Holding Women's Health Hostage: The Sequel

The greatest nation on earth nearly had to turn off the lights last week. Please take note of the reason. It wasn't because of terrorism. It wasn't the aftermath of a tsunami or an earthquake. And it certainly was not -- despite some claims -- because of a financial crisis. No. The most powerful nation on the planet nearly went out of business because a few fringe members of Congress wanted to show off their spite for Planned Parenthood. The sideshow seemed finished Friday night, when President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stood firm for women's health and the House leadership folded a losing hand.

Just days later, the small band of believers (House leadership in tow) are back with a fresh attack on Planned Parenthood. This week, at the insistence of House Speaker John Boehner, the House and Senate will vote on a stand-alone version of the same measure that Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana tried to link to last week's short-term spending plan. The measure would explicitly bar one of the nation's oldest, most trusted and most cost-effective family-planning providers from participating in any federal health program. Period. Pence and his allies claim the measure would somehow reduce federal support for abortion, but the public now knows this is a ruse. Congress has prohibited federal funding for abortion for more than 30 years. This measure would cut off access to birth control -- thus increasing the need for abortion -- while also eliminating lifesaving cancer screenings and other vital services. That's not just aggressive. It's bad for women's health.

The Planned Parenthood Mike Pence wants to eliminate looks nothing like the Planned Parenthood that three million patients rely on each year. One American woman in five has received care from a Planned Parenthood health center. Abortion -- a safe, legal procedure -- makes up three percent of our services, not the "well over 90 percent" that Senator Jon Kyl recently claimed on the Senate floor and later had to retract. The rest of our services are basic preventive health care -- affordable, high-quality care that helps avert serious illness rather than treat it at advanced stages. Each year we provide nearly two million screenings to detect breast and cervical cancer early. We also provide nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including half a million HIV tests. And we ensure that nearly 2.5 million people have access to affordable birth control, which reduces unintended pregnancy.

What would Pence's proposal mean to the women we serve? Two thirds of them, the two million whose care is covered by Medicaid and other federal health programs, would lose all access to our health centers. And because Planned Parenthood is the only provider available to many of these women, the loss would be more than an inconvenience. Cutting off our services would amount to cutting off their health care, with tragic and predictable outcomes: more cancer deaths, more undiagnosed HIV and untreated STDs, and more unintended pregnancies, which means more abortion.

Why would anyone pursue such an agenda? Pence may spin this as an effort to control federal spending, but it's nothing of the kind. In fact, his proposal would cost the government money. Family planning saves taxpayers nearly $4 for every $1 invested. Killing family planning would eliminate those savings, and locking Planned Parenthood out of federal programs would make the programs themselves less efficient. We provide high-quality care for less money than other publicly funded providers charge. If all of our three million patients had to get preventive health care from other publicly funded providers, the total cost could rise by as much as $200 million a year.

The recent assault on Planned Parenthood, a 95-year-old organization, has provoked a powerful backlash. Women and men from every community have come forward in vast numbers to stand with us, and reasonable policymakers from both sides of the aisle have paid attention. Continuing these senseless attacks is not only wrongheaded but politically foolish. An April 11 poll by CNN shows that 65 percent of Americans favor continued support for Planned Parenthood. And why wouldn't they? The attack on Planned Parenthood shows indifference to women's health. If adopted, it will deny millions of women access to cancer screenings and birth control. In many communities, it will eliminate a provider of affordable, high-quality care. And it will hit women and families struggling in this economy especially hard.

It's time to end this political vendetta. It's wasting valuable time when our congressional leaders should be focused on getting folks back to work. America has real problems to address, and voters know what they are. The House leadership needs to part ways with these extremists and get back to the business of governing.

Women's Health habentes obses: The Sequel 

Maximum gens una in terra erant prope arceatur lumina septimana. Lorem animadverti causa. Non propter terrore. Non ex renovatione Europae seu motu terrae tsunami. Quod profecto non - obstante aliqua petat - financial propter habuisse. The No opulentissima in plagiarius fere negotio exiit propterea quod paucis membris Congress fringe Volens enim insultant off paternitas cogitavit. The Friday perfecta uidebatur sideshow Noctis President Obama senatusque Leader Harry Reid Maioritas steterunt mulieres et sanitatem ductus domum perdere est involutus manu.

