Tag: Erik Paulsen

Health care is now set to be a defining issue in the next election cycles

The following article by Philip Rucker was posted on the Washington Post website May 5, 2017:

With one hasty and excruciatingly narrow vote, House Republicans have all but guaranteed that health care will be one of the most pivotal issues shaping the next two election cycles — including congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative races in the 2018 midterms and President Trump’s likely reelection bid in 2020.

Just as Democrats were forced to defend Obamacare in the 2010 midterms — the result was a coast-to-coast drubbing that President Barack Obama called a “shellacking” — Republicans this time will be in the hot seat. Continue reading “Health care is now set to be a defining issue in the next election cycles”

Who Wins and Who Loses in the Latest G.O.P. Health Care Bill

The following article by Margot Sanger-Katz was posted on the New York Times website May 4, 2017:

A group protesting outside the St. Joseph, Mich., office of Representative Fred Upton on Wednesday. Mr. Upton emerged as a crucial supporter of the effort to revive the G.O.P.’s health care bill. Credit Don Campbell/The Herald-Palladium, via Associated Press

The American Health Care Act, which narrowly won passage in the House on Thursday, could transform the nation’s health insurance system and create a new slate of winners and losers.

While the Senate will probably demand changes, this bill, if it becomes law in its current form, will repeal and replace large portions of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It will change the rules and subsidies for people who buy their own insurance coverage, and make major cuts to the Medicaid program, which funds care for the poor and disabled. Continue reading “Who Wins and Who Loses in the Latest G.O.P. Health Care Bill”

An Obligation to Provide Care

There is a key concept often left out of the health care debate and something that politicians seem to continually misunderstand or refuse to acknowledge: that we have an obligation to provide care. This does not necessarily translate to “we as a nation” but “we as clinicians,” who have a moral obligation and, in the case of hospitals, a legal obligation to provide emergency care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. There is a need to acknowledge the moral and deontological sentiment that exists here. This was borne out of many failures and Supreme Court decisions resulting from a refusal to treat people, who then died or had bad outcomes. Patient dumping led to overcrowding of emergency rooms in county hospitals, where turning people away may have been legal but was ethically reprehensible.

The continuing frame of thought that health care is a market-based product is doomed. We may continue on this path for some time, but the end is inevitable; either we finally recognize an obligation to providing care or we allow hospitals to turn people away. It is all well and good to be a congressperson and treat health care as a free-market product, but when you are face to face with the bad effects of this mind-set, you may think differently. When the major groups representing clinicians in the trenches are against what you are doing, you ought to take some time to contemplate this.

Ian Wolfe, Minneapolis
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

AHCA Limits Access for Sick, Gives Tax Break to Wealthy

With all the talk of “protecting” the preexisting conditions in the AHCA, I’m not convinced the GOP definition of protection means anything but allowing the free market to reign over the misfortune of their constituents.

So, what is protection anyway? The online resources I see all include it in a financial sense. For example (of an insurance policy), a promise to pay someone an agreed amount in the event of loss, injury, fire, theft or other misfortune, or “in the event of your death, your family will be protected against any financial problems that may arise.” So I am at first comforted in knowing I will be protected from financial ruin should the unthinkable happen.

But wait: Noticeably absent is a framework for my protection. Without that, we have just blind faith in the free market for the healthy, and risk pools for the rest. Without essential protections that define our rights as purchasers of lifesaving access to health care, without protection from financial demise, why call it insurance?

We need to call it what it is: a plan to fix health care and limit spending by limiting access for the sick, while offering a tax break to the wealthy for health savings account contributions.

Tracie Wollman, Plymouth
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

Rep. Paulsen’s Yes Vote on Trumpcare

In voting “yes” on the AHCA, Rep. Erik Paulsen sent a clear signal to voters that he stands with the ultraconservative wing of the GOP and not with his constituents. Rather than insisting on public hearings, a Congressional Budget Office report, transparency in government and, ultimately, affordable health care for all, Paulsen proved he is a party puppet, doing the bidding of Trump and Ryan. The Democratic candidate for president has carried Paulsen’s district in three straight general elections. The Third District is moderate. Paulsen is not. His cover is blown once and for all.

Heidi Strommen, Plymouth
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

Minnesotans have been ill-served by their representatives.

I am disgusted that every single one of Minnesota’s Republican congressional representatives voted for the American Health Care Act, agreeing to strip away the protections provided by the Affordable Care Act. President Trump repeatedly promised during his campaign not to cut Medicaid; now he’s going to cut it by $800 billion in order to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

More than a million Minnesotans have preexisting conditions. Even if you’re not among them, if you’ve ever found a suspicious lump or mole and felt the fear of possibility, you know how tenuous good health can be. And anyone who considers themselves prolife should be aghast at the idea that a family who “chooses life” for a child with health problems diagnosed in pregnancy will be faced with costs they can never even hope to pay in order to heal a child who will have a preexisting condition from the moment they take their first breath.

