we're calling out Sarah Palin, and taking to Facebook to debunk her lies

Friend -- A lot of folks use Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family. For Sarah Palin, it's a great way to spread lies about health insurance reform. A few months back, Palin took to Facebook to declare that health reform would create "death panels," and drive private insurers out of business -- and nonpartisan fact-check sites and the independent Congressional Budget Office debunked those lies. But that hasn't stopped Sarah Palin. She's back with a new Facebook note claiming that reform will raise costs on families and drive up deficits. Unfortunately for her, even the conservative "Tax Foundation" says those claims are false. So we're calling out Sarah Palin, and taking to Facebook to debunk her lies on the very same pages she's using to spread them. Call 'em out: Sarah Palin. Watch the video, make a call, spread the word on Facebook. We've put together a short Facebook note cataloging just some of Sarah Palin's many distortions and the facts that prove her wrong. But we need your help to "share" the note and make sure she doesn't get away with her outrageous lies. If Sarah Palin wants to spread lies on Facebook, we'll call her out in the very same place. And when thousands of folks share our note and expose her lies, it will be clear that those who lie about reform will be held accountable -- no matter where they spread their misinformation. The more we push back with the truth, the more Sarah Palin and others like her will have to think twice before they promote lies, and the less they'll be able to derail progress. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you can still help us call out Sarah Palin. Visit Call 'em Out: Sarah Palin to watch our video detailing her lies and to call Palin's political organization and say, "stop lying." Rising health care costs are crushing American families and squeezing small businesses. Reform will reign in costs and cut the deficit in the long run -- that's why it's so important, and why Sarah Palin's lies are so malicious. We're not letting it stand. We're calling Sarah Palin out: http://www.democrats.org/CallOutPalin Thanks for helping us set the record straight about reform, Jen Jen O'Malley Dillon Executive Director Democratic National Committee

Schwarzenegger’s secret message to the state Assembly: ‘F*ck you.’ from Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/28/schwarzeneggers-assembly-secret/

by Amanda Terkel

The California Assembly and Senate recently unanimously approved Assembly Bill 1176 to help the port of San Francisco with financing issues. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has decided to veto the legislation, sending a letter to the state Assembly chastising them for focusing on "unnecessary bills." The San Francisco Bay Guardian also notes a second, more direct, message hidden in Schwarzenegger's missive — contained in the first letter of each line:

The author of the Assembly Bill 1176 is Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who recently shouted out "You lie!" to Schwarzenegger at a public event. Schwarzenegger's office, however, is insisting that the letter's coded message was just "a strange coincidence." "When you do so many vetoes, that's bound to happen," said the governor's spokesman.

Less Robust Public Option a Double Slap in the Face to Working Class Americans from Firedoglake

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/28/making-public-option-less-robust-is-a-double-slap-in-the-face-to-working-class-americans/

 by Jon Walker

A robust slap, courtesy of obstructionist Dems (photo by Vermin Inc)

Nancy Pelosi may not have enough votes for the "robust" public option tied to Medicare rates plus 5%. The Hill has published the official whip count [note: The Hill has now removed this page. Data was copied and posted here] of those House Democrats who oppose the robust public option.

As I've pointed out countless times before, a robust public option would have premiums roughly 10%-11% less (according to the CBO and CMS) than typical private insurance. That would be around a $1,400 reduction in premiums for the average family that could choose the robust public option. Forcing Americans to pay roughly $1,400 more a year on health insurance premiums, by denying them the choice of a robust public option, is the first slap in the face.

The second big slap in the face is that robust public option would save the government $85 billion more than a weaker public option (with negotiated rates instead of those based on Medicare). Since Obama set an absurd $900 billion ceiling on the cost of health care reform, most of that $85 billion will need to be made up by reducing affordability tax credits to low- and middle-income families. As Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports:

The public option tied to Medicare rates saves $110 billion over ten years. Requiring it to negotiate rates only saves $25 billion.

