CVS to end tobacco sales by October 1st

This story is from the NY Times:

CVS/Caremark, the country’s largest drugstore chain in overall sales, announced on Wednesday that it planned to stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products by October.

The company’s move was yet another sign of its metamorphosis into becoming more of a health care provider than a largely retail business, with its stores offering more miniclinics and health advice to aid customers visiting its pharmacies.

The company estimated that its decision would cost an estimated $2 billion in sales from tobacco buyers, which includes incidental items like gum that those customers might also purchase. That is a mere dent in its overall sales of $123 billion in 2012, the latest figures available.

“We have about 26,000 pharmacists and nurse practitioners helping patients manage chronic problems like high cholesterol, high blood pressure and heart disease, all of which are linked to smoking,” said Larry J. Merlo, chief executive of CVS. “We came to the decision that cigarettes and providing health care just don’t go together in the same setting.”

CVS does not sell electronic cigarettes, the highly popular but debated devices that deliver nicotine without tobacco and emit a rapidly vanishing vapor instead of smoke. It said it was waiting for guidance on the devices from the Food and Drug Administration, which has expressed interest in regulating e-cigarettes.

Some major retail stores like Walmart and convenience stores still sell cigarettes and other tobacco products, although antismoking groups and health care professionals will probably use CVS’s decision to try to pressure others to consider doing so. Municipalities have also begun enacting legislation governing where cigarettes can be sold.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that the CVS decision was “an unprecedented step in the retail industry” and predicted it would have “considerable impact.”

I am not a smoker, however my mother smoked for almost 20 years before quitting cold turkey.  I remember the smell of tobacco that permeated throughout the house and furniture.  Even today, I will gag at the smell of cigarette smoke.

Do I applaud CVS's move to ban cigarette sales in their stores?  I'm not sure. There is this issue of CVS's attempt to "metamorphosis into becoming more of a health care provider than a largely retail business, with its stores offering more mini clinics and health advice to aid customers visiting its pharmacies."  To me, this sounds like a marketing / PR and strategic business decision to shift from pure retail sales to a hybrid retail / health clinic store.  I know that CVS has offered flu shots in their stores for years.  With the rollout of health care reform, maybe the CVS execs are seeing potentially bigger sales revenue in providing simplified health care services to customers in their stores, over the sales of cigarettes.  According to the NY Times:

Nik Modi, an investment analyst who follows tobacco stocks at RBC Capital Markets, said he doubted CVS’s move would have a major impact on tobacco sales, noting that roughly three-quarters of cigarette sales occur in convenience stores. Additionally, he said, “the dollar channel recently started to get into the tobacco space because they were losing foot traffic to other channels as cigarettes are key to driving in-store traffic.”

On Tuesday, CVS executives met with executives from tobacco companies to discuss the shift. “Obviously, you would expect they would be disappointed with this decision,” Mr. Merlo said. “At the same time, I think they understand the paradox we faced as an organization.”

In other words, American smokers are buying their cigarettes from 7-Eleven, liquor stores, and gas station mini-mart stores.  The cigarettes are usually located in a locked case, somewhere behind, or under the cashier counter.  It is a simple matter for the cashier to turn around, unlock the case, and remove the cigarette package for the customer's purchase.  In my local CVS store, the locked cigarette case is located at the front wall of the store.  The cashier needs to leave the register to unlock the case and remove the product for the customer's purchase.  It is not as convenient to purchase such cigarettes.  Or the cashier may have to call a supervisor to get the cigarettes.  Remove the locked cigarette case from the front, and you free up more retail space to place other impulse-buying products for customers.

Both Walgreens and Rite-Aid have said that they are "assessing" the sales of cigarettes "to make sure it suits the needs and desires of customers."  In other words, both stores will continue retail selling of cigarettes to their customers. 

Guy robs bank of $1 to get health care coverage

There is something seriously wrong in this country, where a guy has to rob a bank in order to get health care coverage. From ABC News:

A 59-year-old man has been jailed in Gastonia, N.C., on charges of larceny after allegedly robbing an RBC Bank for $1 so he could get health care in prison. Richard James Verone handed a female teller a note demanding the money and claiming that he had a gun, according to the police report.

He then sat down and waited for police to arrive. "I say, 'I'll be sitting right over here, on the chair, waiting for the police,'" Verone told reporters, recalling the June 9 robbery in an interview from Gaston County Jail.

And wait for the police, he did.

"He's sitting on the sofa as you walk in the front door," the bank teller said in a 911 call.

Police arrested Verone where he sat. He was unarmed.

Verone said he asked for $1 to show that his motives were medical, not monetary, according to news reports. With a growth in his chest, two ruptured disks and no job, Verone hoped a three-year stint in prison would afford him the health care he needed.

"I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic, what I came up with," Verone told reporters. "If it is called manipulation, then out of necessity because I need medical care, then I guess I am manipulating the courts to get medical care."

But the charge of larceny, not armed robbery, is unlikely to keep Verone behind bars for more than 12 months. He is being held in Gaston County Jail on a $2,000 bond, according to a spokesman for the jail, and is scheduled to appear in court June 28.

If King George will not listen....Does that mean Erick Erickson is advocating armed insurrection by right wing crazies?

I'm not even sure how I found this Red State blog post by Erick Erickson, but I'm just amazed at how wacked out it is. The post that Erick Erickson wrote is titled "If King George Will Not Listen...."

This is one of those posts that has to be written and has to be said, though I know going in to it I’m going to get beaten up from all sides, though especially from a left particularly out to get me right now.

Nonetheless, this must be said.

The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. They are neither helpful to those seeking repeal nor the acts of a civilized society. I comfortably say I speak for all the front page posters here condemning the violence and threats. The people who think this country has descended into the darkness do in fact send us down a dark path themselves with these actions.

Clear? Good.

Here comes the controversial part that still must be said: I have heard the audio of some of the threats. I get worse stuff routinely. Rush Limbaugh gets worse stuff on a daily basis. Republican members of Congress have gotten similar and worse stuff. Thank God this wasn’t a free trade vote or a variety of left wing groups would have half the country in flames right now. I do believe the 24 hours of threats, many of which were pretty weak, has gotten more national coverage than the leftist anarchists in Texas who molotov cocktailed the Texas Governor’s Mansion — for which arrests have never been made.

First I want to say that Erickson starts his post condemning threats and violence--The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. Erickson even claims that not only does he receive "worse stuff routinely," but that threats are sent to Rush Limbaugh and Republican congress members. And they are supposed to be worst than the threats that the Democrats have received. Of course, Erickson doesn't bother backing up his claims of threats by making public either the email threats, the phone voice mail threats, or both. I doubt that Erickson has bothered to send his threats to law enforcement for investigation. Of course, as Erickson is condemning these threats, he then criticizes Democrats for "running to the nearest microphone in an effort to play the victim and generate sympathy as they try to steer poll numbers back in their direction." Erickson even claims that the protesters "yelling racial epithets at Congressman Lewis" did not happen, since Erickson confirmed from reporters that the events didn't occur.

