetence.” Oh, okay. I’d have to argue that incompetence is common, then. (Well, that goes without saying when it’s in regard to Congress.)

      “If insurance companies deprive coverage,…there will be litigation.” They wouldn’t be breaking any laws by denying coverage to anyone, because the law doesn’t say they can’t. I’m not saying they should deny coverage, of course, but looking at it objectively, they have that right. But I see you’ve jumped on the insurance-companies-are-evil bandwagon, even though they make only 3% profit.

      “Unless Sauron is more effective in mustering Republicans against an amendment than he was the first time around. It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die.” It wasn’t just Republicans who were against the health-care takeover; Republicans were, Democrats were, and Independents were. And come on, guy, that’s a tad dramatic, “The Republicans want to force children to suffer and die!” Oh, okay.

      “…The provision Sen. Feinstein had proposed to fix the problem was stopped by Republican.” Republicans against have not once tried to stop reform, and the Democrats who supported the health-care takeover have not once tried to initiate reform. The new bill does nothing to reform anything. It doesn’t increase competition because it still prevents you from purchasing insurance across state lines. There’s no malpractice-suit reform in there. Republicans offered numerous solutions while the Democrats literally locked themselves up behind closed doors to prevent the Republicans from having any part of the legislation. So, yes, the Republicans should be proud that they tried to prevent socialism and offered up true reform.

      “It will be interesting to see how recalcitrant industries fight improved health care. The important first step in reining in costs was to expand coverage.” Coverage was expanded to some 10 or 15 million people at the expense of freedom and at the expense of reducing the quality of the health care to everybody else. Yay.

      “Occasional wins by evil is not evidence that the war has been lost.” Good, this gives me some hope.

4. Ed Darrell Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 2:50 pm

   Bush was a humble person, a faithful husband, a dignified person in general.

   You’ve never met Bush, and you don’t know much about him, do you.

5. Ed Darrell Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 2:47 pm

   Obama’s a weak rookie who likes to appease and pal around with dictators (he’s good friends with Chavez, and even Castro–former communist dictator of Cuba–approves of the way Obama is running America. Communists don’t approve of democracy, yet this communist approves of Obama’s job. Interesting, no?

   Good friends with Chavez? They’ve met once. Obama said Venezuela needs to get with the program, stand up for rule of law in the Americas. Chavez gave Obama a book.

   You imagine a lot that didn’t happen and isn’t realistic. Obama’s no closer to Chavez than Dick Cheney is, just wiser in handling the nut.

   Who cares what Castro says in an interview? Castro didn’t claim Obama’s anything other than a U.S. flag-waving patriot. I can’t find anything that suggests Castro approves of Obama’s policies, especially since Obama turned up the diplomatic heat on Chavez. What are you talking about?

6. Chris Graham Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 2:21 pm

   And apparently I suck at HTML.

7. Chris Graham Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 2:18 pm

   Nick Kelsier:

   “Anything Kennedy did as far as being a ‘disgusting human being’ pales to W.”

   Yes, because W. cheated on his wife with countless women and thought he could do whatever he wanted just because he was the president. Bush was a humble person, a faithful husband, a dignified person in general.

   “Least Kennedy didn’t start a fool’s war in a country that did nothing to deserve invaded.”

   Yes, because Saddam Hussein wasn’t a brutal dictator who killed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world is safer because that madman is dead. Because BUSH got rid of him. Hussein DID have WMDs (he used them against his own people, duh). The only thing Bush made a mistake at was warning Iraq that we were coming (the UN approved of the invasion, by the way, as did Congress). Because we warned Hussein (Saddam, not Obama), he was able to get the WMD over the border to Syria. We should have just gone in there with no warning. And we need to do the same to Iran, but Obama’s a weak rookie who likes to appease and pal around with dictators (he’s good friends with Chavez, and even Castro–former communist dictator of Cuba–approves of the way Obama is running America. Communists don’t approve of democracy, yet this communist approves of Obama’s job. Interesting, no?