If leadership goes with the negotiated-rate plan, that $85 billion difference will have to come from somewhere to meet President Obama's ten-year, $900 billion price ceiling. The fattest target is the subsidies to help people afford insurance.

Going with negotiated rates instead of a robust public option will deny American families a choice that would save them roughly $1,400 a year on their health care premiums. But making the public option less robust might also cause the government to reduce the amount of tax credits it can give to low-income and middle-income Americans to help them afford health insurance by roughly 20%. So, not only will American families be denied a much cheaper insurance option, but they will also be given less financial assistance to help them afford health insurance from a selection of more expensive options.

Making the public option less robust will end up costing working class families thousands more each year on health care. That is what the 47 Democrats who are "Nays" on the robust public option are desperately fighting for. They are fighting for a position that they know will make health care dramatically more expensive for millions of Americans.

Republican Introduces Resolution To Honor Anti-Government Teabaggers from Crooks and Liars

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/republican-introduces-resolution-hono

 by Logan Murphy

From the department of You Can't Make This Sh*t Up:

Republican Rep. Tom Price, of Georgia, has introduced a House resolution that would, if passed, express the legislative body's "gratitude and appreciation" to Tea Party members who marched on Washington on Sept. 12 to "show their love of liberty and their grievance with recent government actions."

The proposed resolution is co-signed by more than 70 members of the House.

The proposed resolution would single for praise the "hundreds of thousands of American patriots, who refuse to sit idly by as the Federal Government advances skyrocketing deficits, taxpayer-funded bailouts, pork-barrel projects, burdensome taxes, unaccountable policy czars, command-and-control energy policy, and a government takeover of health care, came to Washington, D.C, to show their disapproval ..."

So let me get this straight...Price wants to pass a resolution that would praise anti-government, right wing extremists who want to overthrow their president? Really? If one single Democrat votes for this garbage, you can be sure we will call them out and ridicule them mercilessly.

Just to be clear, there weren't hundreds of thousands of people at that joke of a march on September 12th. And this was not an anti-tax march, this was a well funded hate-fest that was organized by Fox News and Glenn Beck.

You can read Price's entire resolution here. For added entertainment, click through to the original article and check out some of the comments. Didn't they learn anything from our Jon Perr's 10 Lessons for Teabaggers?

Republicans Running as Democrats in South Suburbs from PSB: Progressive Illinois Politics - Front Page

http://www.prairiestateblue.com/diary/5181/republicans-running-as-democrats-in-south-suburbs

by bored now

When Democrats go to the polls in the South Suburbs this February, they are likely to be surprised by a few names. Top of the list will be Bloom Township Supervisor "T.J." Somer, who was the Bloom Township Republican Committeeman before he resigned to run in the Democratic for judge in 2008. Somer wasn't just a Republican, he was the Republican challenger to Jesse Jackson Jr in 1995, a GOP office holder (Bloom Township Supervisor) and Republican party leader. At the height of the Florida ballot fiasco in November 2000, Somer made it clear where he stood:

"I think it's pretty clear here that I'm the Republican and he's the Democrat," Somer said this week by phone from his office.

Now he wants to be the Democratic nominee for judge. This is problematic on so many levels.
My biggest complaint is that Democrats don't need to dip into the Republican ranks to get good people to run in the South Suburbs. The South Suburbs has a tremendous pool of talent on the Democratic side, and we don't need crossover votes to win elections. While that may have been true decades ago, it certainly hasn't been true since I've lived here (in this millennium). I've got no problem with TJ running as a Republican for office, but he apparently thinks he can't win with that label attached to his name:

Somer is the latest example of someone changing his politically partisan label in hopes that "joining the other team" will give him a better chance at winning. After all, it is not that Somer has anything significantly new in his background.

HIS HOMETOWN USED to be a Republican bastion in the south suburbs. Officials who controlled Chicago Heights politics were white ethnics (largely Italian) who leaned toward the GOP because they saw the party as their political instrument that kept them from being bowled over by Chicago city government.

