Who Here Thinks preventative Care is Ineffective? Well Republicans do, That is why they are cutting the program

Ineffective and Unfair
Conservatives Target Preventive Health Care for the Ax

By Donna Cooper | February 10, 2011

It seems we've entered the season of shortsighted thinking. With 50.7
million uninsured Americans, Republicans are on a rampage to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Adding insult to injury, the most recent
House Republican plan to cut the federal budget deficit this fiscal
year took a scalpel to $10 billion in federal grants that provide
health care to indigent women and children, slashing $2 billion in
federal funding that is bound to have very expensive consequences.

Funding for community health centers will be cut in half by the
Republican cuts. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who was a co-sponsor of the
legislation responding to President George W. Bush's call to expand
funding for these centers in 2008, says that "since 2001, additional
funding has allowed health centers in more than 750 communities
nationwide to provide care to about four million new patients. These
centers provide affordable and quality care to at-risk Americans who
otherwise might have to do without."

He's right on the mark. No health care costs will be avoided by
cutting this $1 billion out of the budget because the absence of care
doesn't stop you from getting sick. It simply means you get sicker and
you turn up at the emergency room or a hospital when your illness has
progressed to the point that your care needs are exorbitantly
expensive.

On top of this cut to care, which more often than not is the safety-
net care for women and children, the proposals would also cut the
maternal and child health block grant by 30 percent. This block grant
pays for child immunizations and prenatal care for tens of thousands
of women and children. It's obvious that without access to
immunizations more will have to be spent to care for kids sick with
easily preventable illnesses.

And reducing access to prenatal care is both life-threatening and
costly. A preemie baby's health care costs are 10 times higher than a
full-term, healthy-weight child, according to the March of Dimes. The
organization estimates that the full lifetime health care costs for
these fragile children hit the $17 billion mark. It's simply penny
wise and pound foolish to cut $199 million out of a program that has a
proven track record of delivering health to babies and driving down
America's health care costs.

Among the programs slashed is one of the most efficient programs to
improve child nutrition: the Women, Infants and Children program run
by the Department of Agriculture. This program gives expectant mothers
with very small children important tips on how to feed their children
healthy meals. And it provides them with coupons to incentivize them
to purchase the best foods for their children. Research shows that
without this intervention the nutritional intake of these children
would be higher in fats, salts, and sugars, according to a recent U.S.
Food and Nutrition Services study.

Instead of spending $1,400 a month in extra medical care for an obese
child, for just $41 per month this program shifts these young mothers
and children into healthy eating patterns, says the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Clearly, the WIC approach is a useful
and relatively cheap way to stem the rising tide of childhood obesity.

An unsurprising but equally shortsighted cut is the complete
elimination of family-planning services. If you just listened to their
sound bites, you would think these funds could be used for abortions.
But we all know that's not permitted. These federal funds make it
possible for uninsured women and men to get access to critical
contraceptive services, pregnancy counseling, and tests for sexually
transmitted infections, cervical cancer screening, and other critical
health screens. Without access to these health care services, the
health care needs of these adults will not disappear.

Instead, these adults will end up with unintended pregnancies and
preventable health conditions that could have been avoided had they
had ready access to commonplace family-planning services and
screenings. Indeed, every dollar spent on family-planning services
saves taxpayers $4 in Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and
postpartum services alone, according to a recent study by the
Guttmacher Institute.

The absurdity of these cuts to the block grant, community health care
centers, and family-planning services is that none of this funding
would be necessary if we had a fully functioning national health care
system where every American had access to high-quality care.

Benjamin Franklin famously said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure." Millions more Americans will lose access to health
care as a result of these cuts and as a result more will have to be
spent to address the real health care consequences of these cuts.
Franklin also invented bifocals so his aging colleagues could see the
important documents they gathered to draft. Perhaps the Republican
leadership needs to adjust their glasses so they more clearly see that
$2 billion in cuts they propose to the health care services for poor
women and children will cost the taxpayers billions more in
unnecessary health care expenses.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/health_care_cuts.html

Republicans want to sell out America's Educational Future for more bullets guns and war! Got to Keep those priorities straight!