Iustus post diebus parva manu fidelium (imperator House stuppa) Rediit novo impetu paternitas cogitavit. Is week in House Speaker instantia John Boehner domus et sententia Senatus-supra candelabrum solo version eandem mensuram Rep Mike Indiana denarios conatus septimana pagina's term sumptibus breve consilium. Esset mensura explicite de bar gentis antiquissimus, ac maxime confide-efficens sumptus family planning-suggero a societate aliqua valetudine Federal program. Period. Denarios sociis esset petere mensuram reducere quodammodo abortum Federal subsidium tamen publica hoc modo scit fraudem. Federal Congress prohibuit sumptu ad abortum amplius XXX annis. Quam rem si aditus percussit coerceatur - augentes abortum necessitas - dum etiam remotis cancer screenings lifesaving vitaeque alia servicia. Id non solum ultro. It's feminis valetudini.

The paren propositum vult Mike Denarii nihil spectat eliminate cogitavit ut paternitas ut aegros tricies credo annum. Una mulier quinque American accepit conposito curas salutem paternitas centrum. Abortus - pignore, iuris ordo - tria facit Our Services sentio, non "tam super XC percent" Jon Kyl senator nuper senatus petitur piano sicut post tractare. Reliquum Praecaventur basic muneris es valetudinis - affordable, GENEROSUS avertere cura gravi morbo prodest quam at advanced accipiat vetat. Quotannis ferme damus screenings vicies deprehendere cancer colli pectora diluculo. Lorem ferme quattuor prospiciat million medicamina expertus infections sexualiter transmissi, inter medium HIV million probat. Adiuvare et paene populus million 2.5 aditus affordable coerceatur, quod conceptus ignorata reducit. 

Quid sibi volunt Denarii propositum's mulieribus servimus? Duae partes illorum, curante vicies tegitur Federal Medicaid salutem et cetera progressio, totum perderet saluti aditus convertit. Et quia cogitavit nisi paternitate available provider Begoai mulieres amitteret quam incommodum. Secandum esset muneris summam amputatis valetudinis, et tragico eventu praedictio: Mortui Cancer magis magis et increatum HIV undiagnosed STDs et plus uterum ignorata, quae pluris abortivum. 

Quare talis sequebatur quisquam agendum? Denarii spin ut labore hoc Federal sumptibus continere, tamen suus nihil tale. Nam pretium esset propositum imperio pecuniae. Family planning servo prope coeperat $ $ IV I omne collocari. Family planning necare voluit eos eliminate condimentum et obfirmatis de paternitate cogitavit Federal progressio progressio faceret minus se agente.Damus GENEROSUS Pecuniam minorem curam publice ceteris suggero hanc scientiam maxime promoverunt crimen. Si omnes nostrae patiens erat tricies Praecaventur impetro valetudinis hanc scientiam maxime promoverunt ex aliis publice suggero, funditus possit oriri pretium quanto $ million annum CC. 

Recens cogitavit insultum paternitas in-XCV olim ANNUS ordinem, provocavit backlash potenti. Mulierum et virorum ex omni civitate hue processisse multitudinem stare nobiscum et rationabili de policymakers ultraque have ALA intendebat. Insipientes iisdem non solum impetus sed publice wrongheaded stultus. An XI capita April ostendit per CNN LXV pro cento Americans continue paternitas propositum favorem. Quid non sunt? Oppugnabantur paternitas cogitavit mulieribus neclegens valetudini. Si adhibetur, eam neget mulierum millions cancer screenings aditus et coerceatur. In aliquot populos, haec a precentor eliminate affordable, GENEROSUS cura. Id hit familiae feminae moliuntur imprimis ardua parsimonia. 

It's vicis ut politica vendetta terminabis. It's valuable tabe quo illi esse principes Congressional focused questus ad opus folks.Casus reales America problems appellare et electorum quid sint.Domus parte ductum vias eget extremists his revertuntur et res regiminis.

What you should Know About Business Liability Insurance

Every entrepreneur must be aware of every angle in their business. Not just the operations, finance and marketing side but also the legal matters involved. Whether you have a small business, medium-sized or a large company, it is imperative to have business liability insurance.

What is business liability insurance? It is a type of insurance that protects a business if in case there is a formal lawsuit or third party claim pertaining to the business or the owner of the business itself in reference to the same. All expenses regarding legal defense is being covered by the insurance and personal contribution of the owner beyond the business is lessened. There are three types of business liability insurance: general liability insurance, professional liability insurance and product liability insurance.