I wonder which reporters Erickson was talking to? Consider that these papers:

The Washington Post; 'Tea party' protesters accused of spitting on lawmaker, using slurs

The Hill.com; CBC member: Health bill protesters called lawmakers the N-word

Huffington Post; Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

McClatchy News; Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman

CBS News; Rep.: Protesters Yelled Racial Slurs

And Fox News (Although Fox calls it an allegation); Black Lawmakers Allege Health Care Protesters Hollered Racial Epithets at Them

Finally, The Washington Times is the only news organization, that I could find, which disputes Congressman Lewis' claim of protesters hurling racial slurs at him. The Washington Times includes this YouTube video to support its dispute, but it is rather difficult to hear anything over the chants "Kill the bill," and boos. The comments in this YouTube video claim they hear the N-word between 41-45 seconds. I've listened to the video numerous times, especially between the 41-45 seconds, and I can't pick up the racial slur. However, there are several commentators in the Washington Times article that also claim to hear the N-word at around 41-43 seconds. The YouTube video ends at 48 seconds, so I really don't know if the slurs were said after the video ended.

So I'm starting to wonder if Erickson's "reporters" were from either Fox News, or the Washington Times--both are very conservative news organizations. Fox News is considered the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and the Washington Times is Moonie newspaper.

But that is not the real kicker in Erickson's post. Erickson continues saying that "a great many Americans who truly believe the Democrats shredded the constitution on Sunday night," after the House passed the health care reform bill without a single Republican vote. Erickson claims that Democrats pushed the bill through the House "before congressmen could go home and face their angry constituents every poll showed were opposed to this legislation." Of course, Erickson has forgotten all the town hall meetings that congressmen faced, with conservative groups packing town halls of Democratic lawmakers with protesters against health care reform last year. While Erickson claims that the opinion polls show a majority of Americans were opposed to the health care legislation, he's probably cherry-picking the poll numbers to support his claim. I look at the poll numbers at PollingReport.com on health care reform, and the basic question of "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care," does show a majority of Americans disapproving by around 3-5 percentage points. Then again, a majority of American trust President Obama in handling the health care changes over the Republican congress. It is a matter of how the question are phrased in these polls to elicit specific responses on the health care issue. That makes it easy to cherry-pick whatever poll number you want to support or defend health care. I would say that Americans are very divided on the issue of health care, and will need time to digest this law, and determine whether they are for or against it.

But this part of the blog post is where Erickson enters the Crazyland:

I’ve said for weeks I was a bit fearful of what would happen as a result. I sincerely pray we are not on the cusp of some group of angry and now unhinged mob lashing out at congressmen for a vote in the Congress. But something seems to be brewing and I frankly don’t think the Democrats should at all be surprised. They were and they knew they were playing with fire to advance legislation many Americans see as the undoing of the American Experiment. Some of those Americans will now conclude that, like with the founders, if King George will not listen, King George must be fought. [Emphasis is mine.]

Acts of violence against congressmen for behaving as congressmen are wholly inexcusable. We should be vigilant to police our own side because as we’re already seeing through a series of breathless and inaccurate reports, the press and Democrats are going to be quick to run most any story and the retraction will never be as significant as the initial report.

But let’s not act surprised. The only people surprised by the rage are the ones who refused to venture outside Washington to understand first hand what the voters were actually thinking before congressmen voted.

Frankly, after all the leadership threats and bullying against swing Democrats to vote for leadership, I think it is a bit ironic Democratic leaders are now decrying threats and bullying of swing state Democrats by their constituents who very clearly did not want them to vote as they did. [Emphasis is mine.]

They were and they knew they were playing with fire to advance legislation many Americans see as the undoing of the American Experiment. Some of those Americans will now conclude that, like with the founders, if King George will not listen, King George must be fought. Erickson is trying to draw a parallel between the issues of the health care debate of today with the issues of the American Revolution, 200 years ago. It is even more surprising how Erickson equates President Obama as King George III, while the Tea Party activists(?) or right-wing extremists(?) take on the role of the American colonists. During the time leading up to the American Revolution, the American colonists believed that the British government were imposing incendiary legislation against them--mainly taxes, the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Intolerable Acts, and such. The American colonists complained to the British government, saying that they lacked direct representation in the British Parliament, thus denying their rights as Englishmen. Therefore, the laws the British Parliament imposed on the American colonies were unconstitutional. This was especially so on the taxes that the British Parliament imposed on the colonies, thus giving us the phrase "no taxation without representation." When push came to shove, the American colonies declared their independence, fought the American Revolutionary War, and gained their independence to become the United States.

Erickson turns the entire American Revolution into an enormous, misleading lie to fit into the right-wing rhetoric.

First is this absurd idea of comparing President Obama as King George III, and by extension, the Democratic Congress as the British Parliament. The crux of Erickson's argument is that both President Obama and the Democratic Congress is imposing this health care legislation down Republican constituents throats, without providing listening to the conservatives complaints and anger against this health care legislation. This makes it convenient for conservatives to cry out "no taxation without representation," especially since the Republican leadership has been consistently telling lies on the health care reform. But what Erickson fails to realize is that all Americans are represented by their senators, representatives, and the president, and that all Americans had a chance to select their representatives to go to Washington and govern on their behalf. How did Americans select their representatives?

By voting!

In 2008, Americans were given their civic opportunity to vote for their presidential choice between Democratic candidate Barack Obama, or Republican candidate John McCain. Obama received a majority of the votes cast to be elected president (I'm not going into the entire Electoral College system for electing the president.). Americans also had the opportunity to vote for their congressmen, state and local candidates for office, and various state propositions. Some Americans chose to participate in voting--other Americans chose not to participate. President Obama and the Democrats campaigned on a platform of reforming this country's health care system. The American people chose to select more Democratic candidates for Congress than the Republican candidates. Americans who selected the losing candidate for office are still represented by their Senators or House Representative. They can still present their views on issues to their senators or House reps.

Since President Obama campaigned on health care reform, he was going to attempt to fulfill his campaign promise. Obama offered bipartisanship to the congressional Republicans for working on the health care reform bill. The Republicans said no, and proceeded on a campaign of obstructionism, becoming the Party of No. The Democratic leadership decided to go-it-alone in crafting the health care reform bill, since the Republicans refused to work with bipartisanship. The GOP threw every lie, threat, fear-mongering, and political spin in order to derail the health care reform bill, and failed. Not a single Republican voted for the health care reform bill. The Democrats passed health care reform, and President Obama signed it into law.