Shifting parties is just a sign Somer can "smell the coffee," so to speak, of his changing community. Growing African-American and Hispanic populations in Chicago Heights (along with a federal investigation of the Chicago mob during the 1990s that sent former Chicago Heights Mayor Charles Panici to prison) have changed the town's politics.

Now Gregory Tejeda seems to think that "There really is little difference between people of Democratic and Republican persuasions, particularly if they come from the same region." But I disagree. In this particular case, I'd argue that it's deceitful.

Judicial races are what we call low-information races on the ballot. Without a great deal of information about the candidates, voters are forced to rely on political cues or brands to help them make their choice for who to vote. One of the primary political cues we have is party affiliation. Being a Democrat means something to most Democrats, and they can articulate what it means. Somer apparently thinks he needs the Democratic label to win election in the South Suburbs. But voters will go into the fall thinking that the (D) means the same thing to Somer (if he were to be the nominee) as it means to them.

Consider about the vast differences between Republican judges and Democratic judges. Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer talked about the different judicial philosophies recently at the University of Arizona College of Law:

Using his "originalist" philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.

"I will stipulate that it will," Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do," he continued.

There are also dramatic differences between Democrats and Republicans in the areas of sentencing on drug possession -- which have led to sentences being much stiffer on African-American defendants than on white defendants -- and other crimes. And Somer's service as a Chicago Heights cop forces one to question his exposure to racial profiling.

I don't know if TJ Somer shares Justice Scalia's interpretation of the law, I don't know where he stands on the disparities between sentences given to whites and non-whites in drug cases and I couldn't begin to guess if Somer would be sympathetic to law enforcement if they were accused of racial profiling, but -- most likely -- we will never know. Judicial candidates are prohibited (by convention) from answering all but the most vague questions about how they will rule in future cases.

What I do know is that TJ Somer -- like Antonin Scalia -- was a Republican before he decided he wanted to be a judge. I have no reason to think that Somer's judicial philosophy will be more akin to Breyer's than to Scalia's. Which is why I'd argue that attaching the Democratic label to TJ Somer's name is deceptive. We can't trust Somer to act as a Democrat from the bench.

The argument that some have given is that we don't have enough judges from the eastern side of the 15th subcircuit, that the western (and more Republican) end is over-represented on the bench. And I have some sympathy for that argument. But we have enough legal talent among real, long-time Democrats here in Rich, Bloom and Bremen townships without having to bring in Republican ringers to run as Democrats.

What no one can tell me is why I should prefer a Republican-turned-Democrat from the Eastern side of the subcurcuit to a real Democrat from either side. A real, long-time Democrat is much more likely -- it seems to me -- to be more sympathetic to the disadvantaged, the dispossessed, to consumers and taxpayers than TJ Somer. Somer may understand what is necessary to achieve power in this area, but I have real doubts that he understands what it is like to be threatened or abused by power, and I'm not sure how sympathetic he'd be to people in his courtroom. Before he deserves the chance to run under the Democratic brand, he needs to prove that he understands what that means to the rest of us, that he can be trusted with the Democratic label.

The constraints of judicial propriety makes that virtually impossible. Why risk it? Democrats should choose a real Democrat, someone who can properly be labeled with that brand, this February to run as their Democratic nominee next November. It's not only the safe choice, it's the smart choice...

Congress Expands Hate Crime Bill Despite Right-Wing Opposition from Truthout - All Articles

http://www.truthout.org/1028098

In a landmark decision coming on the tail of decades of fierce debate, Congress passed a bill to widen federal protection against hate crimes to those victimized because of their sex or sexual orientation. President Barack Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act on Wednesday.

Though also encountering great antagonism, the decision was passed by a vote of 281 to 156 in the House vote earlier this month, and then by a 68 to 29 vote in the Senate last Thursday, with a gay rights march on the Capitol attended by more than 200,000 people from all over the country and a speech by Obama to the Human Rights Campaign occurring in between. It will now go to Obama, who has said he supports the legislation, for signature.