For instance, you are a contractor offering home remodeling services. It is a pre-requisite that before you are allowed to open your firm, the state that you are in requires that you purchase a business liability insurance. Other than that, potential clients will first look if your firm is insured to be on the secure side – in case an accident happens, there is an insurance policy to turn to in time of need.

The government is more inclined to issue contracts to private firms that are insured. Homeowners are keen on who they want to work in their homes. They need contractors who can pay up if there will be an unfortunate event.

The insurance policy is different from one business to another. Depending upon your needs, the insurance company or its broker will give you a quote and discuss with you what type of insurance is necessary for your business. They will also give you full details about the risks in your business and how they will assist you if ever the time comes.

Here is another example:

An IT firm pays less insurance premiums for their employees as compared to a home remodeling firm. The former keeps his employees inside the office 8 hours daily – accident risk is very minimal. The latter, on the other hand, have workers that climbs up and down the ladder, handles big equipments and walks on roofs. Common accidents like falling debris on unsuspecting passers by is not a cliche. In fact, it happens in real life. When things go wrong, the injured party will sue the homeowner. The homeowner will then turn to the contractor. If the contractor has a business liability insurance, the injured party will be compensated justly.

Business assets can also be insured like the company car, the building your business is in, computers and other equipments that are of value to the business. Just remember that insurance is there to help you when you need it most. If you dont have insurance and trouble comes your way, are you prepared to pay a big amount of cash up to the extent that you can go bankrupt? It is better to be safe than sorry.

At times it is hard to find a good commercial trucking insurance company. When you have a few company cars or trucks for your business, you should shop around for the best commercial auto insurance rates.

Ryan budget ignores CBO, reality, says health care repeal will reduce deficit

The non-partisan, number crunching CBO has long since become a major nuisance for the GOP, since many of it's conclusions about the realities of the budget run counter to GOP budget truthiness. That's the case again in the so-called "Path to Prosperity," Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to weed the nation of the elderly, the sick, and the disabled so the rich people can get even more stuff.

In the case of this budget proposal, Ryan conveniently ignores the fact that the CBO saysrepealing the Affordable Care Act won't reduce the deficit.

The budget plan unveiled by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Tuesday does a neat trick: It claims that repealing the health care reform law will actually reduce the federal budget deficit—despite extensive analyses by the Congressional Budget Office that show exactly the opposite.

The CBO—which is the gold standard for budget analysis and number crunching on Capitol Hill—has issued a series of reports which conclude that the health care law will reduce the deficit and, by corollary, that repealing the health care law will cause the deficit to go back up.

This is a problem for Republicans, who dismiss CBO findings out of hand. Indeed, the budget they unveiled Tuesday morning relies on unofficialnumbers to create the impression that repealing the health care law willreduce the deficit.

According to the GOP budget, repealing the health care law will reduce the deficit by $1.4 trillion by 2022. CBO, by contrast, holds that repealing the health law now will add well over $200 billion to the deficit over the same time frame....

It's not clear where Ryan is getting his numbers. Asked about this disparity at a Capitol briefing Tuesday, House Budget chairman Paul Ryan claimed to have used CBO figures and not to have dictated assumptions to its analysts.

See, now that's boldness and courage, to get the real numbers, but pull the analysis completely out of your ass. And all the Very Serious People applaud. Because you can't finally break the stranglehold America's elderly and disabled have on our government unless you cook the books.

A Missing Health Policy Story

A “study says” piece gets short shrift

The most underreported health story of this past week was, in my view, one that came out of the RAND Corp., the Santa Monica think tank known for its thorough, leading edge research on health policy. Before the words “health policy” throw you into a snooze, dear reader, let’s look at what the study showed and its implications for how people will fare under the new health law.

RAND researchers, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the California Healthcare Foundation, two groups with a big stake in health reform, looked at medical claims from 800,000 families between 2004 and 2005, a time when high-deductible policies were beginning to surface. What they found was predictable.

Families whose policies carried a deductible of $500 or more spent fourteen percent less on health care than those who had insurance with lower deductibles, said Amelia Haviland, a member of the research team: “In plans with deductibles of $1000 or more, there was a significant reduction in spending.” Even when employers put money into these high-deductible accounts, as some do, they saved money on health expenditures for their workers. The reason: People were not going to doctors and hospitals as much, and they weren’t buying as many prescription drugs. In particular, researchers examined preventive care and found that people in high-deductible plans were receiving less than those with low-deductible insurance. But get this—most of the time preventive care wasnot subject to the high deductibles. In other words, a $200 mammogram would be covered in full, but women were not getting them. Children in the control group got more immunizations than kids whose parents had high-deductible insurance, and adults in the control group got significantly more cancer screenings. Researchers speculated that perhaps consumers did not understand their policies. Or if they weren’t going to the doctor, they weren’t getting referred for routine screenings.