Our Future Competitiveness Hangs in the Balance
Federal Education Programs Brace for Coming Congressional Budget
Fights

By Diana Epstein | February 9, 2011

This year's federal budget process in Washington promises to be even
more divisive than usual as a split Congress struggles to tackle both
the need to keep the government funded and the looming federal
deficit. Furthermore, lawmakers are actually dealing with two budgets
simultaneously—one for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which ends
in September of this year, and one for the FY2012 budget beginning in
October. President Barack Obama plans to release his FY2012 budget
during the week of February 14 and Republicans have indicated they
will roll out their plan for a new FY2011 "continuing resolution" to
fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year that week as
well.

Federal investment in education hangs in the balance.

House Republicans, led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI),
propose to cut $32 billion from the federal budget for the remainder
of this fiscal year. Since the government is currently operating under
a continuing resolution that expires March 4, these proposed cuts
would take place over only a seven-month period. Rep. Ryan wants to
increase security- and defense-related spending by almost $8 billion
above current levels, which means that cuts to nonsecurity agencies
such as education would total more than $42 billion. Moreover, his
proposed budget for FY2011 would be $32 billion less than current
spending levels but $74 billion less than what the president had
originally requested.

The upshot: Spending for education, labor, and health and human
services would be 4 percent less than 2010 levels and 8 percent less
than the president's original request, according to the information
announced by the chair of the House Appropriations committee last
week.

This approach runs directly counter to the Obama administration's
plans to invest in education to ensure our workforce remains
competitive in the 21st century. In his State of the Union address,
the president made clear that he favors strong continued funding for
education. And investing in education is without a doubt the key to
economic growth and American competitiveness. Nonetheless, the
Republicans' plans have budget cuts falling disproportionately on
education and health programs because entitlements and defense
spending are largely protected. So let's examine what they propose to
cut.

Republican plans to cut critical education funding

As the proposals below illustrate, conservative Republicans are
arguing for even bigger cuts—up to $100 billion—for FY2011 and then
further cuts in the FY2012 budget. This would likely entail
significant cuts to federal education programs. If enacted, these
proposals would make it far more difficult to effectively educate this
generation of American children.

The Republican Study Committee proposal—the Spending Reduction Act of
2011—would reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion over 10 years. The
plan cuts FY 2011 nonsecurity, nondefense, and nonveterans
discretionary spending to FY 2008 levels; cuts nondefense
discretionary spending to FY 2006 levels for FY2012–FY2021; eliminates
all remaining stimulus funding; and eliminates or dramatically scales
back more than 100 other programs. This includes eliminating 68
federal education programs run by the Departments of Education, Labor,
and Health and Human Services; the Environmental Protection Agency;
and other federal agencies.

Provisions governing federal education programs would be repealed in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Early Learning
Opportunities Act, parts of the Higher Education Act, and others.
While some of these programs should be eliminated because they are
outdated or ineffective, other programs serve valuable purposes and
should be consolidated or reformed. Rather than simply cutting
education funding as the RSC recommends, these funds should be
redirected and targeted at efforts that reflect current priorities and
have demonstrated results.

Rep. Ryan put forth an alternate budget in 2008 (further revised last
year) entitled "A Roadmap for America's Future." The Roadmap's most
detailed recommendations are for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security, but the plan also assumes that nondefense discretionary
spending would be frozen at nominal 2009 levels from 2010 through
2019. Beginning in 2020, spending in all areas except Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, and net interest would grow at the rate of
inflation plus 0.7 percentage points. Ryan's plan also rescinds all
unobligated stimulus funding. Freezing spending at these levels would
not provide the investment in education that is needed in order to
improve student achievement and produce the American workforce of the
future.

Then there is the plan from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). He released a
budget proposal last month that would cut $500 billion from the
federal budget in one year. In spite of holding a seat on the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Sen. Paul put forth a plan
that would cut funding to the Department of Education by 83 percent,
to only $16.245 billion. Paul's plan preserves only Pell Grants, which
means that critical funding for elementary and secondary education
would be eliminated. Among other cuts, districts and schools serving a
high percentage of low-income children would no longer receive Title I
supplemental funding, and states would no longer receive Title II
money to improve teacher and principal quality.

Why these cuts are so destructive

Any of these proposed cuts to education would be quite harmful. First
of all, continued investment in education is critical in order to put
our economy on the path to sustained growth. Second, a reduction in
federal support for education would take resources away from
critically important programs at a time when states are also making
significant cuts. Third, federal education programs provide more
equitable resources for students who need it most—without federal
support, many hard-fought gains would erode for children living in
poverty.