Republicans cited the illegality of violent attacks, regardless of motive, as reason not to pass what they considered superfluous legislation. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) called the new law "Orwellian" and a step toward "thought crime," as prosecution for attack would require ascribing a motive to the attacker.

The Republican right has also criticized the bill, intended to reduce violence against some of the more vulnerable groups in society, as "radical social policy."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) pointed out the more than 77,000 reports of hate crimes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has received between 1998 through 2007, and said that crime based on sexual orientation was on the rise.

Earlier hate crimes provisions only covered attacks motivated by a victim's race, color, religion or natural origin, though the rise of identity politics and killings such as that of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student murdered in 1998, have increased the push for more comprehensive legislation.

The hate crimes addition, passed as part of a $68 billion military spending bill, will also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes.

However, for many this is not far enough. Some states, with Maryland being the most recent, have extended the legislation to cover attacks against homeless people.

State Sen. Alex Mooney (R-Maryland), known for his socially conservative views, said, "since we have hate crimes as part of law, it only makes sense to look at truly vulnerable groups to include, not just to include groups that have clout, you know, in one of the political parties ... And I think homeless people deserve the same protections as other human beings."

The Republican Brand in Ruins: 75% of Americans Dislike Republicans; Over 70% Think Palin’s Not Qualified to be President from Firedoglake

http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/28/the-republican-brand-in-ruins-75-of-americans-dislike-republicans-over-70-think-palins-not-qualified-to-be-president/

 by Blue Texan

TEAPARTY!

While impressions of Obama's professional performance are mixed, the same can't be said of the Republican Party at large. Put simply, the GOP's brand is still a mess. According to the poll, just 25% have a positive opinion of the party (compared with 42% for the Dem Party), which ties the GOP's low-water mark in the survey and which is a worse score than it ever had during the Bush presidency.

And the Teabaggers' GILF didn't fare much better in another new poll.

More than seven in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, according to a new national poll. Seventy-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning believe the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is not qualified to be president, with 29 percent saying she does have the credentials to serve in the White House.

The CNN poll found that Huckleberry is leading the GOP's 2012 presidential pack, followed by the 'Cuda, with Willard placing third.

Willard really must be thinking at this point: how can I still be losing to these yahoos?

What's So Scary About Michael Pollan? Why Corporate Agriculture Tried to Censor His University Speech from Truthout - All Articles

http://www.truthout.org/1028099

Agribusiness is trying to combat Pollan's message of sustainable, healthy eating.

Even if agribusiness could shut Michael Pollan up, the outspoken author of Omnivore's Dilemma and a journalism professor at University of California, Berkeley, it still has the Los Angeles Times to contend with.

Last week, the Times blasted California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo for downgrading a scheduled Pollan lecture because it received pressure from David E. Wood, a university donor who happens to be chairman of the Harris Ranch Beef Co.

"Agribusiness gets plenty of opportunities to preach its point of view at agriculture schools such as Cal Poly, where the likes of Monsanto and Cargill fund research," the Times wrote, calling the 800-acre Harris Ranch, near Coalinga, whose "smell assaults passersby long before the panorama of thousands of cattle packed atop layers of their own manure,"--"Cowschwitz." Ouch.

And agribusiness has the University of Wisconsin-Madison to deal with.

The land grant, ag-based university, in the middle of dairyland, clearly doesn't remember its roots. It gave Pollan's In Defense of Food, another anti-agbiz screed according to industry, free to all incoming freshmen as part of its common book read program where everyone reads the same book, Go Big Read, in August.

"I have not seen the students this excited about something in years," Irwin Goodman, horticulture professor and vice dean of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences told the Associated Press as the James Beard Award-winning book was discussed in French and political science classes and included in an exhibit on the history of food.

Protesting farmers who came to hear Pollan speak at the university's 17,000-seat Kohl Center in September wearing matching green T-shirts which said "In Defense of Farming: Eat Food. Be Healthy. Thank Farmers" were clearly outnumbered. So were bumper stickers reading No Food; No Farms and Don't Criticize Farmers With Your Mouth Full in the parking lot.

