Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
When the Executive Council voted not to renew the state's contract with Planned Parenthood to provide Title X family planning services, 16,000 New Hampshire residents were left without health care services ranging from birth control to cancer exams.
Last week, the federal Department of Health and Human Services stepped in to protect the health of Granite State families by awarding a replacement grant to Planned Parenthood citing the "urgent need."
Title X family planning services have not been provided in the areas of the state previously served by PPNNE since the contract between NHDHHS and PPNNE ended on June 30, 2011. There is an urgent need to reinstate services with an experienced provider that is familiar with the provision of Title X family planning services and applicable laws, regulations and administrative requirements, and has a history of successfully providing services in these areas of the state.
Councilor Dan St. Hilaire, one of the three councilors voting against renewing the contract, said he opposed the contract because Planned Parenthood also provides abortion services -- despite knowing that Federal law prevents family planning money from being used for abortions.
“Actually funding an agency that performs the actual event is something that I would object to, and I have objected to. That’s what I voted against it.”
St. Hilaire was silent on where the 16,000 Granite Staters would now turn for vital health care services including cervical cancer screenings, breast exams and sexually transmitted infections. Following the Executive Council's dereliction of duty, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen stepped in and asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to consider a direct federal contract. Shaheen applauded the federal government's action.
“Women in every part of the state deserve access to affordable reproductive health services, and Planned Parenthood is a critical provider of those services in our state,” Shaheen said. “These clinics also provide vital preventive care, such as screenings for breast and cervical cancer. In some parts of New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood is the only provider of these preventive services to low-income women. I am glad the federal government has stepped up to provide this new contract, so that women in every part of New Hampshire will have somewhere to turn for basic health issues."
(Speaker O'Brien refuses to take responsibility for his actions and calls the CEO of Elliot Health Care a liar. Shameful. - promoted by William Tucker)
Today Elliot Hospital laid off 182 employees and ended its 24 hour medical help line.
New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O'Brien was quick to distance himself from accountability:
"Whether or not this was planned before or after the budget came into effect, time will tell..."
O'Brien's remarkably tone-deaf and callous insinuation that the budget is being used as cover for layoffs planned in advance is flatly contradicted by the president and CEO of Elliot:
"This is a terribly sad day in health care," said Doug Dean, president and CEO of Elliot Health Care. "No one wants to see hard-working people, who have done nothing but perform their jobs for this community, suffer from a reduction in force brought on by the failure of the state to manage their own expenses."
..."The consequences of the state's failure to pay us for taking care of the poor are truly devastating, particularly as the state changes its course from the past 20 years and walks away from needed matching federal dollars," Dean said.
But you don't have to believe Dean to know that these layoffs didn't have to happen. Here's Governor Lynch's spokesman Colin Manning on the suit filed against the state by several hospitals, including Elliot:
"This doesn't come as a surprise," said Lynch spokesman Colin Manning. "The budget proposed by the governor was very different from the one passed by the Legislature. The governor took a more balanced approach and did not propose such a drastic cut to hospitals."
Or how about the head of the board of trustees at Dartmouth Hitchcock:
"We are determined to stand up for our patients for the committed people who deliver care to them. This lawsuit comes after we have exhausted all other avenues to express to the state Legislature the impact of these draconian budget cuts," he said.
Time will tell whether House Speaker Bill O'Brien will pay the price in 2012 for what he has done to New Hampshire's health care workers and to its poor.
So I disappeared for a full week, right in the middle of what should have been a busy writing schedule, and I have to claim some "personal days" to cover the time we missed here at the blog - but it won't be time entirely wasted.
Instead, I'm going to jump into my own personal life for today's story, and I'm going to do it so that we can stimulate some thinking about where we really need to go to if we ever hope to make some sense out of the crazy way we deliver health care in this country.
Since this appears to be the weekend that a lot of decisions are either going to be made about the future of our "social safety net"...or they wont; we're entirely unsure...let's talk about how it actually works for a lot of us - and how it could work a lot better.
Excellent story on NHPR yesterday about the state budget's impact on hospitals.
Under a plan crafted by House budget writers, New Hampshire hospitals stand to lose $250 million dollars over the next two years. New analysis shows that if they lose these funds, all but four of the state's largest hospitals would suddenly plunge into the red.
The story reports that this huge fee increase is already causing many of the state's non-profit hospitals to consider closing urgent care facilities, or selling out to for-profit institutions.
This budget tactic is disturbing on so many levels. First, the sheer mendacity of Republican leadership regarding their so-called refusal to raise taxes, although not unexpected, is still appalling. And this fee on hospitals violates an agreement going back to Republican governor Judd Gregg.