Offering policies with deductibles of $1000, $2000, or more is fast becoming the cost containment measure of choice. People choose them because they have cheaper premiums and often can’t afford anything else. Asking patients to pay more on their own—making them have more skin in the game, as they say—is a way to reduce the nation’s health care tab without imposing tight controls on the docs and hospitals, which yell and scream whenever that threat shows up. The theory is that if you have to pay for your own care, you’ll think twice before running off to a doctor.

“There is a cost shift here,” Haviland explained. “What these plans are about is shifting costs. They are an effective tool for reducing spending, but there’s concern they could reduce necessary medical care in ways that could affect their future and the future of health-care spending.” Health reform was supposed to change all that. Remember all that talk about preventive care saving money so people wouldn’t have costly illness later on?

Given that, you might have expected the media to be all over the story, especially since high deductible plans will be offered through the state health insurance exchanges. Policies sold to employees of small groups can have deductibles as high as $2000 for individuals and $4000 for families; those offered to individuals will have no limits, although out-of-pocket spending will be limited in other ways. High-deductible policies are already common in the Massachusetts Connector, where deductibles can be as high as $2000 for individuals and $4000 for families. Instead coverage was scarce, particularly in the MSM. Much of what there was appeared in the trade pubs such as American Medical News and Healthcare Leaders Media. “I’ve been surprised and a bit disappointed there wasn’t much uptake,” said RAND’s PR guy, Warren Robak. Was it that the news hole was too tiny with Libya, Japan, and Washington’s budget shenanigans hogging all the space? Or was it that reporters couldn’t immediately find an anecdote to stick in their stories? Or was it plain disinterest?

Kay Lazar, the Boston Globe’s health reporter, couldn’t find any anecdotes, but she knew a good story when she saw one, and she ran with it. Lazar interviewed Haviland—who, by the way is one researcher who speaks in plain English—and tailored her piece to Massachusetts, where only two percent of people with health insurance took a high deductible plan. Still, that number has nearly doubled —from about 50,000 people in 2009 to about 93,000 last year. Lazar said her story connected with the public; lots of people called to talk about their experiences with high-deductible plans. The issue was covered well in the state. The AP rewrote the Globe story; the Worcester Business Journaland WBUR also noted the study. WBUR, however, took the story one step further, as I’ll explain tomorrow—it showed how high deductible coverage affects real people.

Rove's Crossroads suing HHS over health reform waivers

This is rich.administration over transparency, of all things.

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS) says the suit was prompted by the [Department of Health and Human Service's] failure to respond to a Jan. 7 request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The organization is seeking "any and all memoranda, guidance, directives, instructions and other documents … relating to the criteria to be applied by HHS in deciding whether to grant or deny applications for [a] waiver."

"Until President Obama is willing to grant the entire country a waiver from ObamaCare," Crossroads GPS President Steven Law said in a statement, "his administration needs to come clean on how they decide who wins and loses in the waiver lottery."

Conservatives have been making hay over waivers granted by HHS, temporary exemptions from the law's $750,000 minimum annual cap on benefits for 2011. According to HHS, "The department has given the Energy and Commerce Committee 25 boxes of documents for its hearing on the issue; the department has also published regulations and three guidance documents about the waivers, as well as a regularly updated list of approved waivers." In other words, who got the waivers.

So it's not really any big secret. For her part, HHS Secretary Sebelius says the suit is groundless and that "Nothing is further from the truth," regarding the Right's accusations that the administration is granting waivers as political favors.

Rove's group is pushing a politicized nuisance suit. What a shock.

One year after passage, health care reform continues to generate lobbying and legal fees

One year ago today, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. The legislative process that led to the bill's enactment proved to be a boon to lobbyists, including former aides to key members. Industry exerted influence on the administration and members of Congress from early on in the process, and continued lobbying after the bill was passed.

In 2009 and 2010, lobbyists for some 1,251 organizations disclosed lobbying on the bill, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those interests included pharmaceutical firms and their trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, insurers like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, universities, retailers, restaurant chains, manufacturers, telecommunications firms and labor unions.