   Yeah, poor terrorists, being “tortured,” boo-hoo. We made blood-thirsty psychopaths THINK they were drowning, oh man, so harsh, so, so evil! Poor terrorists!
   Now, I can’t WAIT for you to tell me how Bush “crashed the economy.” I can’t wait. Please tell me, seriously. Don’t hold back. Tell me what you think.

   You:

   “ screw the middle class and suck the dicks of the rich.”

   You mean like Obama is doing now? On both counts? Kinda like that? Why are liberals so anti-rich? People get rich because they earned it. They get rich because of hard work and ambition, most of the time. Other times they inherit it, sure, but the majority of the time, they earned it. Jealous? Then try harder like they did. Don’t steal from them to pay for your unambitious, whiny self.

8. Nick Kelsier Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 11:24 am

   Ed writes:
   It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die.

   Really think they’re going to have much of a problem doing that, Ed? It’s not like they’ve shown much concern for the health and life of children after they’ve been born so far….

   Claiming the Republicans are “pro-life” is like claiming that David Duke is pro-black.

9. What is the best paintball harness out there that matches requirements below? | Paintball Gear Bags Says:

   April 18, 2010 at 10:13 am

   Health care legislation as Waterloo – Oliphant (and Benson …

10. Ed Darrell Says:

    April 18, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Not liberals based on polls who said Bush was worst ever: Historians, based on their comparison with every other president. (It’s a Rolling Stone story, and their website is down this weekend for dramatic revisions.)

    A loophole or gap in a law is common, and not a sign of incompetence. It’s quite inventive of the insurance companies to claim to have found a way to deprive sick and injured children of coverage. I’m sure you read the article carefully. If insurance companies deprive coverage, contrary to the language of the conference report, there will be litigation. If by some fluke the insurance companies win that litigation, proving that Congress’s intent was not carried out in the language they passed, there will be amendments, unless Sauron is more effective in mustering Republicans against an amendment than he was the first time around. It would be a heckuva fight, with pro-life Republicans publicly repudiating their stands in order to force children to suffer and die.

    The new law has protections of consumers built in, to resolve and head off some of the problems you fear, according to the NYT article (by my old friend Robert Pear, who is among the best in covering these issues):

    Consumers will soon gain several other protections. By July 1, the health secretary must establish a Web site where people can identify “affordable health insurance coverage options.” The site is supposed to provide information about premiums, co-payments and the share of premium revenue that goes to administrative costs and profits, rather than medical care.

    In addition, within six months, health plans must have “an effective appeals process,” so consumers can challenge decisions on coverage and claims.

    Will insurance premiums rise? We were sure of it before, at about a 15% per year clip. Does the LA Times article say they will rise faster than that? It notes that the provision Sen. Feinstein had proposed to fix the problem was stopped by Republican’s obstreperousness (“Congressional rules” is what the article said). Republicans won’t be proud to trumpet this one, either, I’ll wager. We needed a good gross of Righty-Be-Gone to fix that problem (Why didn’t you note that it was the right that cause this problem? Are you ashamed of it, too?)

    It will be interesting to see how recalcitrant industries fight improved health care. The important first step in reining in costs was to expand coverage. A public option to compete with insurance companies might have provided a good, market mechanism to fight undue increases, but since the Republicans have not allowed that yet, we’ll probably have to go the regulatory route.

    Ironic that Republicans are driving increased regulation of private industry, no? Unprincipaled, unholy opposition to good government will create such problems, and every Republican should hang his or her head in shame.

    My God is not incompetent. Evil is not benign, though, and must be fought at every turn, at every moment. Occasional wins by evil is not evidence that the war has been lost.

    WordPress and HTML: Yeah, HTML is accepted at almost all WordPress powered blogs, and all WordPress hosted blogs that I have found. Good luck with your blog.

11. Nick Kelsier Says:

    April 18, 2010 at 12:23 am

    Anything Kennedy did as far as being a “disgusting human being” pales to W, Chris.

