Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘house’

Deeming Whether To Pass

Bloggers are focused on an obscure House of Representatives rule known as “Deem and Pass“ (also called the “Slaughter Solution” after Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter or the “self-executing” rule) that would theoretically allow Democrats to pass the Senate bill without voting on it.

TPMDC’s Christina Bellatoni reports that House Democrats are being instructed to remain mum: “Rank-and-file members are being told not to engage with Republicans on debates about process. Democratic leadership sent members a memo obtained by TPMDC warning that procedural tactics are “inside baseball” and defending against them won’t help them politically”.

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein critiques comments from House Majority Whip James Clyburn on the “Slaughter Solution”: “For one thing, yes, a health care bill passed the Senate with 60 votes, and a health care bill passed the House with 220 votes. But they’re two different bills, and the same exact bill has to pass both chambers to be signed into law.”

Reason’s Peter Suderman isn’t impressed with the strategy’s politics: “In other words, legislators will still have to cast a vote for the passage of the original Senate bill. And what’s more, they’ll do so using a complicated procedure that makes it look as if they are trying to hide their votes. Politically, this seems like a far worse option, especially considering how much negative attention has already been paid to the deal-making, gimmicks, and procedural complexities of the health reform process.”

Cato’s Michael Cannon asks if the House passes the bill using tactic, “are we under any obligation to obey it? The answer may be no.” Cannon points to a WSJ op-ed by a former federal circuit court judge, who argued “passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein responds to criticism of the rule and calls for a change:

Congress needs to decide how the place is going to be run and then rewrite the rulebook so that it actually works that way. … Unprecedented use of the filibuster will trigger unprecedented reliance on reconciliation. Unprecedented gridlock in the Senate will lead to unprecedented efforts by the House to protect itself from Senate failure. But you can’t pick and choose. Either unprecedented use of the rules is a problem or it isn’t. But if it is, then you have to be upset about the filibuster. And if it isn’t, then you can’t be upset when the rules are manipulated by both sides. Congress can work by the letter of its laws or by the spirit of their intent, but it’s got to be one or the other.

But The Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Slaughter signed amicus briefs to the District Court lawsuit challenging the use of the “deem and pass” rule in 2005. Tapscott concludes times are different than 2005, saying, “to place the American private health care system under government control — effectively socializing one-sixth of the U.S. economy — that has never been done before.”

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Tags: deem and pass, house, pelosi, slaughter, votes
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Kicking Off A Busy Week

The week opened with bloggers critiquing the Democrats’ strategy to pass a health overhaul bill sometime this week.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small has a day-by-day time line to help track events.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn wonders, “What’s been taking so long?” According to Cohn, “The broad outlines of the eventual House-Senate compromise on health care reform have been clear for a while now. But nailing down the details isn’t easy, as the excerpt above suggests. And it’s particularly difficult because lawmakers don’t yet know what the Senate parliamentarian will rule outside the bounds of reconciliation. Throw in the need to get acceptable Congressional Budget Office estimates, and you can see why this process has taken as long as it has.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein writes, “Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation — but don’t let that fool you, it’s not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you’ve been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the ’shell’ bill — the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care.”

Although the action today was in the House Budget Committee, the National Journal Online’s Robert Costa says the House Rules Committee “is where the real reconciliation package will be hammered out, probably later this week.” Costa interviews the top Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier of California, who said, ” ‘Our committee’s meeting won’t be the fait accompli…The real fait accompli will be when the bill is scheduled for a vote on the floor. I’m convinced that [Democrats] will pretty much get it done if they can get it there. Having been in that position before, I’m sure they will roll the dice if they’re three or four votes short.’”

TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reports from a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said, “‘Time is important for us here, because this city is the city of the perishable and every special interest group out there who doesn’t want this to pass–including the entire Republican party–benefits from any delay,’ Pelosi told those in attendance. ‘Delay is our enemy.’”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein explains, “Pelosi doesn’t have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi’s favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after. This is all about plausible deniability for House members who don’t want to vote for the Senate bill, although I doubt many voters will find the denials plausible.”

And Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey reacts to news that the White House may change its stance on special deals for individual states in the reform bills, saying, “In case you want to play The Price is Right with Bob Baracker, here are the new rules. Single state deals are verboten, so no Cornhusker Kickback for you. If two states get together to demand special deals, well, come on down!”

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Tags: budget, house, pelosi, reconciliation, rules, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Talking Strategy

Bloggers are trying to keep up with rapidly shifting strategy options under consideration to pass a final health overhaul bill.