Worse, at the same time Republicans are saying the New Hampshire health care system is in good shape, they are about to tax it into changing beyond recognition:
Under a new analysis done by the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, if Wilhelmsen doesn't make any changes, his bottom line would suddenly plunge from a $5 million surplus to a $6 million dollar loss.
Just what we need when people are struggling financially: the closure of community health centers and the conversion of NH hospitals from non-profit to for-profit. Good thing the state is working to implement the federal health care law. Oh, wait... they're rescinding funds to implement that, too.
Mentioned very briefly in the story is the fact the obstetrics are expensive, making those facilities a frequent target of cuts. The implications for the rural poor in the northern part of the state are left as an exercise for the reader.
budget writer Neal Kurk says hospital execs are crying wolf. "We're dealing with very large institutions. Only one of those in 2009 lost money. 12 of the 13 were doing very well, thank you
And yet, of all the large institutions the legislature could have taxed, they chose non-profit hospitals...
Well, at least we're lowering taxes on cigarettes.
Just got a lengthy robo-poll call from Rasmussen, wide-ranging subjects and fairly interactive with answers via dial pad choices.
Mostly the usual stuff, most important issues, country on right track or wrong track (nothing like a meaningless binary measure there), etc. But, the most interesting to me was the "who's qualified to be POTUS" list for the R's, and some names NOT mentioned: Romney, Guiliani, and Palin. However, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Caine, Christie, Bachmann, Ron Paul, were all mentioned, and I may have missed a couple (maybe Huntsman, but I got bored along the way).
One always has the distinct impression that each question is predicated on the answer that was given before, and the whole thing definitely sloped to the right (no surprise with Rasmussen) with a number of very vaguely worded questions when it came to ideology.
Anybody else get this one who remembers more specifics or different info from the foregoing?
So Arizona Senator Jon Kyl went and did a stupid thing the other day by claiming on the floor of the Senate that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is related to abortions, and that, by God, we need to cut that Federal funding for abortions, and we need to cut all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood-and we need to do it today.
Of course, that 90% claim was total hooey; it turns out that only 3% of Planned Parenthood's work relates to abortions. (The Federal funding for abortions part is, too; the Hyde Amendment made such funding illegal decades ago.)
When confronted, Kyl's office released a statement claiming the Senator's comments were "not intended to be a factual statement".
Sir Rev. Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA, decided to have a bit of fun with Kyl, and he challenged his audience to Tweet their own "Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement" about Kyl.
I decided to compose a Tweet of my own...and then another...and before I knew it I had an entire story's worth; that's why, today, we'll be taking a taking a short break from the daily grind to have a bit of fun with a man who truly deserves it: Jon Kyl.
(If the new Republican majority thinks the proceeds from a bake sale will pay for cancer treatment, what does this say about its ability to generate a realistic state budget? - promoted by Jennifer Daler)
Do we have our very own Sue Lowden in the New Hampshire legislature?
During yesterday's hearing on HB 440 - which seeks to remove New Hampshire from the new health law and bar the NH Insurance Department from enforcing consumer protections - Representative Jeanine Notter of Merrimack told a member of the public that health reform is not needed because she is sure, just sure, that communities will rally around cancer patients and help them cover their costs.
Did you hear that, cancer patients? Representative Notter wants you to hold a bake sale while your fight for life. According to her, this is the American way. So don't worry about trying to get access to health insurance so you can pay your fair share and have real faith in your ability to provide care for you and your family, follow the lead of Girl Scouts and PTA functions. You should be able to raise enough for half a doctor's visit - no medical procedures - and you'll get a brownie to boot!
Not that it comes as much of a surprise, but according to a new study by the National Research Council of the National Academies., the United states has a lower life expectancy than most of the other industrialized nations.
Over the last 25 years, life expectancy at age 50 in the U.S. has been rising, but at a slower pace than in many other high-income countries, such as Japan and Australia. This difference is particularly notable given that the U.S. spends more on health care than any other nation. Concerned about this divergence, the National Institute on Aging asked the National Research Council to examine evidence on its possible causes.
Smoking and obesity were given as two top causes, although last time I was in Europe I noticed a lot more cigarette smoke than I do in the US. In any event, this is also a cause:
Lack of universal access to health care in the U.S. also has increased mortality and reduced life expectancy, the report says, though this is a less significant factor for those over age 65 because of Medicare access.
US News and World Report
When comparing health data from the United States against other high-income nations, the researchers did find some positive signs. The United States ranks very high in cancer screening and survival and in heart attack survival. But this care is expensive: U.S. health care expenditures are roughly double the same costs in the other developed countries.
Despite high health care spending, the overall mental and physical wellness of Americans "is relatively poor," says study coauthor Samuel Preston, a demographer at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
First District Congressman Frank Guinta says the Democrat’s health care law is too costly and will end up hurting America’s economy. He says a better approach is to allow Granite Staters to buy insurance across state lines.