    Least Kennedy didnt start a fools war in a country that did nothing to deserve invaded. At least Kennedy didn’t authorize torture. And at least Kennedy didn’t crash the economy, screw the middle class and suck the dicks of the rich.

12. Chris Graham Says:

    April 17, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    I agree with you about Truman. He’s just about the only Democrat I like. He made unpopular decisions that saved millions of lives (and not only the lives of Americans). And aside from being a disgusting human being, Kennedy was not too bad a president. Remember when you liberals pointed to Bush’s approval ratings (and still do) and said, “See? He’s the worst president in history”? Yeah.

    Now, I’m glad you brought up this “no pre-existing conditions” thing. It was reported in the New York Times, one of Obama’s many personal fluffers, that while ObamaCare DOES prevent children from being DROPPED from coverage because of a discovered pre-existing condition, it does NOT prevent insurance companies from DENYING coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. That’s what happens when, in a mad rush to advance pure Marxism, you push through legislation before even taking time to proofread it, let alone read it at all. Remember what Pelosi said? “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.”

    And just for kicks, from the LA Times, one of the most liberal, in-the-can-for-Obama publications around, we find this:

    “Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama’s healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does NOT give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.
    “And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.
    “Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does NOT give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.
    “‘It is a very big loophole in health reform,’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.”

    Your gods are completely incompetent.

    Also, from one decent human being to another, I just made my WordPress blog last night and am still unsure of a bunch of things, one of which is whether or not I can use basic HTML in comments like this. Do you happen to know? I didn’t want to try it and then have my comment end up looking like crap because HTML is NOT accepted. There’s no preview button, so I figured I shouldn’t risk it.

13. Ed Darrell Says:

    April 17, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    Like Truman, sometimes you pay a public poll price for doing the right thing. Still have to do the right thing.

    Wait until the Republicans start campaigning on repeal of the “no pre-existing condition” clause. I can hardly wait.

14. Chris Graham Says:

    April 17, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Meanwhile, his poll numbers keep falling….

buy generic bactrim

order generic zoloft

Obamacare: Impact on the Family

The recent health care debate has shown that many in Congress do not always vote in favor of what is best for their constituents. Families, specifically, will suffer many negative repercussions from the passage of the health care bill.

Heritage’s Chuck Donovan explains the immense impact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will have on families by decreasing family choice, undermining the role of parents, penalizing marriage, and undercutting freedom of conscience.

More Families Covered but Less Family Choice: “Families gained nothing from PPACA that will permit them to purchase better or cheaper plans across state lines. The new law also does nothing to increase the variety of insurance available in the market, which could include family-friendly options like health plans managed by professional associations, unions, and faith-based groups. Nor will families be able to purchase health plans that exclude coverage for services to which they ethically object or which they do not need.”

Undermining the Role of Parents: “PPACA expands several funding streams that undermine parental responsibility and authority to direct the upbringing of their children. The law lavishes federal dollars on programs like school-based health centers and a new ‘Personal Responsibility Education’ (PRE) program that deny parents knowledge of sensitive services their children receive in federally funded projects.”

Penalizing Marriage: “The marriage penalty imposed by the law could exceed $10,000 per year for certain couples. This is because the affordability tax credit phases out rapidly as income rises. Not only does this health insurance marriage penalty dissuade a younger, low-income couple from getting married—which is one of the most beneficial life decisions they can make for themselves and for their children—but it also provides older couples, some of the hardest hit by this law, with an incentive to obtain a ‘divorce of convenience.’”

Undercutting Freedom of Conscience: “As health care reform proceeded, strong majorities of Americans supported protecting provider and insurer rights of conscience as well as limiting the use of tax funds for abortion. In March 2009, 87 percent of respondents to a national poll supported ensuring ‘that health care professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.’ A January 2010 Quinnipiac Survey found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding of abortion. On March 24, President Obama signed an executive order that attempts to apply conscience protections and abortion funding limits to the full text of PPACA. Regardless of the order’s intent, judicial rulings for the past 35 years have made it clear that public funding of elective abortions in federal programs cannot be barred without the kind of direct ban that Congress failed to include in many parts of PPACA.”