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti thinks Democrats are “making one of the biggest political gambles in American history. They’re betting that overhauling one-sixth of the American economy against the public’s wishes and by a partisan vote is going to pay off in the end. They have doubled down, and are hoping the house busts.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn details a Democratic memo that lays out a timeline for passing reform: “The gist is pretty simple: The House takes up the Senate bill and passed it by March 19. A few days later it passes a reconciliation bill and sends it over to the Senate, which starts the voting process on March 26.” Cohn warns that schedules “remain in flux” and the GOP has the option to offer endless amendments during a reconciliation process, even though the debate time is limited.

But The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that there might be a way around endless votes: “Two experts in the arcane rules of the Senate said on Monday that, as president of the Senate, Biden has the capacity not just to overrule any ruling that the parliamentarian may make but also to cut off efforts by Republicans to offer unlimited amendments.”

Keith Hennessey lists seven challenges Democratic leaders would face by following a “two bill strategy,” including the sequence of votes (House or Senate first?) and a “voterama” where senators will have to vote up or down on proposed amendments.

Heritage’s Conn Carrol thinks a House passage is still up in the air, saying Speaker Pelsoi doesn’t currently have enough votes for reform, and “if you were watching the television yesterday it quickly became apparent that the leadership in the House has no idea how they are going to get them.”

Critical Condition’s Jim Capretta argues that Democrats can pass a smaller bill, despite talking points that stress the opposite. Capretta continues, “Still, the very existence of the Obama team’s fallback plan should embolden those Democrats who are now resisting their leadership’s pressure to take up the full Obamacare package in coming weeks and pass it.

And The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a thorough look at claims from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., that the health care porposals won’t control rising health costs or reduce the deficit. Klein says, “before we dive so deep into the weeds that we’re seeing earthworms, here’s the basic conclusion: Ryan’s critique scores some clean points and also deploys a couple of dirty tricks, but it doesn’t damage the bill’s claim to reduce deficits and doesn’t even engage whether the bill controls costs.”

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Tags: house, pelosi, plan b, reconciliation, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Health Summit Still Reverberating

Bloggers continue to analyze the health care summit, while others look at what’s next.

The Heritage Foundation compiled a “four-minute guide” video to last week’s summit.

The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward reports that “President Obama has taken a new line of attack against Republicans to neutralize their argument that his reforms would pose a government takeover of the health-care sector, arguing subtly that the GOP is committed more to the insurance industry than they are limited government.”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit links to videos of Obama’s weekly address and the Republican response from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. They both spoke about the health care bills.

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar looks at comments from a North Carolina college student about why she opposes the health reform bills and says, “These are the ‘philosophical differences’ that Obama acknowledged at the summit. I think it is important to recognize that not only Republican politicians but a fair number of our fellow citizens share this point of view.”

Time’s Karen Tumulty surveys a New York Times article looking at the vote count in the House and declares, “I think a major health care bill is more likely than not to pass. After what [Speaker Nancy Pelosi] managed to get her caucus to do last year, I would never, ever bet against the Speaker on a vote. And she is looking pretty determined on this one.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a look at budget reconciliation, including use in the past on health issues: “The Children’s Health Insurance Program was created in reconciliation, and so too was COBRA. The law stating that hospitals who take Medicare and Medicaid money have to see all patients who walk into their emergency room was also passed in reconciliation…”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky looks at a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to exclude Medicare from the budget reconciliation process and concludes, “But on the whole, this is really a cynical move (and highly unlikely, since any rule change would require 67 votes). Republicans have consistantly supported far larger cuts to the Medicare program than what Democrats are currently proposing and are always complaining that the Medicare “entitlement” program will bankrupt the nation.”

And The Incidental Economist’s Austin Frakt posts an analysis and graph visualing over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Tags: house, medicare advantage, obama, pelosi, reconciliation, senate, summit
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

The Future of Reform

Bloggers are trying to figure out what’s next for health overhaul legislation, with little success.

Time’s Kate Pickert thinks there could be “momentum building” to resuscitate the Democrats’ efforts. She looks at President Barack Obama’s comments from a speech in Tampa, Fla. yesterday and says, “Tipping point? No. But is there definite life there? Yes.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says “Rahm Emanuel makes me very pessimistic about health-care reform.” He looks a New York Times article suggesting the administration may wait to do more on a health overhaul bill until after addressing jobs and financial reform. He continues: “Is Emanuel really suggesting that he expects Congress to return to health-care reform in the summer before the election? Forgetting whether there’s political will at that point, there’s no personnel: Everyone is home campaigning.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has a skeptical take on an interview with Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who said that Senate Democrats are ready to make a deal using reconciliation: “What’s odd about this is that both Landrieu and Mark Pryor made it sound this morning like the bill was in coma and on the verge of death. Any reason to believe them instead of Kyl? Well, Kyl’s claim could simply be a feint aimed at goosing conservatives into launching a hopefully final salvo against the bill and finishing it off.”