หนึ่งปีหลังจากผ่านการปฏิรูปการดูแลสุขภาพอย่างต่อเนื่องเพื่อสร้างค่าการล็อบบี้และทางกฎหมาย

หนึ่งปีที่ผ่านมาในวันนี้ประธานาธิบดีโอบามาลงนามในผู้ป่วยการดูแลป้องกันและราคาไม่แพงพระราชบัญญัติเป็นกฎหมาย กระบวนการนิติบัญญัติที่นำไปสู่​​การตรากฎหมายเรียกเก็บเงินของการพิสูจน์ให้เป็นประโยชน์เพื่อ lobbyists รวมทั้ง aides อดีตไปยังสมาชิกหลัก อุตสาหกรรมการกระทำมีอิทธิพลต่อการบริหารและสมาชิกสภาคองเกรสจากในช่วงต้นของกระบวนการและการล็อบบี้อย่างต่อเนื่องหลังจากที่เรียกเก็บเงินก็ผ่านไปได้

ในปี 2009 และ 2010, lobbyists สำหรับบาง 1,251 องค์กรเปิดเผยการล็อบบี้ในบิล, ตามศูนย์ตอบสนองการเมือง ผลประโยชน์ที่รวม บริษัท ยาและกลุ่มการค้า, การวิจัยและการผลิตยาของอเมริกาของพวกเขา บริษัท ผู้รับประกันภัยชอบ Blue Cross / Blue Shield, สมาคมโรงพยาบาลอเมริกัน, American Medical Association, มหาวิทยาลัย, ค้าปลีก, กลุ่มร้านอาหาร, ผู้ผลิต, บริษัท โทรคมนาคมและสหภาพแรงงาน .

Un anno dopo il passaggio, la riforma sanitaria continua agenerare spese di lobbying e di diritto


Un anno fa oggi, il presidente Obama ha firmato la protezione del paziente e non costose legge in legge. Il processo legislativo che ha portato alla promulgazione del disegno di legge si è rivelata un vantaggio per i lobbisti, tra cui ex collaboratori di membri chiave.Industria esercitato un'influenza sulla gestione e membri delCongresso fin dalle prime fasi del processo, e ha continuatolobbying dopo il disegno di legge è stata approvata.

Nel 2009 e nel 2010, 1.251 lobbisti per alcune organizzazionicomunicati lobbying sul disegno di legge, secondo il Center for Responsive Politics. Tali interessi incluso le impresefarmaceutiche e del loro gruppo commerciale, la ricerca farmaceutica e Produttori di America, gli assicuratori, come Blue Cross / Blue Shield, l'American Hospital Association, l'American Medical Association, università, commercianti, catene di ristoranti, produttori, società di telecomunicazioni e sindacati .

Un anno dopo il passaggio, la riforma sanitaria continua a generare spese di lobbying e di diritto

Un anno fa oggi, il presidente Obama ha firmato la protezione del paziente e non costose legge in legge. Il processo legislativo che ha portato alla promulgazione del disegno di legge si è rivelata un vantaggio per i lobbisti, tra cui ex collaboratori di membri chiave. Industria esercitato un'influenza sulla gestione e membri del Congresso fin dalle prime fasi del processo, e ha continuato lobbying dopo il disegno di legge è stata approvata.

Nel 2009 e nel 2010, 1.251 lobbisti per alcune organizzazioni comunicati lobbying sul disegno di legge, secondo il Center for Responsive Politics. Tali interessi incluso le imprese farmaceutiche e del loro gruppo commerciale, la ricerca farmaceutica e Produttori di America, gli assicuratori, come Blue Cross / Blue Shield, l'American Hospital Association, l'American Medical Association, università, commercianti, catene di ristoranti, produttori, società di telecomunicazioni e sindacati .

Post annum loco manet reformare valetudinis generare feodis et actiones lobbying

Unus annus abhinc hodie President Obama signed Praesidium et patiens Care Act Maecenas tristique in lege. Processus legislativa duxit rogationem lata's probavit lobbyists beneficium, etiam ut illa Tite key members. Industry invita pertingit ad administrationem a sodales Congress mane in processu, pergit billa lobbying lata.

In et MMIX MMX, aliquod lobbyists aperit 1.251 Institutionum liber in lobbying secundum Center for Politics responsive. Pharmaceutical studia inclusa et negotia nem coetus in Pharmaceutical Manufacturers lucubrationes Americae Blue Cross ut insurers / Blue Shield, Hospital Association American, American Association Medical, academias, Retailers Restaurant vinculis manufacturers, nem et labore Telecommunications uniones .