The health care bill will have a major negative impact on many American families. To learn more about the impact of the health care bill, visit Side Effects.

Tags: family choice, freedom of conscience, ObamaCare, parents, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, penalizing marriage, Personal Responsibility Education program

MP3:> Dom: “Living in America”

Pitchfork: What is your song “Bochicha” about?

D: Bochicha is the name of my cat. He's a mix between an African Savannah cat and a Norwegian forest cat. They're generally illegal in most states because they're so violent. There were some cases back in the 80s with them eating babies or something. But Bochicha is a party animal. He doesn't hurt anybody. He's great. Don't fuck with him though.

Also, “Bochicha” is the official face-off anthem of the Worcester Sharks.

Pitchfork: What's that?

D: Are you kidding me?! The Worcester Sharks! American Hockey League champions!

Pitchfork: How did you get that to be their face-off song?

D: We sent an e-mail and they got back to us. They were like, “Thanks for reaching out. We can really make some magic with this. Let's see how the audience reacts.” Now it's like “Hey! Bochicha!” and everybody just goes wild. [Editor's note: According to a representative from the Worcester Sharks, they do not play "Bochicha" at their games.]

Pitchfork: What was your first concert?

D: I never went to concerts as a kid because no one to let me do anything. I can't remember. It was probably something wack I wouldn't want to tell you about in an interview. Let's just say Aerosmith, that sounds pretty cool.

Pitchfork: Do you remember the first album you really cared about?

D: Third Eye Blind's first album. I liked “Semi-Charmed Life” because it's about crystal meth and that was the rage in the 90s, it was all over “90210″. I got into some different stuff later on: T. Rex, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Rolling Stones, Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, cool stuff like that. Right now I'm listening to Happy Birthday and Girls.

Pitchfork: The guy from Girls actually had a fucked up childhood, too. He was brought up in the Children of God cult.

D: That's probably just his publicist's idea, something they cooked up to sell more records.

Pitchfork: How do we know that your story isn't bullshit, then?

D: I guess it's the same thing that Slash said in his autobiography: It sounds crazy but, believe it or not, it all really happened.

Pitchfork: Your MySpace says you're signed to Lil Wayne's label, Young Money Entertainment.

D: Yeah, we want to be on that label. I wanna go clubbing with Drake and Weezy. I wanna just just kick it with them, smoke some blunts, drink some Patron, play some video games. If they wanted to sign us, I'd be down like a clown, Charlie Brown. We know they'd give us a lot of creative control and a lot of money and that's what we like.

We've been contacted by some labels already but we just want to have fun and see how far we can take it before we even start considering stuff. Passion Pit wanted to sign us to their label but we don't want to limit ourselves by signing to another band's tiny label. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but it would be like, “Oh, those are Passion Pit's friends.” We want to be bigger than that. We've got dreams, you know? This music thing is to get us big enough so we can pursue our real passions.

Pitchfork: Like what?

D: I've been writing some musicals, screenplays, pornography. I might mix it up with a musical-animation porno. I've got a jingle for Zales Jewelers that I'm hoping to launch around Mother's Day next year.

Pitchfork: How do you go about writing a porn film?

D: It just started out as a joke at a party, but then we really needed to come up with some money for rent. So we wrote a Cragislist post to see if people would be interested in being in our soft core porn film. We didn't expect to hear back from too many people, but I still get e-mails about it to this day.

We wanted to do something really tasteful and artful with minimal penetration shots. Like a beautiful piece of art that would change the porn world forever. But the candidates we had were busted.

Pitchfork: Your songs are lo-fi right now. Do you want to try to record in a more professional environment?

D: Oh yeah, that'd be great. We just pooped out these songs on the EP. We'll obviously write way better songs in the future. We want to just totally reinvent ourselves while referencing old, cool stuff while having a new school spin on it.

Pitchfork: I like bands with ambition.