Erickson is claiming that conservatives are not represented in their government. Erickson is lying. Conservatives had their chance to vote for their candidates in the 2008 election. Not all of their candidates won--Democratic candidates also won in the election. Even in conservative-leaning districts of states. Conservative voters had a chance to voice their opinions to the Republican congressional leadership on reforming health care. Instead of working to provide a comprehensive, bipartisan, health care reform bill, Republicans used a short-term strategy of obstructionism, fear-mongering, hate, death panels, and Obamacare will be killing grandma, to whip up the right-wing extremist base, hoping that their extremist base could scare the Democrats from passing health care. Even more importantly, the Republican obstructionism was also a short-term strategy of driving this country into despair and economic recession so that Americans would elect the Republicans in Congress, and possibly the White House. The Republicans used hatred and fear to advance their political agenda. Even Erickson was responsible for presenting hate and fear-mongering through his blog. In the end, the Republicans failed.

Now in the wake of the Republican's failure to kill health care, and Erickson's own bloody hands in inciting such hatred and fear-mongering to the right-wing base, Erickson suddenly turns around to expresses fear that "some group of angry and now unhinged mob lashing out at congressmen for a vote in the Congress." Excuse me Erickson--you were responsible for inciting such violence with the hate and vitriol that you wrote in your blog. You are responsible even now--in this post--for planting the seed in these wing-nuts that they are American colonists taking up armed insurrection against a tyrannical Democratic Congress and King Barack Obama? If King George will not listen, King George must be fought? Sounds like you are advocating a violent revolution against the Democrats and President Obama. The scary thing about this post is that some crazy, right-wing, extremist will read your posting, and may take it upon himself to assassinate a Democratic Congressman, or Democratic Senator. The blood will be on your hands. But then again, why would you care? You'll continue to spout your hatred and filth with no compunction.

Disgusting.

The GOP wingnuttery just continues....

I'm not sure I know what to say about this, except that I found this National Journal story from the Daily Kos, and it is fascinating. From The National Journal:

Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell and House Min. Leader John Boehner both signaled support for at least some part of a GOP-led move to repeal health care legislation today, suggesting the GOP will run on the issue in the fall campaign.

"I can tell you with the campaign that will continue with the American people, I think the slogan will be 'Repeal and Replace,'" McConnell told reporters after a weekly lunch with fellow members of the GOP Conference.

In a statement following Pres. Obama's bill signing today, Boehner added: "Republicans will continue to stand on principle, hold President Obama accountable for his promises, and fight to repeal this government takeover of health care so we can start over on common-sense reforms that lower costs for families and small businesses."

They are the first 2 members of GOP leadership to hint at embracing a repeal move. Until today, GOPers have been hesitant to support such a move, worrying Dems will tag them for opposing the more popular parts of the bill, and several members of House leadership have suggested a partial repeal while keeping some more popular sections of the bill intact.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced a measure to repeal health care legislation. In the House, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Steve King (R-IA), Bob Inglis (R-SC) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) have introduced a similar bill aimed at reversing the new law.

McConnell introduced DeMint's bill under a Senate rule that allows it to immediately be placed on the upper chamber's calendar.

Not only that, but former presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, has announced that the Democrats should not expect any cooperation from the Republicans for the rest of the year. According to the Hill.com:

Democrats shouldn't expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber's bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

I guess I can chalk this up as the Republicans are pandering towards their own, crazed, wingnutty base. But the scope of this is just incredible. I'm trying to understand McConnell and Boehner's stance here, but it doesn't make any sense. There is no way for this health care legislation to be repealed--it will not happen. I can possibly see the Republicans taking control of Congress this November, but not with a two-thirds majority to repeal a presidential veto. Heck, even a Republican control of Congress may seem unlikely now, since the Democrats have passed health care reform, and President Obama will start campaigning to sell the law to Americans. The USA Today poll has Americans approving the health care reform bill, and giving President Obama some stronger job approval ratings. Unless President Obama and the Democrats really screw up between now and November....

So it is obvious that McConnell and Boehner are pandering to the wingnut base of the GOP with their support of repealing the health care law. Yet by pandering to these extremists, both McConnell and Boehner are continuing to confirm the image of the Republican Party as a party of not just a Party of No and obstructionism, but also a party of un-governing? They are not willing to work with the Democrats on fixing this law (Of course, the GOP has never been willing to work with the Democrats), but are now demanding that the entire law be repealed. I know that the Republicans are trying to whip up their crazed base, but continuing this harsh, negative rhetoric is probably going to alienate non-partisans and independents. I'm not sure if non-partisans and independents are completely opposed to the health care bill--some probably are--but I'm guessing that many are open towards political parties working to improve the law, rather than repealing it. It is like the more the Republicans shrill to their wingnuts, the more the GOP finds itself being painted into a smaller corner. It is just crazy.

Then there is Senator John McCain's crazy response. I guess McCain got so angry at the Democrats passing the health care bill, that now McCain is stating there will be no GOP cooperation with the Democrats for the rest of this year. None! Period! Of course, the Republicans have never bothered to cooperate with the Democrats. To a Republican, cooperation means that the Democrats accepts all GOP demands without questions or complaints. Then again, the Republicans have been masters at PR-spin in showing that they were open to listening and compromise, but not accepting any form of compromise from the Democrats. They were masters, until Barack Obama entered the White House. Ever since President Obama attempted to extend a hand for bipartisan compromise, the Republicans bit the hand. There is always rhetoric and partisan attacks by both political parties, but I've never seen such extreme hatred directed at President Obama, and the Democrats, from conservatives, right-wing pundits, protesters and even Republican lawmakers. It is also just incredible. And it will not stop with this latest midterm election, where the Republicans believe they can overturn the Democrats control of Congress by negative campaigning on the repeal of health care reform. They were masters of PR-spin, until President Obama was elected. Now the Republican Party has descended into a whiny, spoiled, almost racist, homophobic, crazy child, who will do anything it can to get its way. You can even see this whiny child in McCain's latest response on the congressional Democrats passing of the health care bill--They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it. The Democrats never poisoned the well with the health care bill. The Democrats were elected with a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, and the White House. President Obama attempted to compromise with the Republicans on health care, but the Republicans said no. So President Obama and the Democrats crafted their own health care legislation, and passed the bill over Republican negative campaigning, threats, and fear-mongering. The health care bill was passed by majority vote, with no parliamentary procedures. Now McCain is claiming that the Democrats have "poisoned the well" by performing basic democracy in passing a bill by majority vote, and having that bill signed into law by the president? All because the Republicans didn't get their way?

The GOP insanity just continues....

Biden drops the F-bomb during health care bill signing

Oh my. It appears that Vice President Joe Biden just dropped a dirty F-bomb right after introducing President Barack Obama during the health care reform signing ceremony. From YouTube:



Then again, it was a big frickin' deal. So Joe was right.

Think Progress is reporting that Fox News pundits heads are exploding over Joe Biden's f-bomb gaffe. Guess Fox News doesn't have anything to say about the signing of this legislation.

Obama signs health care bill into law

President Obama signed major health care legislation into law on Tuesday. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Well, it is now official. President Obama has signed the health care legislation into law today. From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON —With the strokes of 20 pens, President Obama signed his health care overhaul — the most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades — into law on Tuesday during a festive, at times raucous, White House ceremony.