Fortunately, the American people simply will not support cuts of this
magnitude in education. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans
whether they favor or oppose cuts in government spending in a number
of areas. Two-thirds opposed cuts in education, opposition greater
than any other area including Social Security, Medicare, and national
defense. This public sentiment holds up even when Americans are given
a choice between reducing the federal budget deficit or preventing
cuts to government programs. When asked whether it was more important
to reduce the deficit or prevent cuts in education, respondents to a
recent CNN poll chose to preserve education by a margin of 75 percent
to 25 percent.

With power split between the two political parties, this year's budget
process will inevitably result in a series of compromises. The
proposed plans for cuts to education represent one end of the spectrum
from which bargaining will begin. It is true that our country faces
tough decisions ahead but our children's future is not a matter fit
for negotiation.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/education_cuts.html

GOP: Show Me the Budget cuts... you Promised 100's of billions and only delivered 20 Billion! But demanded the 800 Billion Additional Tax cuts FIRST

Show Me the Money
Conservatives Demonstrate That Cuts Alone Won't Balance the Budget

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, released a partial list of the cuts that he says will be
included in an upcoming spending bill. Now in control of the House of
Representatives, conservatives finally have their chance to show the
world how they can balance the budget through spending cuts alone.

By Michael Linden, Michael Ettlinger | February 10, 2011

Conservatives for almost two years now have claimed that the federal
budget deficit is solely a spending problem—and that the solution,
therefore, is to just cut spending as deeply as possible. Before the
2010 congressional elections, then-House of Representatives Minority
Leader Boehner (R-OH) promised to find $100 billion in cuts in the
first year of the new Congress. Since then, the newly elected House
majority has been long on boastful claims but short on specifics.

Until yesterday. Finally, the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), released a partial list of the cuts
that he says will be included in an upcoming spending bill. Now in
control of the House of Representatives, conservatives finally have
their chance to show the world how they can balance the budget through
spending cuts alone.

And as it turns out, they're finding it awfully hard to find even the
$100 billion they promised—let alone the hundreds of billions of
dollars more it would take to actually bring the federal budget into
balance. The cuts outlined today are extremely deep and extremely
damaging, cutting into the meat of important public programs—but they
still add up to only about $20 billion.

Indeed, the most definitive Republican plan to date to reduce federal
spending perfectly illustrates the dilemma facing those who would try
to cut their way to balance. Even a small down payment toward spending
cuts starts to bite quickly into things our country wants and needs.
Imagine what the full $100 billion would look like, but first let's
look at what $20 billion would do. Some of the deepest cuts announced
today include:

Slashing job training programs fully in half—despite the fact that a
skilled workforce is the key to our future economic prosperity, and
not to mention the fact that the unemployment rate is currently at 9
percent.

Steep reductions for scientific research and development investments
that are key to the nation's economic competitiveness, growth, jobs,
and health—among them funding for the National Institutes of Health,
Centers for Disease Control, the National Laboratories, the National
Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, and the Agricultural Research Service. All would have
to cut back, compared to the president's levels, some by as much as
one-fifth.

A 90 percent cut to community policing grants that go to cities and
towns to help improve the effectiveness of their police forces, on top
of a 20 percent cut to all other state and local law-enforcement
assistance. Additionally, the House budget will include a 22 percent
cut to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and a 23 percent cut
to the National Drug Intelligence Center.

A massive slashing of federal support for state and local water and
sewage projects alongside the complete elimination of high-speed rail
funding and a $230 million cut for the Federal Aviation
Administration, as compared to the president's previously proposed
levels.

Substantial reductions to services targeted at low-income children,
including cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children; grants to states to support maternal and
child health; and a near-halving of community health centers, which
treated more than 7 million low-income children in 2009. Amazingly,
the House budget would all but eliminate Poison Control Centers.

Cutbacks in food safety. Both the Food and Drug Administration and the
Food Safety and Inspection Service will see rollbacks if the House
budget is adopted.

These are not cosmetic adjustments. As Rep. Rogers himself said,
"These cuts are real and will impact every district across the
country." But, he argues, despite all the damage these cuts will do,
they are necessary to "right our fiscal ship and begin to reduce our
massive deficits and debt."

And how much fiscal ship-righting do we reap from these painful cuts?
Not a whole lot. All together, if the entire package of cuts were
implemented, the federal government would save about $20 billion
compared to last year's spending levels. Now $20 billion is not
nothing, of course, but it is only 1.3 percent of this year's fiscal
deficit and less than 3 percent of the average deficit over the next
10 years even under the rosiest of assumptions.