Trumpcare even removes preexisting condition protections for people with employer-provided health care! No one is safe from this atrocious bill’s consequences. Reps. Jason Lewis, Erik Paulsen and Tom Emmer should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope all three are voted out in 2018.

Naomi Kritzer, St. Paul
Star Tribune, May 5, 2017

How To Fight The Republicans Who Voted For ‘Trumpcare’

The following article by Tim Marcin of Newsweek was posted on the National Memo website May 5, 2017:

Lots of liberals, and even some conservatives, are upset that House Republicans passed Thursday a health care bill that hadn’t been vetted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for its cost or effects, such as the loss of coverage for millions of Americans, as the CBO estimated for a prior version of the legislation. The GOP was apparently ready for it’s Obamacare replacement and ready for it now—but opponents also were ready to fight back.

Causing particular anger is the provision in the American Health Care Act (AHCA)—often dubbed Trumpcare—that undermines protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions. States would be able to apply for waivers to allow insurers to charge higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. It has been estimated some 27 percent of people on the individual market suffer from things that could be considered pre-existing conditions—which under Obamacare included having cancer or being the victim of sexual assault. Continue reading “How To Fight The Republicans Who Voted For ‘Trumpcare’”

Republicans Get Their Health Bill. But It May Cost Them.

For some context on this, Rep. Erik Paulsen voted for this bill even though it was unscored by the Congressional Budget Office, went through hidden negotiations and, from what we’ve been able to see so far, he hadn’t read.  The bill passed by 2 votes.  Minnesota’s 3 Republican members of Congress voted for this bill.  Erik Paulsen is one of those members of Congress.

The following article by Jennifer Steinhauer was posted on the New York Times website May 4, 2017:

Paul D. Ryan, speaker of the House, before the vote on Thursday. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In voting to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, House Republicans finally made progress on a key Trump administration goal and on a campaign promise that they have made for the better part of a decade — but at a potentially steep price.

After failing to get the votes for an original replacement measure in March, Speaker Paul D. Ryan worked tirelessly to do what his predecessor, John A. Boehner, could not, bringing together his most conservative members and their moderate colleagues behind a piece of legislation laden with political peril. Continue reading “Republicans Get Their Health Bill. But It May Cost Them.”

U.S. House health care bill is a big step backward for those with preexisting conditions

The following commentary by the Editorial Board was posted on the Star Tribune website May 4, 2017:

The final total on the vote on the Republicans health care bill was displayed at the Capitol in Washington on Thursday, May 4, 2017. Relieved Republicans muscled their health care bill through the House, taking their biggest step toward dismantling the Obama health care overhaul since Donald Trump took office. HOUSE TELEVISION VIA AP

Today, Bethany Gladhill’s daughter Beatrix is an active 9-year-old who enjoys dance and school. But right after she was born, Beatrix was diagnosed with a heart valve anomaly. After a family job loss, which meant no more employee health benefits, Gladhill soon found that she couldn’t add baby Beatrix to the new health plan she and her husband purchased on the individual market.

Their infant had a “preexisting condition,” their health insurance broker told them. The St. Paul couple, who continue to work as consultants, were stunned. Said Gladhill: “It’s the honest inability as a parent to believe that nobody cares enough about your newborn to cover them with insurance and there is nothing you can do about it.”

Eventually, the family did get coverage for Beatrix through Minnesota’s old “high-risk pool” insurance program, but at a cost — they had to buy a separate plan for her with higher premiums, a narrow medical provider network and two annual deductibles totaling around $10,000. After President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act passed, the couple could finally buy a family plan, one with the same clinics, one set of bills and a deductible of $4,000. “The costs went down by half. It was huge,” Gladhill said. Continue reading “U.S. House health care bill is a big step backward for those with preexisting conditions”

Make No Mistake …

The following article was posted on the Trumpaccountable website May 4, 2017:

For all of the talk about Obamacare imploding or falling apart, the way President Trump and House Republicans chose to “fix” health care was to give a very large tax break to a very few Americans and deprive an estimated 24 million Americans of insurance.

There were other solutions to this particular problem and 217 House Republicans and the entire Trump administration chose the solution that privileges the wealthy over those that need the most help and support in this country.

All 217 members who voted for Trumpcare will be up for election in 2018 and it is noteworthy that they have chosen to side with Trump over their constituents and the American people. They will be answerable to the charges of hypocrisy on display throughout this process.

View the post here.