“We have just now enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care,” Mr. Obama declared in the East Room, before an audience of more than 200 Democratic lawmakers, White House aides and others who rode a yearlong legislative roller-coaster ride that ended with Sunday night’s House passage of the bill. They interrupted him repeatedly with shouts and standing ovations.

Moments later, the president sat down at a table, and affixed his left-handed, curlicue signature, almost letter by letter, to the measure, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, using 20 pens that he intended to pass out to key lawmakers and others as mementoes.

He was surrounded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other top Democratic leaders, as well as some special guests: 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Seattle, who became an advocate for health care reform after his mother died without health insurance, and Connie Anderson, the sister of Natoma Canfield, the Ohio cancer survivor whose struggle to pay skyrocketing premiums became a touchstone of Mr. Obama’s campaign to overhaul the system.

Vicki Kennedy, the widow of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who had been a driving force for health care legislation before his death last year, was also by Mr. Obama’s side. Mrs. Kennnedy wore a blue plastic bracelet around her wrist that said “TedStrong,” and appeared emotional after the ceremony.

“I know how happy he would be,” she said of her husband, adding, “It was so meaningful for him, in a very personal way.”

And in the audience sat Mr. Kennedy’s son, Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island. He was also there, carrying a gift for the president: a copy of a bill his father introduced in 1970 to provide national health insurance. On it, the younger Mr. Kennedy had written a personal message to Mr. Obama.

For Mr. Obama, the bill signing marks a high point of his presidency. For the many House members in the audience, it marks the end of a trying, chapter, and they let the president know it as he remarked that many had “taken their lumps during this difficult debate.”

While President Obama and the Democrats are celebrating this day, Republican attorney generals in 11 states will be filing lawsuits to stop the health care legislation on grounds that it is unconstitutional. From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.

Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.

States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.

Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.

[....]

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.

The debate on health care has entered a new phase, where the Republicans will do anything they can to repeal this bill. Already, the lawsuits are being drawn up to be filed in court. It will probably take a couple of years for this health care bill to end up on the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will get there. Right now, there are four conservative justices on the Supreme Court--Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. There are four liberal justices on the Supreme Court--Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The conservative justices will probably vote against this health care reform, and the liberal justices will vote for health care reform. The swing vote here will be Justice Anthony Kennedy. The health care overhaul will take time to kick in, around four years. If the court remains at four conservative justices and four liberal justices, then Justice Kennedy will be in a very powerful position to determine the fate of health care reform in this country. I have no idea how Justice Kennedy will rule on health care reform.

Then again, the Supreme Court may change its ideological make-up over the next four years. But for that to happen, either Justice Kennedy, one of the conservative justices, will have to retire from office. This will allow President Obama to nominate a liberal justice, shifting the Court towards a liberal stance. I don't see that happening yet. There is also the possibility that President Obama may be voted out of office in 2012, with an unnamed Republican president coming in. Any Republican president will probably gut the health care reform bill, turning it into a useless program that he/she could then claim the program needs to be eliminated as an example of government waste. But that is way down the political road here.

For now, the debate is on the policy of the health care reform plan. Republicans will be filing lawsuits, calling the bill unconstitutional. President Obama is going into campaign mode, selling the health care reform bill to Americans in Iowa on Thursday. Both Democrats and Republicans will be gearing up for a massive political fight in November, with both claiming that the health care reform bill will allow them to defeat the opposing party. So far, it is too close to call, as Americans will have to digest the specifics of this bill. Then they will decide at the ballot box on whether they approve this health care reform bill, or not.

House passes health care reform, Obama to sign.

I've been busy with a number of things, but I've been watching the events taking place on the health care debate. After the Senate passed the health care reform bill in December, the bill went into a torturous reconciliation process, where a number of House Democrats did not like the Senate version of the bill. There was a lot of back-and-forth going on between the two chambers, topped with Republican congress-critters tossing threats and temper tantrums at the Democrats for trying to reconcile the two bills. Even President Barack Obama canceled his East Asian trip to perform some last-minute arm twisting on House Democrats to vote for the health reform package.

So today was the big day for the House to debate and approve the Senate version of the health care reform bill.

The House approved the Senate's health care reform bill 219-212. From ABC News:

The House of Representatives passed the sweeping health care bill with a narrow margin, securing a significant victory for President Obama, who lobbied hard this week for the controversial legislation.

The vote was certain after the House Democratic leadership finalized a deal this afternoon with anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health care bill in exchange for an executive order from Obama affirming no federal funding for abortion.

The House today voted on two separate pieces of legislation. One, the Senate health care bill and second, the amendments to that bill made by House members and Obama.

The bill now goes to the president's desk to sign, after which it will become law. The White House has not yet decided where or when Obama will sign the Senate health care bill, which he needs to do before the "fixes" to that bill begin to be debated in the Senate, though White House officials say it will not be this evening.

As the last speaker before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that by passing the bill, Congress would be taking a historic step.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," Pelosi said.

The bill still has to go back to the Senate for approval of reconciliation "fixes" that House Democrats have proposed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the House, Saturday, that he has the 51 majority vote needed to pass the fixes, with the Senate expected to pick up the bill on Tuesday. Health care reform will be law.

Watching this debate unfold, what really interested me here is a couple of factors. The big factor has been the Republican response to the entire health care debate. The GOP never wanted any such health care reform passed--be it a Democratic health care reform or a Republican health care reform. In fact, I don't think the Republicans had a health care reform package they could sell to the American public. They never bothered taking up the mantle of health care reform, at least since President Richard Nixon looked at reforming a national health insurance plan for Americans. The GOP and the health insurance industry completely shot down President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1994. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under George W. Bush, they never bothered looking at health care, with the exception of passing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. But the prescription drug act is not passing a comprehensive health care bill for all Americans, but rather overhauling Medicare to provide prescription drugs to its recipients. But when you get Blue Cross raising health insurance premiums to its customers by 39 percent this month, and around 45 million Americans are uninsured, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. For the past two years, the GOP refused to join the Democrats in a bipartisan attempt to reform health care, using obstructionism, threats, lies, and deceit as a means to kill health care reform--Death panels anyone? The Republicans thought that by playing the obstructionist game, then Americans would suffer so much under a crushing health care system, job losses, a recessionary economy, and all sorts of other problems, that they would vote the Democrats out of Congress, and bring the Republicans back into the majority. Then the Republicans could play even more obstructionism against President Obama until 2012, when Sarah Palin will be elected into the Oval Office? So the Republicans were united in opposing health care reform. The vote even shows such opposition, since not one Republican House member voted for the health reform bill tonight.