In short, for conservatives to fully balance the budget sometime this
decade purely by cutting spending, they are going to have to come out
with another 34 packages worth $20 billion a piece in spending cuts.

Are there another 34 packages of secret spending cuts waiting in the
wings? Rep. Rogers doesn't seem to think so. "We have taken a wire
brush to the discretionary budget and scoured every program to find
real savings," he admits. All that scouring results in significant
damage to vital services and programs but not a lot of deficit
reduction.

And that paradox is exactly why those who argue we can "right our
fiscal ship" without raising additional revenue are, and always have
been, blowing smoke. The new leadership in the House of
Representatives promised $100 billion in spending cuts—itself not
enough to come near to balancing the budget. And yet, after the budget
was "scoured" for savings, they can find just a fraction of that $100
billion.

Given the limitations they set for themselves—no defense cuts, no tax
increases—they were bound to fail at cutting their way to a balanced
budget. As Rep. Rogers explains, "Make no mistake, these cuts are not
low-hanging fruit." Certainly he's right about that. But if they've
already had to climb way up into the tree to find $20 billion in
spending cuts, where do they think they'll find the next several
hundred billion?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/show_me_money.html

Even in 2003 it was a know issue that Iraq could become a theocracy allied with Iran, and Bush believed God was calling him to war.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-22-2003/the-new-iraq

Unemployment Down To 9%

Unemployment Down To 9%

This still won't make conservatives happy, nor is it an indication
we're out of the woods, but at least it's going in the right
direction, with some caveats.

…the nation's unemployment rate fell dramatically for the second month
in a row. It dropped to 9% in January, from 9.4% in December and 9.8%
in November.

But as in December, the official unemployment rate dropped in part
because many more workers left the labor market — an indication that
many people aren't finding opportunities or don't believe there's a
job for them in the current economy.

There are some hopeful signs.

Manufacturing payrolls were up 49,000 over the month, and retail
employers added 27,500 jobs. Construction, government, financial
services, transportation and the temporary-help sector shed jobs in
January.

Government officials also revised higher the job growth at the end of
last year. And that shows an improving trend in hiring, although still
not at a very rapid pace. In the fourth quarter, the private sector
added an average of 153,000 jobs a month, up from 124,000 in the third
quarter.

The Truth about the Health care Exemptions, because I am tired of the GOP Lies......

Employers who hire lower wage, part time or seasonal workers are more
likely to offer limited benefit plans. Retail or chain restaurant
employers frequently offer limited benefit plans that contain less
comprehensive coverage and annual dollar limits on how much workers
can receive in health coverage. The premiums for these limited benefit
policies (known as mini-meds) are significantly lower than for
policies with comprehensive coverage and are more affordable for lower
wage workers and their families. In exchange for the low premiums,
these policies generally come with high deductibles and annual dollar
caps as low as $2,000. In addition, in many cases, employees are
paying the full cost of the insurance policy, with no help from their
employer.

The good news is that mini-meds will be eliminated in 2014, thanks to
provisions that phase out insurance companies' use of annual limits
between now and 2014. The "phase out" has already begun to kick in,
and in 2014 when annual limits are completely eliminated, consumers be
able to purchase health insurance in state-based Exchanges -- new
competitive marketplaces – where consumers and small businesses can
shop for private coverage and will have the market power similar to
large employers.

The bad news is that today mini-meds are often the only affordable
option for many low-wage workers because retail and chain restaurants
rarely offer their workers options beyond these plans. And because
mini-meds are built around annual limits, estimates from employers and
insurers indicate that beginning the phase out of annual limits this
year would cause mini-med premiums to rise by more than 200 percent,
forcing employers to drop coverage and sending many low-wage workers
to purchase insurance on the more expensive individual insurance
market, where they would get an even worse deal than what they have
today. The result would be a whole new population of uninsured
Americans.

To ensure that we protect the coverage that these workers have today
until better options are available for them in 2014, the law allows
HHS, in extreme cases, to issue temporary waivers from the phase out
of annual limits. There are some important facts to remember about
these temporary waivers:

The waivers only apply to one provision of the law – the provisions
phasing out annual limits. Insurance companies and employers that
receive waivers must comply with all other parts of the Affordable
Care Act.

