2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Before your lawsuit becomes necessary, I am in the process of organizing a local protest action against the bill for these reasons.  Our Senators aren't really listening to the private phonecalls and emails; publicly, they are merely giving talking points instead of holding open town halls to genuinely listen, and they will continue to do so until their contradictions receive enough serious media attention that Joe and Jane Public Citizen hear and question the contradictions too.  If you're interested, email me at rosecityfriend@aol.com

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The Senate bill cutting funds to home health agencies is a disaster, and they can't begin to presume what the "inefficiencies" are.  I was the medical power of attorney for my elderly parents before my dad died and my mom finally went into a nursing home.  They both wanted to remain in their own home as long as possible, where it is cheaper to provide care I might add.  How is cutting funds for home health agencies going to hold down healthcare costs??  There were numerous other problems with Medicare that were related to TOO LITTLE money, not TOO MUCH money, like rules that make elderly patients be discharged from hospitals after 3 days unless they are getting "tests".  When elderly patients are recovering from serious infections, they are often still too sick to be discharged home and too weak to be discharged to nursing homes (where they may get MORE infections) and yet doctors' hands are tied because the hospital won't get paid if the Medicare rules aren't followed.  The doctor and I would try to figure out some additional test to subject my parent to buy another day or two in the hospital before discharge was required.  This is the problem with the government getting TOO involved in trying to micromanage healthcare instead of simply requiring health insurances to be non-profits, extending anti-trust laws to their business, keeping health insurance a choice instead of a mandate to provide them  incentive to providing good inexpensive care, and paying doctors and nurses better than insurance executives and congressmen.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I agree with you.  No anti-trust law has been passed, no public option either, yet you, a young healthy person who might want to take his chances and pay out of pocket if something comes up, will be MANDATED to purchase health insurance from the same healthcare system that is the source of the problem in the first place.  Oh, but now the IRS will do the dirty work for them of penalizing you if you refuse to join.  I was flabbergasted to hear Senator Wyden talk about improving the "market place" of health care when the principle of the market place is competition based on choosing NOT to buy if we don't want to.  Prices do NOT come down when the health insurance companies will know we are FORCED to buy, and when they are still allowed to collude to set prices.  It's a travesty.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

It will get worse, Jackie.  The Senate bill cuts fees paid to Medicare doctors by 21%, and as you may have heard, Medicare already pays Northwest doctors terribly.  Doctors spend over a dozen years past college in training and don't get started in their careers until their late 30's.  The answer is to pay doctors more and insurance executives less, not the other way around like this healthcare bill will do.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I think our male Senators and congressional reps are missing the point when they think of the abortion restrictions as a "special interest" issue.  The issue is really an EQUAL RIGHTS in the healthcare system.   The Senate bill would permit states to not provide abortion coverage in their health exchanges yet would still require uninsured women to purchase it.  States that do permit it would require an onerous procedure where women would be required to write TWO checks for their healthcare.  Men aren't required to do this, even though my religious beliefs might not want MY taxes to go to pay for adulterous married males to get their STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) treated instead of THEIR private funds.  Women are NOT a "special interest group" and whether they exercise choice or not, 51% of our Senators' constituents should not be be forced to buy insurance that discriminates against us on the basis of our gender.

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context