Students get all their facts from writers like Pollan, the farmers, who were bussed in by Madison-based feed company Vita Plus, told the Capital Times. They have never visited a farm for first-hand knowledge of food production and don't know what they're talking about.

But efforts to open farms to the public are not always successful.

This month United Egg Producers' "Opening the Barn Doors" media tour at Morning Fresh Farms in northern Colorado, for example, only confirmed the size of today's egg farm that make humane conditions impossible (36 barns; 23,000 birds each, 23 million dozen eggs a year) and raised further questions about environmental blight by showing the press wearing white HazMat suits to enter the barns. (See: You want us to eat WHAT?)

Last month the American Egg Board rolled out a kid-focused "The Good Egg" campaign which includes sponsorship of Sesame Street, a Cookie Monster product placement and a feel good virtual tour to soften public opinion about egg farms. But nowhere does the campaign address the daily grinding up of newborn males even as they hatch at the hatcheries which supply egg farms to provide the industry with only females--a practice that United Egg Producers confirms is routine. Does the Cookie Monster know about that?

Nor can all that crowding and all those chemicals be good for you, Pollan has written and many studies suggest.

But agribusiness is also combating last year's American Institute for Cancer Research and World Cancer Research Fund study that found the link between processed meats and colon cancer so strong, the organizations advised consumers to change their eating habits.

Trent Loos, an outspoken columnist with the agbiz weekly, Feedstuffs, says nitrosamines, found in processed or cured meat and widely believed carcinogenic, may actually be good for you, preventing and treating "cardiovascular and other diseases associated with nitric oxide insufficiency in the diet."

"Nitric oxide is an important signaling molecule in the human body to regulate numerous physiological functions including blood flow to tissues and organs," write Loos of research conducted by Dr. Nathan Bryan at the Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Texas, Houston. "The regular intake of nitrite-containing food appears to ensure that blood and tissue levels of nitrite and nitric oxide pools in the body are maintained at adequate levels."

Some of the ag press has even picked up the theory--but don't expect a Pollan book called In Defense of Nitrites anytime soon.

--------

Martha Rosenberg is a columnist and cartoonist who frequently writes about the impact of the pharmaceutical, food and gun industries on public health. A former medical copywriter, her work has appeared in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, as well as on the BBC and in the original National Lampoon.

Lieberman Lies To Justify Health Care Filibustering: The Public Option Will Raise Premiums And Increase The Debt from Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/28/lieberman-public-option/

 by Igor

This afternoon, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared on Fox News to defend his intention to filibuster any health care reform bill that includes a national public option. Lieberman argued that a public plan would "stifle" the economic recovery and increase "the debt." "It's just unnecessary," Lieberman said. The public option is "a new entitlement program and the taxpayers and the premium-payers are going to end up paying for it, or else the debt will go higher."

Responding to proponents of the public plan who argue that it would actually lower costs, Lieberman insisted that if the public option paid lower reimbursement rates than private insurers, medical providers would shift costs to Americans with private coverage:

LIEBERMAN: If the public option, the government run health insurance company negotiates hard to lower the reimbursement — the money it's paying to hospitals, doctors — they're [providers] going to have to get that money somewhere. And where they're going to get it is from the 200 million Americans who today have private health insurance. Premiums will go up. It's exactly what's happened with Medicare and Medicaid. [...]

When people hear public option, I think they think it's for free. It's not for free. Somebody is going to have to pay for it and you can bet it's going to be the taxpayers and the people who pay health insurance premiums now.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDmeJaWDf14

Contrary to Lieberman's claims, the public option envisioned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would be required to compete on a level playing field with private insurers and charge premiums "in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs." Instead of stifling the "economic recovery" and increasing "the debt," the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the self-sustaining public option (similar to the one envisioned by Reid) could actually save the government money and slightly lower premiums.

Like Lieberman, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — the insurance industry's lobby — and the Business Roundtable have also argued that a public option that reimburses providers at lower rates than private payers would force providers to raise costs for Americans with private coverage in order to make-up the difference. MedPAC, the Congressional Budget Office, and numerous actuarial studies dispute the insurers' claims.