That has all changed. Republican obstructionism failed. It brings me to a second factor in that the passage of this health care bill was a victory that President Obama really needed to re-energize his presidential agenda. Health care reform was a major Obama campaign promise during the 2008 presidential election. When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he tried to fulfill his promise of health care reform, but made some serious mistakes. The first mistake Obama made was that he never took the bully pulpit and tell Congress, "This is what I want from health care reform. Here are my proposals, now let us work together in creating real reform." I got the impression that Obama administration took a hands off approach to health care reform, instead saying, "Okay Congress, pass some health care legislation so I can sign it." Talk about a near recipe for disaster. Both congressional houses passed their own versions of health care reform bill which neither house liked the other chamber's bill. I am actually amazed at how close the bill passed tonight. The second mistake the Obama administration made in health care was really allowing the Republicans to control the message on health care for the past couple of years. Think about it--what do you remember of the message on health care reform? I remember death panels, Obamacare killing grandma, Obamacare reducing your Medicare benefits, Obamacare raising taxes, and Obamacare. I remember Tea Party protests, town hall disruptions organized by conservative groups, and even health insurance industry urging their employees to attend protest groups against health care reform. Looking back at the debate in 2009, it seemed like the message pounded into the American public was that health care reform was a terrible bill--look at all these Americans who are afraid of the evils of health care reform. Health care reform should be stopped. That was the message, brought to you by the Republican Party. I never heard much from the Obama administration to counter the Republican spin on health care. And yet, I look at the polls on the health care debate, Americans are split on whether they approve or disapprove of health care reform--it actually depends on how the question is phrased to shift Americans' opinions for either approval or disapproval on the issue. So President Obama lost the message on health care reform to the Republicans. That should have been enough to kill the issue, but it didn't.

Health care reform passed. I think in the last three months, President Obama and the Democrats woke up to the possibility that this reform bill will not pass. The turning point may have been when Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown won a huge victory over Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in late January. Republicans thought that this was the American voters' repudiation of President Obama, and the congressional Democrats, agenda. I think it is a voter's anger over incumbents--both Democrat and Republican. Either way, this was a wake-up call for both President Obama and the Democrats. They needed to pass health care soon, and show a major legislative achievement for the Democrats, and a political victory for President Obama. President Obama needed to show the American people that he could deliver a campaign promise--especially during a troubled economic time, where Americans are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, the housing crisis, and the health care crisis.

Not only that, but 2010 is a midterm election year, where the president's party usually loses seats. If the health care reform debate was dragged out into the late summer/early fall, the Republicans would use health care in attack ads against Democrats in conservative-leaning states and districts. Those Democratic lawmakers would be more worried about their jobs, rather than about passing legislation. Health care would never have passed. And if the Republicans did take control of at least one house, we'll say the Senate, then the GOP majority leadership would simply throw the health care reform bill in the trash. Of course, the Republicans will obviously use this passage of health care reform in attack ads against the Democrats, but President Obama can also tell American voters that he fulfilled his campaign promise to deliver health care reform. This is huge. If President Obama failed at passing health care reform, I think it would have emboldened the Republicans, and conservative constituents, into greater attacks against the Democrats, and the president, for control of Congress. Such emboldened conservative constituents may have gone out of their way to vote Republican candidates in. The Democrats failure at passing health care reform would have also angered their liberal constituents. Would liberal Democrats have gone out of their way to vote for Democratic candidates that failed to deliver on health care reform? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal activists that are speculating on whether to replace those Democratic House members that have voted against the health care reform bill.

Finally, there is President Obama. This could have been a huge failure for the President, who was elected into office on a campaign promise of hope and change. Americans wanted change. If President Obama failed to pressure the Democrats into passing health care reform, he would have been seen by Americans as a president who could not deliver on his campaign promise of hope and change. President Obama would certainly have been a lame duck in the final two years of his first term in office--especially if an emboldened GOP gained control of the Senate. But now, the midterm elections have been changed. President Obama can sell his health care campaign promise to the American voters. The Democrats can attack the Republicans as being against providing affordable health care to Americans. The Republicans can still still play obstructionism and use fear attacks against the president and the Democrats on health care, however, I think the fear factor will be greatly diminished against the moderates and independents (the hard-lined conservatives will still believe in Obamacare's death panels).

This midterm election will still be about the issue of health care. But now the focus will shift to what will this new health care law do for the American voter? Instead of fear-mongering, the issue will be on legal specifics of this law. I think that will be more difficult for Republicans to raise with their fear-mongering, which they will still engage in. Finally, this huge hurdle is over for the Democrats and President Obama--they can now concentrate on other issues, such as financial reform, or jobs. President Obama and the congressional Democrats can work on passing more legislation, against Republican obstructionism, that they can also sell to the American voters. With the health care reform bill passed, American voters can now decide if this is the direction that they want to see their country heading towards, and vote accordingly. This is a whole new midterm election.

Senate Finance Committee approves health care bill with one Republican vote

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill.

The vote was 14 to 9, with all of the other Republicans opposed.

Democrats, including President Obama, had courted Ms. Snowe’s vote, hoping that she would break with the Republican Party leadership and provide at least a veneer of bipartisanship to the bill, which Mr. Obama has declared his top domestic priority. Ms. Snowe was a main author of the bill but she had never committed to voting for it.

But shortly after 1 p.m., she announced that she was on board, in a speech that silenced the packed committee room and riveted colleagues on both sides of the dais.

“Is this bill all that I would want?” Ms. Snowe asked. “Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”

In her speech, she said she still shared many of her Republican colleagues’ reservations about the legislation, and she pointedly warned Democrats that they could easily lose her support at any of the many legislative steps that still lie ahead.

“My vote today is my vote today,” she said. “It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow.”

While I may not have been commenting on the health care debate over this past year, I have been watching the debate take shape. This is a huge, monster crisis with major stakes for everybody. Progressives want to model a new, public-provided health care system, possibly modeled after the British or Canadian public health care system. Big Insurance and Health Care Providers want to maintain the status quo on the current system. And as the recession sheds even more U.S. jobs, more Americans are finding their health care coverage either curtailed, or losing it altogether. We've seen congressional town hall meetings become disruptive by angry conservatives, who were bussed in by grass roots organizations funded by big corporations. Then there were the death panels, where Republicans accused President Barack Obama and the Democrats of rationing health care as a means of killing senior citizens. Then again, the Republicans have been opposed of everything that President Obama or the Democrats have introduced as legislation in Congress. The Republicans have shown themselves over this past year to be a Party of No.

But that has now slightly changed. We have one of the last few, remaining, Republican moderates to have actually voted in favor of this health care reform. Senator Olympia J. Snowe broke with the Party of No to approve the health care legislation in the Senate Finance Committee vote. If the bill comes before the entire Senate, Snowe may end up voting against it--especially if the House version of the health care bill provides some form of a public option, resulting in an angry compromise between the House and Senate versions. Either way, we have a bipartisanship bill of one Republican vote. That is going to be the best that the president, or the Democrats will ever get on this health care vote.

We'll see what happens next.

Star Trek Tricorders--Coming to a Docter near you!

This is just totally cool. From MSNBC News:

New handheld medical scanners coupled with regular cell phones resemble "Star Trek" tricorders and could see what ails you with a push of a button.