People feel we need more carriers in New Hampshire, which obviously would bring more competition to New Hampshire.”
NHPR's Matt Laslo:
The new law, however, will allow residents to buy from out of state carriers when the insurance exchanges are established.
(crossposted from birch paper, where the voices of Americans are more valued than their ruling elites.)
(Powerful. Thank you for documenting. - promoted by William Tucker)
The U.S. House of Representatives' vote to repeal the new health law may have simply been a symbolic gesture for those taking the vote, but to real people in New Hampshire and elsewhere it means a threat to the new consumer protections people are already benefiting from.
People like Hillary StPierre, who testified at the NH State House last week against HB 89. That's the bill which seeks to (unconstitutionally) direct the NH Attorney General to join a lawsuit with the ultimate goal of repealing the new health law.
Hillary is a symbol of just what this new law means for families, and why it needs to stay:
This is what is happening in America. After traveling to Concord in the bitter cold just days after a chemo session, and then waiting patiently for her turn to testify, Hillary's energy was spent. What was left was brutal honesty: speaking truth to power. It was about saying this isn't about politics, it's about people.
You can read the full testimony on Hillary's own corner of the web, Baldies Blog. Encouraged: there is a comments section there, too.
P.S. A big thank-you to TimC who is collaborating with us on the State House Video Monitoring Project. We look forward to sharing more highlights throughout the session.
Dick Cheney needs a heart. So does Randall Shepherd.
On Tuesday, the former Vice President told NBC, "I'll have to make a decision at some point whether I want to go for a transplant," adding "the technology is getting better and better. He also said he has been making do with a battery-powered heart pump which makes it "awkward to walk around."
Randall Shepherd is 36 years old with a three year old son. His heart was damaged by rheumatic fever. He was one of the many Arizona citizens told they will not receive transplants because the state's Medicaid program has stopped funding them.
"There's a bit of a personal loss and the realization that this could be me in time if something's not changed here," Shepherd said, referring to the two who have died. "Until I get a new heart, my life is in a holding pattern."
For Cheney, a heart transplant is not life or death at this point, but a matter of convenience. He will get the heart and the operation whenever he wants them because he is wealthy. Randall Shepherd will die without a transplant, yet because he is on Medicaid, it is a question whether he will receive one. And the answer seems to be no.
Today the Union Leader, a right-wing newspaper that nonetheless declined to endorse Republican Frank Guinta, ran the first edition of the freshman rep's bi-weekly column. Mr. Guinta chose repealing the health care law as his main topic:
It’s disturbing to many Granite Staters not only because it will lower the quality of the health care your family receives, but it will also kill jobs -- 1.6 million according to an estimate by the National Federation of Independent Businesses -- at a time when we need to be creating jobs, not losing them. (In fact, I never stop looking for new opportunities to help encourage the creation of more jobs for our citizens.)
McClatchy Newspapers reveals that this talking point does not come from Guinta but rather a pre-prepared House GOP report, and that it is categorically false:
We taxpayers will save a few pennies when Frank Guinta forgoes his government run health insurance in favor of the private insurance most of us have. Given his remarkable ability to come up with money that logic and common sense say he doesn't have, it shouldn't be a problem for him.
But in exchange we'll be saddled with at least an extra $230 billion in debt if his vote to repeal the health care law is successful.
And then there's the 50 million and rising who will stay uninsured.
Senior citizens -- a demographic that's skeptical of the bill -- will see real benefits. In 2011, the law will begin to close the Medicare Part D coverage gap -- the infamous "donut hole." Seniors who reach the donut hole will now receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, the first step in a 10 year plan to fill the hole completely. Seniors will also now receive free annual checkups, screenings and other preventive care.
You will recall that Carol Shea-Porter's work in the House was instrumental in strengthening that part of the health care bill.
I think the reason the right-wing operatives in NH are forced to make stuff up about Carol is because her voting record and principles in congress have been impeccable these past four years.
All three ran on repealing RomneyCare ObamaCare, marching to the - false - charge of "government run health care."
When it was suggested that those who ran against the new health care law and won not accept government run health insurance for themselves, it was mocked as silly by the local right-wing paper.
Some Republicans don't find it so silly:
Another newly elected Republican member of Congress says he will not accept the government-sponsored health insurance plan available to lawmakers.
Rep.-elect Joe Walsh (Ill.), who rode a wave of Tea Party support to surprisingly defeat three-term Rep. Melissa Bean (D) in November, said that he does not believe lawmakers should receive the benefits.
...So far, incoming Reps. Bobby Schilling (R-Ill.) and Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) have declined their government health insurance.