D: That's what people pay to go see. Don't get me wrong, I can get down with a lot of chillwave, it's just no fun to watch at all. They're just playing on their samplers, bobbing and weaving. They're not really into it. A thousand bands are doing that whole thing now. People want to be entertained.

MP3:> Dom: “Burn Bridges”

Listen to more Dom songs on their MySpace.

cytotec pharmacy

purchase cheap nexium online

By Peter Shapiro for fightbacknews.org –

Passage of President Obama’s health care reform in late March made for great political theater. Here was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, skillfully maneuvering the bill through Congress after many had given it up for lost. Here was House minority leader and Republican point man John Boehner, reduced to ranting about ‘Armageddon’ and predicting the end of civilization as we know it if the bill passed. Here were Republican legislators egging on the mob of teabaggers who massed outside the Capitol, hurling racist and homophobic slurs at Representatives John Lewis and Barney Frank as they went inside.

I’ll admit the scene worked on my emotions. The Republicans’ tactics were ugly and cynical and I was happy to see them fail.

Now that the dust has settled, however, a hard look at the legislation that prompted all the fuss suggests that, far from ‘fixing our broken health care system,’ it merely reproduces some of its worst features.

The bill does nothing to lessen the grip of the private insurance industry on our health care system. It won’t bring exploding health care costs under control. It does little to change the shameful disparities in access to treatment in a society that treats medical care as a commodity to be bought and sold, rather than as something all of us need and deserve.

What it will do is require everybody to buy health insurance, with federal subsidies for those who can’t afford the premiums on their own. The price tag of these subsidies is $447 billion over the next ten years. That’s money that could have gone to pay directly for medical treatment but which will, instead, wind up in the pockets of the insurance industry – one more corporate bailout at taxpayers’ expense.

To help pay for it, public hospitals that treat the uninsured will have their federal funding slashed by $36 billion. Eight years down the road, union health plans and other job-based health insurance will be slapped with a 40% ‘excise tax.’ Protests from organized labor succeeded in getting this tax modified somewhat, but not eliminated from the bill.

The bill does expand eligibility for Medicaid, the federal health care program for the poor. And it is supposed to make it harder for insurance companies to deny legitimate claims or refuse to cover ‘high-risk’ patients. Insurance industry lobbyists, who actually helped draft the bill, swallowed these reforms in part because they’ll get 30 million new customers out of the deal, and in part because over the years the industry has proved adept at evading every government attempt at regulation.

Physicians for a National Health Program, which has led the fight for a single payer system comparable to what other developed countries have, likens the bill to morphine for a cancer patient. It lessens the pain for a while, but it doesn’t stop the cancer from spreading. Health care in the U.S. costs twice as much as in most other countries, mainly because the administrative costs of maintaining a private insurance system soak up nearly one in every three dollars we spend on it. And a big chunk of that money goes to buy politicians. The health care industry spent a record $266.8 million last year making sure nothing got into the bill that would seriously threaten its profits.

I’ve heard some interesting arguments over whether we’re better or worse off with this law on the books, but it’s really beside the point. The battle for universal, equal access to care still lies ahead, and it won’t be won until those of us who are victimized by the health care system have more political clout than those who profit from it.

The law’s shortcomings will provide ample organizing opportunities in the fight for true reform. Here are a few:

1. Medicaid. It’s financed with matching state and federal funds, and while the federal government may have the money to pay for expanded eligibility, most states don’t. Oregon, where I live, already has a very liberal program of health care for the poor, but the state is so strapped for cash that it actually has to hold a lottery to determine which eligible people get benefits. And because an underfunded Medicaid program compensates doctors so poorly, many doctors are already reluctant to take Medicaid patients. The new law promises to make it easier for poor people to get care; we should be prepared to hold politicians’ feet to the flames if it doesn’t happen.

2. Rate hikes. Since everyone will now be required to buy insurance or pay a fine, insurers are likely to take advantage of their captive market by jacking premiums up even more. There should be organized, angry protests every time it happens.