The invention, using off-the-shelf cell phone technology, would allow medical scanners to boldly go where none have gone before — to the aid of the roughly three-quarters of the world's population currently without access to ultrasounds, X-rays and other imagers used for everything from detecting tumors to monitoring fetuses.

In addition to offering medical scans in developing nations, the devices "could find their way in ambulances, or rural clinics," said Boris Rubinsky, a professor of bioengineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

Medical imagers are typically bulky combinations of scanners, processors and video monitors. Rubinsky and his colleagues instead physically separated these components, so the most complicated elements of imagers — the powerful computer processors — can reside at a remote central location.

The researchers next devised a simple portable scanner that could plug into a cell phone. The phones transmit the raw scanning data to the processors, which create images to relay back for viewing on the cell phone screen.

We're getting closer to the world of Star Trek. We already have our clamshell portable communication devices (i.e. cell phones), phasers, and we're still working on the impulse engines, and even the transporter beam. And now we're getting to the point of having portable medical tricorders into our doctors hands for scanning, analysis, and treatment of patients. Of course, there is one doctor I know who really doesn't need a tricorder to scan and analyze his patients. From YouTube:



He's dead Jim!

Video reveals abuse of cows at slaughterhouse

I found this Washington Post story through Americablog, and it is just sickening. The WaPost story is about an new video that has been released by the Humane Society on how Hallmark Meat Packing Company abuses sickened cows in order to use the meat for school lunch programs. Here is the Washington Post story:

Video footage being released today shows workers at a California slaughterhouse delivering repeated electric shocks to cows too sick or weak to stand on their own; drivers using forklifts to roll the "downer" cows on the ground in efforts to get them to stand up for inspection; and even a veterinary version of waterboarding in which high-intensity water sprays are shot up animals' noses -- all violations of state and federal laws designed to prevent animal cruelty and to keep unhealthy animals, such as those with mad cow disease, out of the food supply.

Moreover, the companies where these practices allegedly occurred are major suppliers of meat for the nation's school lunch programs, including in Maryland, according to a company official and federal documents.

The footage was taken by an undercover investigator for an animal welfare group, who wore a customized video camera under his clothes while working at the facility last year. It is evidence that anti-cruelty and food safety rules are inadequate, and that Agriculture Department inspection and enforcement need to be enhanced, said officials with the Humane Society of the United States, which coordinated the project.

"These were not rogue employees secretly doing these things," the investigator said in a telephone interview on the condition of anonymity because he hopes to infiltrate other slaughterhouses. "This is the pen manager and his assistant doing this right in the open."

The investigator and Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, said the footage was taken at Hallmark Meat Packing in Chino, Calif. Hallmark sells meat for processing to Westland Meat Co. in Chino, according to Westland President Steve Mendell, who is also Hallmark's operations manager.

Over the past five years, Westland has sold about 100 million pounds of frozen beef, valued at $146 million, to the Agriculture Department's commodities program, which supplies food for school lunches and programs for the needy, according to federal documents.

In the 2004-05 school year, the Agriculture Department honored Westland with its Supplier of the Year award for the National School Lunch Program.

Here is the video through the Humane Society:

HSUS Investigates Slaughterhouse


The process here is to use any means Hallmark can in order to make the sickened cows to stand, just before the USDA meat inspectors can check out the animals before they are slaughtered. The more cows Hallmark can push through the slaughterhouse, the more meat Hallmark can sell, and the more profit Hallmark makes. It is about placing corporate greed above the public safety. Any sickened cows that can not stand up may have such diseases as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. These sickened cows may also have "been wallowing in feces, posing added risks of E. coli and salmonella contamination." USDA regulations and California law does not allow animals "to be dragged by chains, lifted with forklifts, or, with few exceptions, to enter the food supply," because of this risk of disease entering the public food supply, and the public health. However, this undercover investigator said that this type of abuse happens regularly at Hallmark, just before the USDA investigators arrive:

The investigator said a USDA inspector appeared twice a day, at 6:30 a.m. and about 12:30 p.m., to look at each cow to be slaughtered that day. The practices occurred before the inspector's appearance, he said, with the goal of getting the animals on their feet for the short time the inspector was there.

"Every day, I would see downed cattle too sick or injured to stand or walk arriving at the slaughterhouse," he said. "Workers would do anything to get the cows to stand on their feet."

USDA regulations say that if an animal goes down after it is inspected but before it is slaughtered, then it must be reinspected. But that rarely, if ever, happened, according to the Humane Society.

It is all about corporate greed for Hallmark Meat Packing. And they could care less whether young schoolchildren will get sick with mad cow disease because of their own criminal activities. This is just sick.

U.S. ranks last in health care

This is off Raw Story:

The US health care system ranks last among other major rich countries for quality, access and efficiency, according to two studies released Tuesday by a health care think tank.

The studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that the United States, which has the most expensive health system in the world, underperforms consistently relative to other countries and differs most notably in the fact that Americans have no universal health insurance coverage.

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis.

"Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes."

In "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care", the study focused on interviews with physicians and patients in Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United States who were asked to speak about their experiences and views on their health systems.

The US ranked last in most areas, including access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity. Americans were also last in terms of whether they had a regular physician.

"The US spends twice what the average industrialized country spends on health care but we're clearly not getting value for the money," Davis told AFP.

She also noted that 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the US population, have no health insurance, which contributes to the country's medical woes.

The United States is also far behind in adopting modern health information technology, which translates into spiralling costs and poor care.

"We pride ourselves on being advanced on so many areas of technology but it's not the case on health information technology," Davis said. "Other countries have just moved ahead."

Britain got the top score in overall ranking among the countries in the study, followed by Germany. New Zealand and Australia tied for third followed by Canada and the United States.

The second study delves into why health costs in the United States are so much higher than in eight other countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand.

The study, "Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data," found that even though the US spends the most on publicly and privately financed health insurance, its citizens had the most potential years of life lost due to circulatory and respiratory diseases as well as diabetes.

"This study blows a lot of myths about the US health system," Davis said. "We spend three times what the average country spends on a day of hospital care and we also spend twice what the average country spends on prescription medication."

Health care is likely to be a prominent issue in the 2008 US presidential elections with various candidates already promising to tackle rising costs and the burden placed on big business to provide health insurance.

And what are the GOP views regarding our health care system?

Mitt Romney:



Rudy Giuliani:



Fred Thompson:



John McCain:



Mike Huckabee:



Did you notice the pattern here? All the GOP presidential candidates are asking for more free-market reforms in our health care system, even though our health care system is very much a free-market system. More tax cuts to Americans for purchasing health insurance. Limit medical malpractice lawsuits. More health savings accounts. Only the rich decide not to purchase health insurance. And while all this Republican talk is taking place, we've got the worst health care system among the rich countries in the world. It is such a glaring contradiction.

Then again, what do you expect from a bunch of rich, white, old men of privilege?

Drug companies give free samples to wealthy, insured, Americans

This is off MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - Insured and wealthy Americans were more likely than the poor to get billions of dollars in free drug samples distributed by pharmaceutical companies to win patient and doctor loyalty, a study released on Wednesday showed.