These critics confuse cost shifts with price differentials. Economists point out that "price differentials are not necessarily the recouping of losses from one payer by overcharging another"; providers often "charge different prices to different market segments" to maximize profits, not to shift costs. MedPAC has concluded that "hospitals that are forced to run efficiently are adequately funded by Medicare payments. Therefore, increasing Medicare reimbursements to hospitals would not reduce rates providers charge to private insurers." The research suggests that hospitals "are raising prices when they have the market power to do so," not because they are reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Racism And The Cubs from Chicagoist

http://chicagoist.com/2009/10/28/racism_and_the_cubs.php

 by Marcus Gilmer

AP Photo/Paul Beaty

Our pals at Not Qualified To Comment have an interesting take on the recent comments by former Cub Kerry Wood alleging racists comments from Cubs fans. After seeing the reaction - including, admittedly, our own - to Milton Bradley's accusations this year, it's certainly something to give some thought to.

Burris May Block Health Care Bill if it Includes Opt-Out from ArchPundit

 http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/10/28/burris-may-block-health-care-bill-if-it-includes-opt-out/

Who could have predicted….

 

"It's time to lower the cost of health coverage. it's time to restore accountability to the system. and it's time to make sure every American has access to quality, affordable health care. public option will spur new innovations that will help us get there. that's why I will not back any insurance plan that does not carry with it this major, major issue of public option," Burris said.

Regardless of whether or not he was appointed by scandal-tainted former Governor Rod Blagojevich and regardless of the fact that he's not running for election to his seat from Illinois, Burris holds one of the 60 votes Democrats will need to pass a health reform bill.

It is becoming hard to imagine a bill that will garner the vote of all 60 Senators who caucus as Democrats. Burris won't support a bill without a public option. Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman link: won't support a bill with a public option.

 

Apparently there is a giant all encompassing conspiracy to drive me stark raving mad.  I'm not thrilled with an opt-out, but hey, if Mississippi wants to continue to have third world health care stats, who am I to stop them.  However, getting a bill with a public option for those sane states is worthwhile.

Study Claims U.S. Health Care System Wastes $700 Billion Annually from Crooks and Liars

by Jon Perr

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/study-us-health-care-system-wastes-700-billion

DOWNLOADS: (889)

PLAYS: (1137)

In the wake of its shocking assessment that employer-provided health insurance now covers only 54.6% of the American people, Thomson Reuters released a disturbing assessment of wasteful spending in the U.S. health care system. Echoing the estimates of Obama OMB chief Peter Orszag and others, the analysis highlighted by Keith Olbermann Tuesday concluded that the United States wastes up to $700 billion a year - a third of the nation's total $2 trillion health care spending.

As Robert Kelley, vice president of healthcare analytics at Thomson Reuters and author of the white paper, put it:

"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's healthcare bill. The good news is that by attacking waste, healthcare costs can be reduced without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care. That's the point of this report - to identify areas in the healthcare system that can generate game-changing savings."

Those game-changing savings, TR found, could be found across a broad range of health care spending. Between $600 billion and $850 billion, it estimated, is wasted on:

• Unnecessary Care (40% of healthcare waste): Unwarranted treatment, such as the over-use of antibiotics and the use of diagnostic lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure, accounts for $250 billion to $325 billion in annual healthcare spending.
• Fraud (19% of healthcare waste): Healthcare fraud costs $125 billion to $175 billion each year, manifesting itself in everything from fraudulent Medicare claims to kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services.
• Administrative Inefficiency (17% of healthcare waste): The large volume of redundant paperwork in the U.S healthcare system accounts for $100 billion to $150 billion in spending annually.
• Healthcare Provider Errors (12% of healthcare waste): Medical mistakes account for $75 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year.
• Preventable Conditions (6% of healthcare waste): Approximately $25 billion to $50 billion is spent annually on hospitalizations to address conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes, which are much less costly to treat when individuals receive timely access to outpatient care.
• Lack of Care Coordination (6% of healthcare waste): Inefficient communication between providers, including lack of access to medical records when specialists intervene, leads to duplication of tests and inappropriate treatments that cost $25 billion to $50 billion annually.