So what will it be, Tea Party Caucus Member Frank Guinta? Senator-Elect Ayotte? Soon to be seventh-term-in-DC Bass?
It's nothing we didn't know, but once in a while it has to be spelled out in the newspaper of record.
The US spends more than any other country on health care, but ranks 49th in life expectancy. If I had a dollar for all the times I've heard we have "the best health care in the world", I wouldn't have problems paying my bloated premiums.
Researchers at the Mailman School for Public Health at Columbia University compared the US to Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Besides focusing on costs, they focused on 15 year survival rates for people at 45 and 65. They got their data from the World Health Organization and looked at the years from 1975 to 2005. Interestingly, that period of time saw the deregulation of many industries in the US, the loss of our manufacturing base, lower union membership, and, in my opinion, the dismantling of the middle class in this country.
In 1975 the United States was close to the average in health care costs, and last in 15-year survival for 45-year-old men. By 2005 its costs had more than tripled, far surpassing increases elsewhere, but the survival number was still last - a little over 90 percent, compared with more than 94 percent for Swedes, Swiss and Australians. For women, it was 94 percent in the United States, versus 97 percent in Switzerland, Australia and Japan.
The numbers for 65-year-olds in 2005 were similar: about 58 percent of American men could be expected to survive 15 years, compared with more than 65 percent of Australians, Japanese and Swiss. While more than 80 percent of 65-year-old women in France, Switzerland, and Japan would survive 15 years, only about 70 percent of American women could be expected to live that long.
Many claim our national ill health is due to obesity, smoking, etc., but any visitor to Paris knows that they smoke and drink us under the table. And the Swiss? Fondue, anyone?.
Peter Muennig, one of the study's authors (bold mine)
"Smoking and obesity are still major risk factors for an individual's health," he said. "But they are sapping life expectancy in all countries. Whereas in the U.S. we have a highly inefficient health system that's taking away financial resources from other lifesaving programs."
Quick--let's spend our time nullifying health care reform in New Hampshire.
2011-H-0072-R title: requiring that New Hampshire join the lawsuit challenging federal health care reform legislation, and repealing the authority for state implementation of federal health care reform.
Sponsors: (Prime)Steve Vaillancourt
When Bill O'Brien and his Gang exempt New Hampshire from the new health care law, how much will it cost the state in working families with pre-existing conditions who move away?
Bonus Question: will the economic toll taken on New Hampshire be greater than that already exacted by Lieberman and Friends when they ended the public option?
The American people speak to Frank, Charlie, and Kelly, according to a new PPP poll:
Just 28% of Republican respondents said that new anti-reform members should take their federal benefits, while a whopping 58% said they shouldn't. Among independents -- who voted for the GOP in big numbers on Nov. 2 -- 56% say politicians who made health care repeal a cornerstone of their campaigns should deny themselves their government benefits. Only 27% said they should take them.
...Overall, the poll shows the electorate is not interested in paying for health care benefits for politicians who opposed government-funded health care on the campaign trail. Just 33% said anti-health care politicians should take their government benefits, while 53% said they should burn their government care cards.
Uh-oh. All three of our shiny new GOP winners ran on repealing RomneyCare "ObamaCare." Looks like another job for Mystery Bank Accounts.
In related news from a different polling outfit, a majority of Americans favor either keeping or expanding the new health care law.
This makes perfect sense to me - and it would save Joe Taxpayer a bit of money too:
A group of House Democrats has released a letter to Republican congressional leaders calling on them to announce which of their members will be forgoing their congressional benefit health insurance (which is subsidized by the government) in light of their party's opposition to health care reform overhaul legislation.
"If your conference wants to deny millions of Americans affordable health care, your members should walk that walk," four Democrats write in the letter,
Here's a new member of that congress - from Frank Guinta's issue page:
"Health care needs reform - not a government takeover."
Frank Guinta opposes the government-run health care scheme that requires government to write a blank check it can't cover and threatens the quality of our care.
Given the multiple bank accounts worth between $250,000 and $500,000 Congressman-Elect Guinta insists are his, he can likely afford health care that isn't a "government-run scheme."
In the aftermath of the elections, I've got one more thank-you to give to New Hampshire's Democratic federal delegation, both ongoing and otherwise. And that is one more note of thanks for getting the health care bill passed.
Enough has been said about the specifics of the bill itself, and some people will no doubt comment snippily that it was a health insurance bill rather than a health care bill. I want to thank New Hampshire's Democrats in Congress for helping pass this bill in the face of a hostile and partisan media that says things like this:
Gallup: Four in 10 Americans Believe Healthcare Law Goes Too Far
They could have said this instead:
Gallup: 49% of Americans Believe Healthcare Law Does Not Go Too Far