The New Republic’s Jeff Davis gives a detailed explanation of exactly how the Senate would use a budget reconcilation process to keep amending the bill.

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky notes that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., may be looking ahead and wants to propose using the jobs bill to keep the increased federal contribution to the states for Medicaid from the stimulus bill. However, Volksy says, “it’s not clear that Rockefeller’s proposal will garner significant Congressional support.”

However, Heritage’s Margeurite Higgins isn’t sure the bill is dead, saying Obama’s health care “agenda is stalled, but still alive. But there is a huge change.” Higgins says public support for the Congressional health care bills contiunes to dwindle, looking at a new Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll from earlier this month.

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Tags: bills, house, obama, public opinion, reform, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Mass Revolt?

Health reform is in serious jeopardy. Its advocates appear shell-shocked. Opponents are far from sleeping easy. And bloggers are bickering about the meaning of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. And there’s no agreement on what comes next, either.

Bob Laszewski, who doesn’t support the health bills in Congress, proclaims, “Stick a fork in it! The Democratic effort to pass a health bill is dead.” He blames public opinion, and continues, “For goodness sakes—they rejected it in Massachusetts! On the political shocker scale this rivals “Dewey Defeats Truman” and the ‘94 elections.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein suggests there is a way forward through a reconciliation bill, though he says it would be much more “limited” than the current proposed bills: “If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. … So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy. And that’s it.”

Heritage’s Brian Darling says the election “sent a thunderbolt from Boston to Washington that may push ObamaCare into the critical list.” According to Darling, because the seat has been held by Democrats for more than 50 years, the election is “evidence” that “the American people are angry and dissatisfied with Washington’s direction on health care reform.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn tries to inject some sense into panicked Democrats, arguing that a vote can take place quickly and the House, by agreeing to vote on the Senate-passed version of health care “could put health care reform on the president’s desk for signing. One lousy vote. One lousy, stinking roll call vote. That’s the only hurdle in the way of health care reform. Are Democrats really willing to give up now?”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey looks at tepid support from Democratic caucus members for continuing to push their reform bill but cautions, “For the moment, it seems as though ObamaCare has been stopped. But that doesn’t mean that it’s dead.”

Critical Condition’s Benjamin Zycher is cautious as well, and says Democrats may try to pass a smaller version of reform that focuses on “insurance reform.” Zycher argues that Republicans should still oppose this kind of legislation because, “this path would lead inexorably to the nirvana of health-care socialism that the Left has been dreaming about for decades.”

And labor groups have announced one tactic they’ll support, TPM’s Brian Beutler reports: “The most influential labor organizations in the country have arrived at a common solution to the Democrats’ health care conundrum: Move forward, pass the Senate bill through the House, but only if a separate, filibuster proof bill codifying a crucial changes is passed post haste.”

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Tags: house, Kennedy, massachussetts, reconcilation, reform, scott brown, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Deals Taking Shape

The deals keep coming following a marathon meeting Wednesday. Reports have also emerged of an apparent deal is taking shape, and it looks like collectively-bargained benefits will be exempt for a period of time from the new excise tax on high-value insurance plans.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein looks at the makeup of yesterday’s informal conference meeting between the White House and congressional leaders.

NPR’s Julie Rovner says the deal “marks the beginning of the endgame” in House and Senate negotiations. She cautions that there’s still several steps to go: “So whether or not President Obama gets to sign a bill by end of this month or the first week of February, however, is still anyone’s guess.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey thinks an exemption for union-negotiated health plans runs afoul of the Constitution: “A sliding scale? That would mean that the tax would not be applied universally to all citizens, which could run afoul of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Specifically, that states that Congress has the power to levy taxes, ‘but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[.]‘”

Heritage’s Conn Carroll isn’t happy with what was reportedly negotiated: “Now Big Labor will get all of the big government health care spending they always wanted, but they will not have to pay for it. And Obamacare’s Big Labor handouts don’t end there. The legislation also sets aside $5 billion to subsidize the costs of employer health benefits for early retirees.”

Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics analyzes a count of undecided House Dems and says, “Still, I think it is far [too] hasty to say that this reform is inevitable. Minimally, the margin in the House is going to be razor-thin either way. We know that for sure, which in turn suggests that we shouldn’t take final passage for granted.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky looks at statements from legislators pledging to overturn parts of the health overhaul bills so as not to implement them, and says, “For reform to work, lawmakers who have pledged to “roll back provisions” of reform should not be responsible for implementing it. House and Senate negotiators must adopt the House bill’s more centralized approach or develop a compromise that establishes a national exchange but allows states a certain level of flexibility.”

And the American Spectator’s Philip Klein, who says he is “absolutely in favor of any efforts to repeal” cautions that such efforts are unlikely to be successful: “At the same time, however, I think that if the health care bill gets signed into law, it’s highly unlikely Republicans will be able to repeal it, or even major portions of it. Most Democrats won’t be eager to overturn the greatest domestic achievement of their party since 1965 — and you’d need to pass the repeal through the House, through the Senate with 60 votes, and then have the President sign it. … … So, while I think it’s certainly worth aiming for, opponents of Obamacare must also be thinking about ways to reform the system if the repeal effort isn’t successful.”

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Tags: cadillac tax, conference, house, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Election Year Meets Health Care Debate

Pundits and bloggers are closely watching how the health overhaul debate could affect local races across the nation.

The brand new political Web site founded by Tucker Carlson, The Daily Caller, is covering health care politics, reporting today that “President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said Monday [on MSNBC's Daily Rundown] that the White House has inadequately communicated with Americans about health-care reform.”

DC’s Jon Ward writes: “Pressed on why poll numbers show such low support for the administration’s reforms, Emanuel said that “part of it is the message not getting through, part of it is people not watching the legislative process very good.”

The Washington Independent’s David Weigel writes that Rep. Larry Kissell, D-N.C., is faring well so far in a reelection campaign in his swing district, in part because of his ”no” vote: “Kissell’s advantage, according to Public Policy Polling, is his vote against the health care bill.”

And Huffington Post’s Glen Johnson and Liz Sidoti report: “The race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has turned into a proxy battle over the fate of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.”

Elsewhere, others continue to look at the shape of a final bill.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein says his sources are tracking with E.J. Dionne’s column Monday, where Dionne reported that the final health bill are likely to dump the public option entirely, but opt for a national health insurance exchange. Klein adds, “The precise mix of insurance regulations might shift as well, as the House has a stronger set than the Senate does. But broadly speaking, people aren’t expecting much in the way of surprises.”

Heritage’s Rob Bluey reports on comments from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka opposing the ‘Cadillac tax’ and notes there are other issues that could strain relationships with labor leaders:

The tax issue is just one factor that could sour Big Labor’s relationship with the White House. Trumka clearly favors the more liberal House bill, which includes a public plan and employer mandate. But for House and Senate leaders to strike a deal, lawmakers would almost certainly need to make concessions that agitate leaders like Trumka. Other major issues up for negotiation include penalties of an individual mandate, expansion of the Medicaid entitlement and taxpayer funding for abortion.

Merrill Goozner doesn’t like the ‘Cadillac tax’ either. He looks at the number of Americans likely to be affected by the tax and concludes, “If the Democrats adopt this plan, a political disaster of epic proportions awaits them.”

And on a different note, Insure Blog’s Hank Stern wonders if the Amish will receive a religious exemption to the individual mandate, noting that they purchase vehicle insurance.

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Tags: cadillac tax, conference, election 2010, house, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Wonk It Out

Congress hasn’t returned to the Capitol yet, but bloggers have been busy detecting the fault lines in the House and Senate health overhaul bills.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey looks at a news report that House Democrats gave a chilly reception to the the idea of including the Senate’s ‘Cadillac tax’ in the final health overhaul bill, and predicts trouble if different source of funding comes into play: “It’s another opportunity to kill the bill, and given the political damage the last round did to red-state Democrats in the upper chamber, Harry Reid may not be able to bargain his way around those cloture votes again. The unions may wind up killing the bill, thanks to their self-serving opposition to paying taxes for a program for which they have been lobbying for months.”

Over at the New Republic’s The Treatment, Peter Harbage argues for more funding in the Senate bill: he says states need a $1 billion fund to keep an eye on potential price gouging. The provision currently exists only in the House version.

The New York Times’ Catherine Rampell looks at new employment numbers released today, noting, “Even as overall payrolls continue to plummet, the health care industry keeps truckin’ along.”

Politico’s Ben Smith interviews MIT economist Jonathan Gruber over controversy that Gruber had a contract with HHS during the time he made public comments supporting health overhaul plans.

