crossposted at BlogHer.com

I heard it from my doctor a few weeks ago. Now we’re hearing it from doctors across the nation- health care reform must happen, and happen soon.

Dozens of doctors stood on the White House lawn to hear President Obama urge them to “fan out across the country” and work for health care reform.

“Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do,” Obama said. “And so if you’re willing to speak out strongly on behalf of the things you care about and what you see each and every day as you’re serving your patients all across the country, I’m confident we are going to get health reform passed this year.”

150 doctors from all 50 states were invited to the White House event. Prompting some Republican leaders to cry foul.

Rep. Tom Price, a physician, and Dr. Donald Palmisano, former American Medical Association president, said in a conference call that physician support for the Democrats’ proposals wasn’t as widespread as Monday’s event implied.

“We’re very concerned that a handpicked group of physicians were applauding a government takeover of health care,” Price said. “A random sampling (of doctors) wouldn’t show quite so many people applauding.”

However, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, 62-percent of physicians support a reform plan that incorporates both public and private funding.

To further the president’s point, Senate Democrats released a series of videos today with a few of the country’s pro-health care reform doctors:

The American Medical Association has also come out in favor of health care reform.

So why are we all still fighting about it? Don’t you usually listen to your doctor?

No, instead of honest debate about the issues we heard about how some doctors in the White House news conference forgot their white lab coats. Instead of talking about the AMA’s stance or the stats from the New England Journal of Medicine, we heard that the White House was insulting our intelligence with the big “Halloween” on the lawn.

All because the ones who forgot their lab coats were given some. It’s not like they gave them firefighter coats and asked them to fake like they were something they weren’t. I mean, this may be shocking…but it turns out a doctor in a suit is still a doctor.

47 million people uninsured in this country and it’s come down to who remembered to bring their lab coat instead of debate about policy.

As it turns out, not all Republicans are concerned with lab coats. Today California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he is backing the President’s plan.

“Our principal goals — slowing the growth in costs, enhancing the quality of care delivered, improving the lives of individuals, and helping to ensure a strong economic recovery — are the same goals that the president is trying to achieve,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement.
“I appreciate his partnership with the states and encourage our colleagues on both sides of the political aisle at the national level to move forward and accomplish these vital goals for the American people.”

According to Reuters, no Republicans in Congress currently back the Finance Committee proposal to overhaul the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, or any other put forward by Democrats.

At least my doctor supports it, telling me “It’s inevitable.”

We’ll see just how inevitable it is as the Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote within days and a final bill is put before lawmakers.

Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain Blog, where she does not have a white lab coat.

Crossposted at BlogHer.com

I was sitting in my doctor’s office at UCLA when I got news the Senate Finance Committee shot down two public health insurance options.

Five Democrats joined with all the Republicans on the committee to reject an amendment by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) in a 15-8 vote.
Three Democrats then joined the Republicans to defeat a second public-option proposal. By a vote of 13-10, the committee rejected an amendment by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Schumer, however, said the debate is far from over. He acknowledged during the debate that the public option doesn’t yet have the 60 votes on the Senate floor it needs to overcome a filibuster, but he emphasized to Huffington Post outside the hearing room: “Yet. I said ‘yet.'”

So if the public option doesn’t have the 60 votes why not 51? Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake explores the idea-

Chuck Schumer and Max Baucus just said that there were not 60 votes for the public option in the Senate.

The Public Option doesn’t need 60 votes. It needs 51. That is, unless the GOP filibusters it. What Baucus and Schumer are saying — explicitly — is that there are Democrats who would support a GOP filibuster to keep the public option from having an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. They are saying that there are Democrats who would vote with the GOP to block a vote on something that the President says he supports — a public option.

My physician, Dr. Daniel Cole of UCLA Medical Center, wasn’t happy with the news of the amendments failing. “They are just postponing the inevitable” he told me, shaking his head. He then explained to me how he voted for Obama but really wants him to be stronger on the public option.

My own doctor, MY OWN DOCTOR then sat there telling me how patients he sees can’t take these insurance hikes any longer. How people can’t pay their bills. How a public option NEEDS TO HAPPEN and WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY because there is just no other way.

As it turns out, public support for health care reform is up to 57%, and support for a public option at 65%.

So where does that leave us?

CNN reports:

In efforts to bridge differences, the Finance Committee proposal dropped the public insurance option and a mandate for all employers to provide health coverage. It would require individuals to have coverage or face a fine of up to $1,900 for a family of four but includes subsidies to help low- and middle-income Americans obtain health care plans.