3. Underinsurance. Before the law passed, a woman with ‘pre-existing’ breast cancer was apt to be refused coverage. Now she can’t be denied coverage – but she may find that her new policy won’t pay for the extra round of chemotherapy or surgery she needs. Nothing in the law spells out what benefits must be offered for insurance plans to qualify for the government-run ‘health insurance exchanges’ that will be set up in 2014. The requirement that everybody buy insurance will mean a proliferation of cut-rate policies that are of no use when you most need them. When policies like that go on the market, we should read the fine print and expose them for what they are.

4. Inadequate regulation. Supporters of the new law boast that it outlaws ‘rescissions,’ the practice of canceling a policy as soon as a policyholder files a claim. But rescissions were already illegal! State regulators simply didn’t enforce the law. We need to keep a close eye on them and demand that they do their job.

5. Employer mandates. “If you like the coverage you have, you can keep it,” says Obama. But it’s really your boss’s decision, not yours. The penalties for employers who cancel their coverage are too small to discourage them from canceling or cutting back on increasingly costly employee benefits. Unions can expect continued brutal fights over health insurance at contract time. Whenever it happens, they shouldn’t hesitate to point out that health benefits shouldn’t even be on the bargaining table – the government should be picking up the tab for everybody, regardless of where they work or how much they make. Only by advocating for health care for all can unions win public sympathy when their own coverage is under attack.

6. Penalizing the uninsured. A lot of people who can’t afford to buy coverage, even with federal subsidies, will get stuck with stiff fines for remaining uninsured. They need to become organized and visible and demand relief.

7. Discrimination. Denying coverage to immigrants is a particularly ugly and pointless feature of the new law. Preventing sick people from going to the doctor doesn’t ‘secure our borders’ or discourage people from coming here, as anti-immigrant propagandists claim. It just means more needless and untreated illness and more pressure on overburdened hospital emergency rooms. Full access to health care is a key component in the battle for immigrant rights.

8. Federal deficits. As costs keep rising, subsidizing insurance premiums will inevitably add to an already huge federal deficit. There will be intense pressure to cut necessary social programs, including Medicare, to pay for it. In defending those programs, we should be prepared to raise the issue of single payer – pointing out that a universal government-funded health care system would save the taxpayers billions and make those cuts unnecessary.

It’s common for politicians like President Obama to say they support single payer ‘on principle’ but don’t consider it ‘realistic.’ The truth is that it’s the only realistic solution. Nothing else will solve our health care crisis. We have to keep the heat on until we get it.

Peter Shapiro co-chairs the Health Care Committee of Portland Jobs with Justice.

A team at the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust have shown that using Google to seek advice on common medical issues in children can lead to incorrect information. Paul Scullard and colleagues reported in the April issue of Archives of Disease in Childhood that Googling for information on such topics as autism and MMR vaccine, the sleeping position of a baby, what action to take with a baby producing green vomit, and breast feeding with mastitis or HIV, gave unreliable results. Of the 500 websites searched, 39% gave the correct answer, 11% were incorrect, and 49% didn’t answer the question. Government sites such as NHS Direct or NHS Choices gave uniformly accurate information. The story was also carried by BBC Health News.

Intute, which currently provides links to high quality resources on such issues, was not mentioned in the report. However, coincidentally, the story emerged in the same week as publication in the CILIP “Library and Information Update” (April 2010, pp. 30-32) of an editor’s interview with Dr. Malcolm Read, the Executive Secretary to Jisc. The editor, Elspeth Hyams, noted that “librarians have picked up that highly valued services like Intute … will no longer be funded by Jisc”. Dr. Read, who was awarded the OBE last year, explained that “the service was given the opportunity to establish alternative funding models but, unfortunately, the education and research community was unable to find a way to sustain it in its current format without Jisc funding”. And as Elspeth Hyams says, “Having to trim costs can provide a welcome opportunity to reprioritise, rebalance and restructure processes that, with the wisdom of hindsight, managers recognise to have been ‘a good thing’”. Meanwhile, unreliable health information remains a worry.

penisole