But in its catalog of health care spending horrors, however, Thomson Reuters may have understated potential savings in one area while overstating them in another.

When it comes to "preventable conditions," over time the United States may be able to realize far greater cost savings than the $25 to $50 billion TR estimated. For example, other studies have gauged the impact of the American obesity epidemic alone at $147 billion a year. (The cost of treating the diabetes with which it is often related run as high as $190 billion a year.) An August 2009 study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers claimed that risky behavior such as smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse combined produced a $493 billion annual price tag for the United States. For its part, Thomson Reuters in its report acknowledged the unmeasured impact of individual behaviors:

It is also important to note that, although not included in our estimate of a total range, the waste associated with treating a level of disease prevalence that could be significantly reduced through modified individual behavior, is significant. Although the responsibility for pursuing a healthier lifestyle is ultimately a personal one, the healthcare system has an opportunity to encourage better individual choices.

But in pegging the waste due to "unwarranted use" of health care services as high as $325 billion per year, Thomson Reuters may have overshot the target by a large margin.

Key to its analysis (contained in the full report available separately from Thomson Reuters) is an inflated assessment of the "defensive medicine" practiced by hospitals and physicians due to fears of malpractice litigation. As the New York Times' David Leonhardt detailed, Harvard economist Amitabh Chandra put the tab at $60 billion annually (3% of total spending) for the extra procedures, tests, doctor referrals and hospitals visits physicians order just to protect them from potential future lawsuits. And earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that an onerous package of tort limitations would yield annual savings of $11 billion.

Sadly, Thomson Reuters like Sarah Palin and the National Review referred to the same 1996 study by Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan to produce a whopping $200 billion price tag for defensive medicine. Looking only at Medicare heart patients in hospital settings, the paper concluded that "malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications." Extrapolated to the entire $2 trillion U.S. health sector, the hypothetical savings from that magical 9% would catapult to $200 billion a year.

For the mouthpieces of the right (and even some, like Bill Bradley, on the left), that figure became the gospel truth. For her part, Sarah Palin lifted the fuzzy math directly from Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons:

"If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion)."

But as FactCheck.org, Media Matters and a host of others documented, both the GAO and the CBO itself long ago rejected that very extrapolation. The Congressional Budget Office previously found "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending" and concluded:

"In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency."

(That earlier assessment was updated in the recent CBO scoring for Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. For more details and data, see "Republican Malpractice Myths.")

Regardless, the implication of the Thomson Reuters study is clear. The United States spends almost double the percentage of GDP on health care as other advanced economies. But while Americans are unnecessarily hemorrhaging cash for health care, they have nothing to show for it.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

'Obama phones'? No, they've been around for years from Politifact.com stories

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/28/obama-free-phones-truth-behind-chain-email/

The latest chain e-mail to land in our in box says a new program gives free phones to welfare recipients. But we found the e-mail was glossing over some key details -- such as the fact that the program has been around for many years. We rated the claim Barely True.

PhRMA Gave Big To GOP Rep's Iffy Foundation, Hired His Son, Kept On Giving from TPMmuckraker

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/phrma_gave_big_to_buyer_foundation_then_hired_ryan_buyer.php

 by Justin Elliott

Drug industry umbrella group PhRMA, which has given $200,000 to given Rep. Steve Buyer's Frontier Foundation, in June 2008 hired a director of the foundation as its federal affairs manager, TPMmuckraker has confirmed.

The name of that director? Ryan Buyer, son of the Indiana congressman.

In February of this year, while Ryan Buyer was at PhRMA, the drug group gave another $25,000 to Frontier, in honor of Rep. Buyer, according to disclosure documents. It also gave $25,000 in 2008.