The waivers last one year. Insurance companies must reapply for the
waivers each year between now and 2014 when annual limits on coverage
will be completely prohibited and individuals will have more
affordable and better private insurance choices in the competitive
Exchange markets.
All employers and insurers that offer mini-med plans may apply for a
waiver if they demonstrate that there will be large increases in
premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage without a
waiver. You can read a list of employers and insurers that have
received waivers here.
HHS also took an additional step to ensure these workers know more
about mini-med policies and the limited coverage they may be buying.
The Administration is requiring the issuers of limited benefit plans
to notify consumers in plain language that their plan offers extremely
limited benefits and direct them to www.HealthCare.gov, where they may
be able to find better coverage options. The Administration has also
restricted the sale of new mini-med policies, except under some
limited circumstances. You can read more about this new announcement
here.

112th Congress: 28 Bills to Repeal Patient Protection Act in 11 Days, But Nothing to Create Jobs

Monday January 31, 2011 08:00 am
112th Congress: 28 Bills to Repeal Patient Protection Act in 11 Days,
But
Nothing to Create Jobs

I see our elected representatives are hard at work, representing
their
constituencies. Not that those constituencies even vaguely represent
voters,
you understand. No, they would like to repeal the Patient Protection
and
Affordable Care Act 28 times. In 11 days, no less. What busy little
beavers
they are!

Here's _a list_
(http://lifeinshermanoaks.com/featured-articles/gop-obsession-with-
rep...) as of today, divided by
House and Senate.

House
H.R. 105 Dan Burton, GOP – Indiana : To repeal the Patient Protection
Act
& enact in its place incentives for people to buy health insurance.
H.R. 118 John Fleming, GOP – Louisiana : To permit a state to elect
not to
have an American Health Care Exchange.
H.R. 119 John Fleming, GOP – Louisiana : To prohibit hiring of irs
agent
to implement or enforce health insurance reform.
H.R. 127 John Graves, GOP – Georgia : To de-authorize funding of
Patient
Protection Act.
H.R. 141 Steve King, GOP – Iowa : To repeal the Patient Protection
Act.
H.R. 145 Connie Mack, GOP – Florida : To repeal the Patient
Protection Act.
H.R. 154 Ted Poe, GOP Texas : To prohibit any federal funds to be
used to
enforce Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 171 Cliff Stearns, GOP – Florida :
H.R. 2 Eric Cantor, GOP – Virginia : Repeal of Patient Protection
Act.
H.R. 38 John Fleming, GOP – Louisiana : Rescind funds authorized for
Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 9 David Drier, GOP – California : Requires Committees to look
into
Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 26 David Drier, GOP – California : Repeal Patient Protection
Act.
H.R. 215 Don Young, GOP – Alaksa : Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 19 John Carter, GOP – Texas : Disapprove rules on MLR in
Patient
Protection Act.
H.R. 299 John Carter, GOP – Texas : Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 358 Joe Pitts, GOP – Penn : Remove abortion funding from
Patient
Protection Act (there is none)
H.R. 360 Michael Burgess – Texas : Amend Patient Protection Act to
include
President in Health Care Exchanges.
H.R. 364 Tom Latham, GOP – Iowa : To Repeal Patient Protection Act
H.R. 371 Marsha Blackburn, GOP – Tennessee : Repeal Title I of
Patient
Protection Act.
H.R. 5 Phil Gingrey, GOP – Georgia : Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 397 Wally Herger, GOP – California :Repeal Patient Protection
Act.
H.R. 429 Darrell Issa, GOP, California – Repeal Patient Protection
Act.
H.R. 452 Phil Roe, GOP, Tennessee – A bill to repeal Patient
Protection
Act.
H.R. 450 Dave Reichert, GOP, Washington – A bill to repeal Patient
Protection Act.

Senate

S. 19 Orrin Hatch, GOP – Repeal Health Mandate & therefore repeal
patient
protections.
S. 17 Orrin Hatch, GOP – Repeal Tax on Medical Devices
S. 16 David Vitter, GOP – Repeal Patient Protection Act
S. 196 Chuck Grassley, GOP, Iowa – A bill to to provide
congressional
staff gets to participate in Exchange.
S. 192 Jim DeMint, GOP, South Carolina – A bill to repeal health
care.

I thought it might be interesting to see what Democrats did in their
first
11 days after assuming control of the House in 2006. Well, lookee
there.
All sorts of interesting bills (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas)
in
those first days. Everything from gun show loophole closures (David
Dreier's
baby) to First Amendment protections, to small business assistance
to
alternative energy.