The pharmaceutical industry contends that the samples help the uninsured and people with low incomes, but the study of prescription use by nearly 33,000 U.S. residents during 2003 found that the neediest were least likely to get samples.

"Our findings suggest the free samples serve as a marketing tool, not a safety net," said Dr. Sarah Cutrona, co-author of the report to be published in the February issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

In one sense, it doesn't surprise me that the pharmaceutical industry is giving free drug samples to the wealthy here. It is about profit here for the drug companies. They are marketing their expensive, blockbuster drugs on a two-track marketing system. First, they are sending their drug sales guys to the doctors, asking them to try these new, expensive, drugs on these doctor's patients, while also giving out millions of dollars worth of free merchandise to these doctors with the drugs' names on it--we're talking pens, clocks, dinners, coffee mugs, mouse pads, and even computer mice. A good friend of mine, who is a pharmacist, and his wife, who is a psychiatrist, have their house filled with all sorts of little merchandise with drug names on them--all free from the drug companies. And this friend's wife has told me of the many expensive lunches and dinners that these drug salesmen have asked her to in order to pitch one blockbuster drug or another. It is just incredible.

Of course, the second marketing track for these drug companies is directed at the consumer in the form of television and radio ads. You know those commercials, where the beautiful people are happily running and jumping through natural settings, playing like their life is now free because they are taking a pill. And the worst offenders here would be the Big Pharma psychological drugs, and the erectile dysfunctional drugs--take a pill and then get horny! You can even order your own free sample of erectile dysfunctional drugs! Of course, Americans watch this stuff on TV, and then go to their doctors asking for these drugs. It is just incredible.

And there is more to this MSNBC story:

About $16.4 billion in drug samples were given out in the United States in 2004, up from $4.9 billion in 1996, the study said. Distributed by sales representatives, samples are nearly always the newest, most expensive drugs, the report said.

[....]

The study analyzed U.S. government data in a 2003 nationally representative survey, and found that about 12 percent of Americans had received at least one free sample.

About 13 percent of those with insurance were given a sample, while about 10 percent of those who were uninsured for all or part of the year got one.

Seventy-two percent of those who received a sample had income in excess of 200 percent above poverty level, while 28 percent had income below poverty level.

It is all about Big Pharma's making and keeping their excessive profits in selling their drugs. The free samples are a way of hooking, and addicting, Americans into buying these expensive drugs in order to make them feel better. And the folks who are getting the samples are the folks who can afford to pay for these expensive drugs, and consistently feed into Big Pharma's excessive profits--these wealthy Americans have to renew their expensive prescriptions! I'm not against doctors prescribing medication to their patients who have health problems and need such medication. But I seriously question the way that Big Pharma is using these marketing gimmicks--not for the doctors or the patients' best interest, but rather for their own, outright greed.

Family sues CIGNA Healthcare over teen's death

This story is now starting to gain big interest. Seventeen-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan died just hours after her health insurance company, CIGNA Healthcare, reversed its decision to pay for a liver transplant she needed to combat leukemia. The doctors said that Sakrisyan needed the liver transplant, but CIGNA first denied payment for the transplant, but then reversed itself in the face of mounting protest against the company offices in Glendale California.

Well, in the aftermath of Nataline Sarkisyan's death, the family is suing CIGNA. According to MSNBC News:

GLENDALE, Calif. - The family of a 17-year-old girl who died hours after her health insurer reversed a decision and said it would pay for a liver transplant plans to sue the company, their attorney said Friday.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday at about 6 p.m. at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

Attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare in the case. The insurer “maliciously killed her” because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said.

District Attorney spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons declined to comment on the request for murder or manslaughter charges, saying it would be inappropriate to do so until Geragos submits evidence supporting his request.

I don't know what evidence Geragos has to support his request to press murder charges against CIGNA, but I would imagine it is the document and letters between the Sarkisyan family and CIGNA over Nataline's transplant request. All I can say is that this story is getting real interesting now.

Teen dies after CIGNA first denies transplant, then reverses decision

Natalee Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old from Glendale, Calif., died Thursday just a few hours after Cigna Health Care, her medical insurer, approved what they previously had described as "too experimental" a procedure and the same day that dozens of Sarkisyan's supporters protested at the insurer's headquarters. (ABC)


This is disgusting. You want to know what the Big Insurance companies are like, you just have to read this Yahoo News story in its entirety:

GLENDALE, Calif. - A 17-year old died just hours after her health insurance company reversed its decision not to pay for a liver transplant that doctors said the girl needed.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday night at about 6 p.m. at University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

"She passed away, and the insurance (company) is responsible for this," she said.

Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication, however, that caused her liver to fail.

Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to CIGNA Healthcare on Dec. 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant.

On Thursday, about 150 teenagers and nurses protested outside CIGNA's office in Glendale. As the protesters rallied, the company reversed its decision and said it would approve the transplant.

Despite the reversal, CIGNA said in an e-mail statement before she died that there was a lack of medical evidence showing the procedure would work in Nataline's case.

"Our hearts go out to Nataline and her family, as they endure this terrible ordeal," the company said. " ... CIGNA HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant."

Officials with CIGNA could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday night.

CIGNA doesn't give a crap about the health of its customers, or even providing coverage to its customers. All CIGNA cares about it keeping its excessive profits from the expensive premiums it charges its customers, while avoiding any sort of expensive payments for medial coverage its customers need. This is a legalized extortion racket that CIGNA and the Big Insurance companies are involved in. What is even more amazing is that CIGNA only reversed itself about providing coverage for the liver transplant to Sarkisyan only after teens and nurses protested outside of CIGNA's office. In other words, CIGNA reversed its decision not because of Sarkisyan's medical needs, but rather to save its public ass from negative media coverage of these protests. Nataline Sarkisyan died before the transplant could take place, and CIGNA didn't have to pay the money for the transplant.

This country needs some form of nationalized health care. The system is broken. There are around 46 million Americans that are uninsured for health care coverage--going into the hospital or emergency room will financially wipe them out. We have Big Insurance companies that currently hold all the power because they are the ones who decide which medical coverage and procedures are to be paid out to customers. What we have here is health insurance coverage that is paid out by bean counters. Consider this detail from the ABC News story, titled Time Runs Out for Transplant Teen:

Geri Jenkins of the California Nurses Association said the teen had insurance, and medical providers felt comfortable performing the medical procedure. In that situation, the the insurer should defer to medical experts, she said.

"They have insurance, and there's no reason that the doctors' judgment should be overrided by a bean counter sitting there in an insurance office," Jenkins said.

Doctors at the UCLA Medical Center actually signed a letter urging Cigna to review it's decision.