Frontier is the foundation which, in six years of existence, hasn't given out any money for its stated purpose of scholarships for Indiana students, but has done lots to support the congressman's golf game.

With the revelation that Ryan Buyer was hired by PhRMA in what appears to be a lobbying position, the web of connections between the Indiana congressman, his foundation, and the drug industry grows still thicker.

Reached at PhRMA headquarters in Washington, Ryan Buyer told TPMmuckraker in a brief phone interview that there is a meeting scheduled for tomorrow in Indiana, and "because of those details" -- ie, that PhRMA gave heavily to the foundation while employing one of its board members -- "I'm probably going to be replaced once we appoint somebody for the position on the board."

It's not clear what prompted the meeting, but it may well be press coverage of Frontier, as Ryan Buyer has worked for PhRMA and been on Frontier's board simultaneously for well over a year now.

Rep. Buyer is a member of the House Energy Subcommittee on Health, which regulates drugs, and matters in which PhRMA has a stake frequently appear before the committee. Buyer himself in 2007 led an effort to kill a ban on advertisements for new drugs and other restrictions.

Rep. Buyer originally denied links to the foundation. After negative press attention, though, Buyer admitted he created and essentially controls Frontier, which shares space with his campaign office.

Ryan Buyer's LinkedIn profile was taken down recently, but the cached version -- which notes he interned at PhrMA in 2007 and was hired in 2008 -- can be read here.

PhRMA and Rep. Buyer's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But in an interview with the Indianapolis Star earlier this month, PhRMA vice president Ken Johnson denied that the group was trying to influence Buyer. "The fact that Congressman Buyer is on the Energy and Commerce Committee doesn't have anything to do with it," Johnson said. "But the fact that Congressman Buyer's district is in the backyard of Eli Lilly has everything to do with that, in the sense that we became aware of (the foundation) through our association with him."

Buyer's district is near, but does not include, Indianapolis, where Eli Lilly is based.

Oops! Blue Cross Simultaneously Mails Customers Rate Increase with Opposition to Public Option from Firedoglake

 by Jason Rosenbaum

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/11563

It's hard to make the case that private insurers are simply out to protect their profits any better than this:

Maybe it was just lousy timing, but many customers of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina are ticked off at the mail they've received recently from the state's largest insurer.

First, they learned their rates will rise by an average of 11 percent next year.

Next, they opened a slick flier from the insurer urging them to send an enclosed pre-printed, postage-paid note to Sen. Kay Hagan denouncing what the company says is unfair competition that would be imposed by a government-backed insurance plan. The so-called public option is likely to be considered by Congress in the health-care overhaul debate.

For those who need a reminder, a public health insurance option would compete directly with private insurers like Blue Cross, and a public health insurance option wouldn't have to turn a profit, forcing Blue Cross's rates down.

Blue Cross extorts more money from their customers with one hand with an 11% rate increase – they do control a whopping 53% of the market in North Carolina after all [pdf], and 98% of the individual market and billions in reserve dollars, so they can get away with that kind of thing – and with the other, tries to enlist these same customers to fight against something that would Blue Cross's rates and profits.

Fortunately, the good people of North Carolina are having none of it.

Indignant Blue Cross customers, complaining that their premium dollars are funding the campaign, have called Hagan's office to voice support for a public option. They've marked through the Blue Cross message on their postcards and changed it to show they support the public option, then mailed the cards.

"I hope it backfires," said Mark Barroso, a documentary film maker in Chatham County who is a Blue Cross customer and recipient of the mailings. "I'm doing everything I can to make sure it does."

Beth Silberman of Durham said she "went sort of bonkers" about the mailing. "You're hostage to them, and then they pull this," she said. "My new premiums are funding lobbying against competition. It's pretty disgusting."

Check out one of the "corrected" postcards:

It's a true grassroots effort, and one that's already getting the attention of Senator Hagan's office.

Thank you, Blue Cross, for making the point for us so well. Whatever the insurance companies want, you should want the opposite. If they win, you lose.

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

I'm proud to work for Health Care for America Now