The committee began debating the compromise measure last week, with arguments erupting over Democratic proposals to reduce subsidies for some Medicare coverage while eliminating fraud and waste in the government health care plan for senior citizens.

Republicans argued that the changes would reduce benefits for senior citizens, but Democrats say the overall effect would be minor. Some advocacy groups cite reports that the amount of money involved is no more than 5 percent of overall Medicare spending and therefore won’t adversely affect benefits for the elderly.

Another compromise being discussed? One by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. Snowe has brought up a “trigger” mechanism that would create a public option in the future if specific thresholds and costs are not me. But the “trigger” has yet to be included in any proposal.

However the last, best gasp for any public option seems to be that magic 51 number. Will it or won’t it ever get to that? Who knows. Wonkette takes a stab–

Well, it can: if the Dems can come together as 60 in a cloture vote, then the final floor vote on a public option would only need 50. Would you like to be one of the few Democrats standing on the floor, with the entire Republican caucus, to filibuster a health care bill from reaching an up-or-down vote on the Senate?

But of course the Democratic majority would never actually make the opposition go through with a real-life filibuster. Tacky!

Tacky, maybe. But my doctor and I will take tacky over NOTHING any day.

Contributing Editor Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain blog, where she’s really tired of sitting in doctor’s offices.

BlogHer is non-partisan, but our bloggers (like me!) aren’t! Read more of our coverage at News & Politics.

crossposted at BlogHer.com

I curse and yell “PATRIARCHY!” a whole lot, but today I went through the roof and my screams got a bit louder.

Why?

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and how he is seemingly no friend to mothers across this country.

From Talking Points Memo:

Just before the Senate Finance Committee wrapped up for the long weekend, members debated one of Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) amendments, which would strike language defining which benefits employers are required to cover.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) argued that insurers must be required to cover basic maternity care. (In several states there are no such requirements.)

“I don’t need maternity care,” Kyl said. “So requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Stabenow interrupted: “I think your mom probably did.”

Here’s the video of the exchange:

Senator Kyl’s amendment, which was defeated, comes on the heels of learning most health insurance plans do not cover maternity care and consider c-sections a pre-existing condition. We also learned this week that seven states consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition.

In other words, insurance companies and, it appears, certain Senators from Arizona, don’t really care too much for women.

Think Progress drills down on the Kyl amendment:

As Igor Volsky notes at the Wonk Room, Kyl’s amendment “would prohibit the government from defining which benefits should be included in a standard benefit package and would permit health insurance companies to design policies that exclude higher-cost beneficiaries.”

Maternity care, in fact, is a perfect example of why Kyl’s amendment is so bad. Most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 14 states have a requirement for such coverage, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise dramatically. Anthem Blue Cross — which has been actively fighting health care reform — considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure:

“The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That’s what you’re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,” said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. “Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.”

“A well defined minimum benefits package would compel health insurers to provide basic services to all Americans,” adds Volsky. “The Kyl amendment, which ultimately failed, would have allowed the industry to continue profiting from discriminatory practices.”

Women already get the short end of the stick when it comes to health care.

From the New York Times:

Striking new evidence has emerged of a widespread gap in the cost of health insurance, as women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage, according to new data from insurance companies and online brokers.

Some insurance executives expressed surprise at the size and prevalence of the disparities, which can make a woman’s insurance cost hundreds of dollars a year more than a man’s.

So on top of having to pay more, Senators like Kyl don’t find things like maternity care ‘necessary.’

Imagine, if you will, all things ‘maternity’ related being ‘unnecessary.’ Prenatal care. Ultrasounds. Labor. Delivery. Birth. Postpartum care. ‘Unnecessary.’

How many of you could afford to have a child if these were all considered ‘unnecessary’ by your insurance company? What if you found yourself pregnant and realized you could not afford all the costs associated with having this baby?

Is this really a way for Republicans to discourage the termination of pregnancy? Or could we see those numbers rise if Senators like Kyl got their way?

Yes, Senator Kyl, I echo Senator Stabenow. Your mother needed maternity care. All mothers need maternity care. And you’d be wise to yield the floor to the women who know better.

Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain blog, where she talks about her two children born via that pre-existing condition known as a c-section.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (like me!) aren’t! Read more of our coverage at News & Politics.