And since it’s Friday, how about some multimedia on your favorite health wonks?

The talk of the beltway health policy world this week was revelations surrounding Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag’s personal life. CNN’s Jeanne Moos investigates whether women of the world think nerdy is sexy:

Cato’s Michael Cannon has a podcast that focuses on if there are price controls under proposed health reform legislation.

And The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and White House Communications officer Linda Douglass appeared on The Colbert Report to talk health care:

The Colbert Report

Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Drag Me to Health – Ezra Klein & Linda Douglass

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Economy

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Tags: cadillac tax, conference, house, Orszag, senate, transparency
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

New Mammogram Recs Spark Passions Across Spectrum

Although the Senate is poised to hold a key vote to begin debate on its health overhaul bill tomorrow night, bloggers are focused instead on debating the new recommendations from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force for mammograms and breast self exams. Commentators are hinting that the new recs could lead to rationing, while others think the public has been poorly informed all along.

Economist Austin Frakt thinks the new recommendations could cause some unintended complications for health practitioners: “My experience suggests that two-year intervals are tricky, and I speculate that behavioral factors could lead to actual intervals that are much longer. … Is it possible that annual screenings are preferable just for behavioral reasons? I think it is at least plausible that the answers are “yes” to both of these. This would seem to be a good topic for behavioral economists. (I know a few…stay tuned.)”

Health journalism booster and critic Gary Schwitzer says people should have been more familiar with the USPSTF, adding “I think journalists have failed badly in explaining this work. … Since they’re an independent group of experts from across the country, they have no PR machine like the American Cancer Society does. So it’s easy for the ACS to rule the airwaves and the columns when they disagree with something the USPSTF states.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein writes, “Suffice to say, you could hardly imagine a better example of why cost control is so hard: This was a recommendation from an institution with no actual power that was based entirely on accepted medical evidence. Cost was not a component in the analysis. This is simply the data on whether mammograms make sense for most women between 40 and 50, not whether they’re “worth” doing as opposed to other expenditures.”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit isn’t convinced by arguments that the USPSTF is small and its recommendations are optional and not connected at all to cost: “Beyond that, though, even if the panel’s role is small now, why would anyone trust the feds not to expand it over time as rationing became more urgent to limit costs? Everyone understands that the [health overhaul] program will end up costing vastly more than the early projections indicate; there’s no reason to think that inertia towards growth wouldn’t also apply to agency responsibilities.”

Critical Condition’s Hans Kuttner looks at what the Secretary of Health and Human Services would do with recommendations like this under the House health bill:

The HHS secretary can decide to cover something that is not recommended (e.g., routine mammography for women ages 40 to 49), but she could not decide to take away coverage of something the task force recommended. (Senator Reid’s plan is similar.)

The much more important point is that the HHS secretary would have plenary power to decide what helath insurance must cover. Not just preventive services, but all services. That is the essence of political health insurance and what distinguishes the system of private health insurance we have now from a system of political health insurance.

Heritage’s Edmund Haislmaier agrees, saying that giving more force to these types of recommendations could reshape the system so that the “eventual result will be that the only medical care paid for through private health insurance will be the specific, items and services required by federal regulations promulgated by HHS. At that point, Congress will have effectively nationalized the entire American health insurance system under the supervision of the Secretary of HHS — regardless of whether or not it also sets up yet another government health insurance program in the process.”

Time’s Karen Tumulty reacts to the panels’ recommendation that women not do their own breast self exams, acknowledging her own history with breast cancer scares:

So it would seem I’m the perfect example of a person who shouldn’t have had mammograms, or even examined my own breasts. But am I sorry I’ve had the information I’ve had through mammograms and self-exams? Not for a second.

That’s why I think these scientists are pinheads. Pink ribbons are lovely, but women who want information should have it. And I would remind Swampland readers of the important lesson we all learned from Carly Fiorina. Information is power, ladies, and don’t let some scientific panel tell you it isn’t.

And with new recommendations calling for fewer pap smears out today from the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the furor is likely to continue. NPR’s Scott Hensley asks about the timing of the two reports as the Senate readies to take up its health bill:

“It’s just pure coincidence that these guidelines have been released now,” Dr. David Soper, the Chairman of ACOG’s Gynecology Practice Bulletin Committee, told NPR.

They new guideline has been in the works for years and reflects evolving scientific evidence that shows, for instance, the risks of cervical cancer developing in young women is quite low. Indeed, the vast majority of abnormalities found on Pap tests in very young women clear up on their own.

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Tags: health bills, house, mammograms, pap smears, rationing, senate
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics: