Categories
Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Endocrinology
Health Insurance
Medical Devices
Mental Health
Nutrition
Oncology
Public Health
Sexual Health
Popular Articles
Burdock Root

How Much Health Care For $1 Trillion?
USA Today asks what the additional $1 trillion cost of a health care overhaul (over 10 years) will actually buy. "Although the eye-popping price tag would help boost insurance coverage to 95% or more of the public, it"s not enough to do everything advocates initially want. The proposals being shaped in Congress - including the $1.042 trillion bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday - offer subsidies to fewer moderate-income families than originally intended, bar most workers from choosing to leave their employer-provided plans and likely drive up Medicaid costs for states." The Congressional Budget Office estimates that "at the end of a decade, 15 million to 20 million would remain uninsured."
generic viagra online
Six Finance Senators Strive For Bipartisan Compromise
As the public face of health reform devolves into a partisan fight - with one GOP Senator [Jim DeMint, S.C.] saying the reform push is President Obama"s "Waterloo," and Democrats retorting that Republicans would derail the overhaul for political gain - a group of legislators in the Senate Finance Committee has continued to strive for a compromise behind closed doors, the Christian Science Monitor reports. "If a bipartisan compromise is to clear Congress this year, its main lines are likely to emerge here."
News of the day
Dems' Health Care Reform Plans Would Include Abortion Coverage, Washington Times Opinion Piece States
As lawmakers work to pass health reform legislation, "few are talking about" the "essential question" of whether "health reform will force taxpayers to pay for abortions for the first time in 30 years," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins writes in a Washington Times opinion piece. According to Perkins, "the short answer is yes" because there is no "explicit provision" in any Democratic health plan that would "[p]revent taxpayer funding of abortions as part of the health care benefit Congress is considering"; avert "delays in health care services that result in the death of the patient waiting for care"; or allow health care providers "to refuse to participate in health care-related action that violates their conscience." Perkins continues that the House"s reform proposal would provide federal coverage for ""family planning," the well-worn buzz word that includes abortion unless specified to the contrary." He adds that "it would be naive to assume, unless there is an explicit prohibition in the bill, that [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will not use her discretion to fund abortions with taxpayers" money." Perkins also writes that the Democratic reform plans, "in short, ... attempt to be silent on the key question of whether or not to allow the U.S. government to fund abortions with taxpayers" money," and also give the HHS secretary "the power to allow taxpayer-funded abortions."He writes, "The Family Research Council"s answer is clear: There must be a permanent prohibition on taxpayer-funded abortions," as well as "provision to allow a right of conscience for doctors and nurses and other health care providers" to refuse to participate in treatments they oppose. He adds that "there can be no system of denial or delay or rationing of care." Perkins concludes, "Euthanasia by any other name is a poison pill in the health reform debate" (Perkins, Washington Times, 7/5)
Medical Devices

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Virginia Abortion Ban

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday upheld Virginia"s 2003 law banning what abortion-rights opponents call "partial-birth" abortion, a procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction, the AP/Hartford Courant reports (O"Dell, AP/Hartford Courant, 6/24). In 2005, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 to strike down the Virginia law on the grounds that it does not include adequate exceptions to protect a woman"s health. The U.S. Supreme Court two years ago ordered the appeals court to revisit the issue when it upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a federal law similar to the Virginia law (White, Washington Post, 6/25). The three-judge appeals panel again struck down the law in 2008 (AP/Hartford Courant, 6/24). The Virginia law permits women to choose various abortion procedures but makes it a crime for providers to perform an intact dilation and extraction, which involves crushing a fetus" skull to ease removal (Washington Post, 6/25). Abortion-rights supporters said that the Virginia law is unconstitutional because its broad definition of intact dilation and extraction could also prohibit standard dilation and extraction, the more common form of second-trimester abortion. Violations of the law would be considered a felony and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The case is Richmond Medical Center v. Herring (AP/Hartford Courant, 6/24). William Fitzhugh, the Richmond doctor who challenged the Virginia law, said that the banned procedure is necessary to protect the life of the woman in some cases and that the law could prevent abortion providers from performing legal procedures out of fear of prosecution. Stephanie Toti, a Center for Reproductive Rights attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said that the Virginia law is broader than federal law because it punishes abortion providers who accidentally violate the law while performing legal abortion procedures. Judge"s Opinions Judge Paul Niemeyer in the majority opinion wrote that Virginia law protects physicians who are taking needed steps to save a patient"s life and should prevent "a Morton"s fork, where the doctor must choose between criminal liability or care that the doctor believes is not in the best interest of the patient." He added that the circumstances in which doctors could face criminal liability are so limited that they should not invalidate the law in every other case. Judge Blane Michael wrote in the dissenting opinion that the law will create a "real fear of criminal liability" among physicians because it will have the effect of criminalizing the actions of those who seek to perform legal procedures but need to use the banned procedure in rare instances. Michael wrote that the law therefore "places an undue burden on a woman"s right to obtain a pre-viability second trimester abortion -- a constitutional right repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court" (Washington Post, 6/25).Next StepsToti said that no decision has been made on whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court"s 2007 decision on the federal law made it clear that abortion bans must include exceptions for the health of the woman, the AP/Hartford Courant reports. Toti said that the appeals court"s decision "just really ignores that precedent." She added, "It"s really insulting to women"s dignity that the court would put so little priority on protecting women"s health and well-being" (AP/Hartford Courant, 6/25). Toti also said, "It puts doctors in a really untenable position because it forces doctors to choose between taking all the steps necessary to protect their patients and committing a felony" (Washington Post, 6/25). Virginia Attorney General Bill Mims said, "While we anticipate that the U.S. Supreme Court may be asked to review the decision, I am confident that the Supreme Court ultimately will uphold the law" (AP/Hartford Courant, 6/25). Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women"s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women"s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company. © 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):

© Copyright 2009