CIGNA bean counters made the decision regarding Sarkisyan transplant--not the doctors. And bean counters are only interested in how much profit CIGNA can make. According to this November 2, 2007 Yahoo Finance story, CIGNA's 3rd quarter profit "rose 22 percent on increased premiums and fees." Continuing with the Yahoo Finance story:

Cigna, which also sells disability and life insurance, said net income climbed to $365 million, or $1.28 per share, from $298 million, or 92 cents per share, a year earlier.

Adjusted income from operations totaled $323 million, or $1.14 per share, compared with $268 million, or 83 cents per share, a year earlier. Adjusted income from operations totals income from continuing operations excluding realized investment results and special items.

Total revenue rose to $4.41 billion from $4.14 billion in the 2006 quarter.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expected profit of 94 cents per share on revenue of $4.41 billion.

Prospects are good that Cigna can generate sustained growth, Ed Hanway, Cigna's chairman and chief executive, said during a conference call with analysts.

Looking ahead to 2008, however, Cigna expects to post adjusted income from operations of $1.16 billion to $1.21 billion, or $4 to $4.20 per share, missing Wall Street average expectations of $4.23 per share.

Heath care profits are expected between $740 million to $780 million in 2008 and medical membership should rise by 3 to 5 percent without acquisitions.

"They gave relatively weak guidance for growth in the health care segment," said Peter Costa, an analyst at FTN Midwest Securities.

The third quarter's earnings lift didn't come from Philadelphia-based Cigna's core health care business, whose adjusted earnings after taxes fell 2 percent to $173 million.

Premiums and fees climbed 7 percent to $2.6 billion as medical membership grew to 10.2 million from 9.3 million. Despite the growth, though, margins fell to 5.7 percent from 6.1 percent a year ago.

Even though premiums and fees climbed, margins fell. I guess the bean counters at CIGNA didn't need another expensive liver transplant for a 17-year old teen to reduce their profits.

US among worst in world for infant death

You can thank the Bush administration for making this country the worst in the world for infant death. From Yahoo News:

The rate at which infants die in the United States has dropped substantially over the past half-century, but broad disparities remain among racial groups, and the country stacks up poorly next to other industrialized nations.

In 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available, roughly seven babies died for every 1,000 live births before reaching their first birthday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. That was down from about 26 in 1960.

Babies born to black mothers died at two and a half times the rate of those born to white mothers, according to the CDC figures.

The United States ranks near the bottom for infant survival rates among modernized nations. A Save the Children report last year placed the United States ahead of only Latvia, and tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.

The same report noted the United States had more neonatologists and newborn intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom — but still had a higher rate of infant mortality than any of those nations.

Doctors and analysts blame broad disparities in access to health care among racial and income groups in the United States.

Not surprisingly, the picture is far bleaker in poorer countries, particularly in Africa. A 2005 World Health Organization report found infant mortality rates as high as 144 per 1,000 births — more than 20 times the U.S. rate — in Liberia.

Babies born to black mothers died at two and a half times the rate of those born to white mothers, according to the CDC figures....The same report noted the United States had more neonatologists and newborn intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom — but still had a higher rate of infant mortality than any of those nations. This is what happens when you have a health insurance program where Americans can't afford basic health care, and an insurance industry that favors excessive profits over that of providing health care to Americans. I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe that the health care system in the U.S. is completely broke, and no one on either the Democratic or Republican side really has a program to fix this mess.

Update: I've been hunting for the statistics on this posting, and I may have found something here. According to this 2006 Save The Children report:

The United States is tied for second-to-last place with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia (in all five countries, there are 5 newborn deaths per 1,000 live births).

The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia,Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn mortality rate is higher than that of any of those countries.

• In the United States, the newborn mortality rate for all races combined is 4.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, but for non-Hispanic blacks, the rate is 9.3 deaths per
1,000 live births.

I think that this is the report that both Yahoo, and ABC News is getting its information from. I have yet to fully look into the report. I found another report titled The State of the World's Children, 2006, and Saving the Lives of Mothers and Children, 2007 report, which also has some statistics on infant mortality rates for the U.S.

Veterans constitute a quarter of America's homeless

Chart showing state-by-state breakdown on the number of homeless veterans in the U.S. From MSNBC News.

I really don't have any words to express the disgust of this MSNBC story:

WASHINGTON - Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.

And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job.

The Veterans Affairs Department has identified 1,500 homeless veterans from the current wars and says 400 of them have participated in its programs specifically targeting homelessness.

The Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education nonprofit, based the findings of its report on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau. 2005 data estimated that 194,254 homeless people out of 744,313 on any given night were veterans.

In comparison, the VA says that 20 years ago, the estimated number of veterans who were homeless on any given night was 250,000.

Some advocates say such an early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable.

“We’re going to be having a tsunami of them eventually because the mental health toll from this war is enormous,” said Daniel Tooth, director of veterans affairs for Lancaster County, Pa.

If you thought that the problems of Vietnam War veterans was bad enough, just wait until this group of Iraq war vets start demanding medical, psychological, housing, and job placement services from a government that has been bankrupt due to tax cuts given to the uber-rich, and a failed, imperialistic war in Iraq. Thank you, King George The Deciderer, for your incompetence in screwing up this country so badly.

Of course, it gets worst. Continuing further in the MSNBC story:

After being discharged from the military, Jason Kelley, 23, of Tomahawk, Wis., who served in Iraq with the Wisconsin National Guard, took a bus to Los Angeles looking for better job prospects and a new life.

Kelley said he couldn’t find a job because he didn’t have an apartment, and he couldn’t get an apartment because he didn’t have a job. He stayed in a $300-a-week motel until his money ran out, then moved into a shelter run by the group U.S. VETS in Inglewood, Calif. He’s since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, he said.

“The only training I have is infantry training, and there’s not really a need for that in the civilian world,” Kelley said in a phone interview. He has enrolled in college and hopes to move out of the shelter soon.

Kelley said he couldn’t find a job because he didn’t have an apartment, and he couldn’t get an apartment because he didn’t have a job. I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at this statement. It is so absurd that this veteran get either a job or an apartment because one required the other. Is this the type of non-service that our veterans will be getting for the next 20 or 30 years? I honestly don't know.

Rep. Pet Stark (D-CA) gives a Howard Beale moment on House floor

This story is coming up the news media. Apparently Rep. Pete Stark is mad as hell and won't take it anymore. Let's start with part of Bloomberg's story on the House failure to override the Bush veto on the S-CHIP bill:

The tensions over Schip erupted in a dispute during the House debate when Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat, made remarks on the war in Iraq. Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas stopped the debate to ask that Stark be admonished for inappropriate comments.

While the House chair, Democrat Ellen Tauscher of California, ruled those comments weren't out of order, Republicans denounced remarks Stark had made earlier.

Stark's Remarks

Republicans will spend to ``blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement,'' Stark said, according to a copy of the remarks from his office.

And here is the YouTube video of Stark's remarks:



I'll say this, it is rather interesting that we've seen some extremely angry words coming from Pete Stark on the S-CHIP bill, and some tough action by Senator Chris Dodd to place a hold on the telecom immunity bill.