Thursday, February 4, 2010

Paid leave is a human right


Paid leave is a human right

Posted January 25th, 2010 by Janet Walsh
Paid parental leave is a human right, one guaranteed by virtually every country.  But not the United States!
When you gave birth or adopted your kids, did you take leave without pay?  How did this affect breastfeeding, your health, your baby’s health, or your family’s finances?  How did this affect the timing of your return to work?  How else did the lack of paid parental leave affect you and your family?
Human Rights Watch, a nongovernmental human rights group, is hoping to interview parents about their experience with unpaid maternity and paternity leave, and the impact on their families.  The interviews will be used for a report (using pseudonyms, not actual names of interviewees) and, depending on the findings, for making recommendations on US law and policy.
Please contact Human Rights Watch at walshj@hrw.org if you would like to share your story through a short interview.  To learn more about Human Rights Watch, visit www.hrw.org.

Maternity/Paternity Leave


M: Maternity/Paternity Leave

Paid family leave combats poverty, gives children a healthy start, and lowers the wage gap between women and men by providing structural support to balance work and family.

Selena's Story

Selena's baby boy, Connor, was born six weeks early. As Connor was rushed to the Neonatal Intensive Care unit, Selena found herself alone in a hospital bed realizing that she was going to go home well before her baby. "There was no way we could afford for me to take off more than we planned,” recalls Selena. So after Selena had the baby on Thursday, she was released from the hospital Friday, and was back at her desk on Monday morning. “It was the hardest two and a half weeks of my life,” she says recalling the ache of being away from her newborn son. More »

Know the Facts

  • Having a baby is a leading cause of "poverty spells" in the U.S. -- when income dips below what's needed for basic living expenses.
  • In the U.S., 49% of mothers cobble together paid leave following childbirth by using sick days, vacation days, disability leave, and maternity leave.
  • 51% of new mothers lack any paid leave -- so some take unpaid leave, some quit, some even lose their jobs.
  • The U.S is one of only 4 countries that doesn't offer paid leave to new mothers -- the others are Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Lesotho.
  • Paid family leave has been shown to reduce infant mortality by as much as 20% (and the U.S. ranks a low 37th of all countries in infant mortality).

Monday, November 30, 2009

Emotions high, Senate opens partisan health debate

Emotions high, Senate opens partisan health debate



By DAVID ESPO

Latest News

Emotions high, Senate opens partisan health debate

CBO: Health bill would reduce premiums on average

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Riven by partisanship, the Senate plunged into a widely anticipated debate Monday over sweeping health care legislation that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to approve and Republicans have sworn to block.



Debate is expected to last for weeks over the legislation, which includes a first-time requirement for most Americans to carry insurance and a mandate for insurers to cover any paying customer regardless of medical history or condition.



"We must avoid the temptation to drown in distractions and distortions," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in the first moments of the first speech, a jab at Republicans that was reciprocated minutes later.



"Well, I don't know what's more preposterous: saying that this plan 'saves Medicare' or thinking that people will actually believe you," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said of Reid's oft-made statement.



At a cost of nearly $1 trillion, the legislation is designed to extend health care to millions of American who lack it, abolish insurance industry practices such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and cut back on the rise of health care spending overall.



Despite its huge price tag, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 2,074-page bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade. In all, CBO said 31 million uninsured individuals would receive insurance if the bill were enacted, many of them assisted by federal subsidies. As much as 94 percent of the eligible population would wind up covered. The legislation would be paid for through a combination of cuts in projected Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers, a payroll tax on the wealthy and taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers, owners of high-cost insurance and others.



It has taken months to advance the legislation to the floor, Democrats struggling with their own internal divisions as well as Republican opposition.



Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate, precisely the number needed to trump a promised Republican filibuster. While Reid spent most of the day jousting with Republicans, his ability to steer the bill to passage will depend on finding ways to finesse controversial provisions within the measure. None is more important than calls for the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms. Liberals favor the plan; moderate and conservative Democrats oppose it. As drafted the bill establishes a so-called government option, although each state can block it.



Even before Reid rose to speak, the two parties were squabbling over a new Congressional Budget Office study assessing the legislation's impact on the cost of insurance.



Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said it showed that "whether you work for a small business, a large company or you work for yourself, the vast majority of Americans will see lower premiums than they would if we don't pass health reform."



Not so, said a statement from McConnell's office: "Most people will end up paying more or seeing no significant savings."



The 28-page report was less clear-cut than either side said.



It said that by 2016, premium prices for Americans working at large companies, about 134 million people, would be between zero and 3 percent lower on average than would otherwise be the case.



At small companies, estimated to provide coverage for 25 million by 2016, the average premium would be between 1 percent higher to 2 percent lower on average. That did not factor in the federal subsidies that would be available to the firms to spur them to provide coverage. Those receiving the assistance would have premiums as much as 11 percent lower on average.



CBO said for non-group coverage, premiums would rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent on average. But more than half that group is expected to receive federal subsidies that would result in premiums as much as 59 percent less costly on average. Individuals purchasing coverage without any federal assistance would presumably face higher costs, although CBO's letter did not indicate how much more.



The debate over premiums was only one of many expected as the Senate dug into a complicated bill that seemingly delved into every corner of the health care system.



But both parties seemed to have political considerations in mind as the day wore on.



The first proposed change to the legislation, offered by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would increase insurance benefits for women, mandating that policies include an annual health screening.



As the health care debate has unfolded in Congress, both parties have spent months vying for the support of women.



Not to be outdone, Republicans issued a statement saying that as written, an advisory committee that recently drew criticism for proposing a delay in routine mammogram screening would have even greater authority.



The two sides also sparred over issues important to seniors, whom polls show are particularly concerned about the impact of health care.



Reid sought Republicans' agreement that Social Security would be protected as debate moved ahead.



Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., objected, saying Reid had refused to extend the same protection to Medicare.



Not long afterward, Sen. John McCain proposed stripping out a total of $440 billion in Medicare cuts to home health providers, hospitals, hospices and other organizations, saying those reductions could not be sustained politically.



In a slashing attack on the White House and Democrats, the Arizona Republican accused the bill's supporters of resorting to "Bernie Madoff accounting, Enron accounting" to mask the true impact on the deficit.



The House approved its version of the health care bill last month. It would have to be reconciled with any Senate-passed measure before legislation could go to the White House for Obama's signature.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Public Option update


CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN
Americans still divided on overall packages

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public.
Americans remain sharply divided about the overall packages moving closer to votes in Congress and President Obama's leadership on the issue, reflecting the partisan battle that has raged for months over the administration's top legislative priority. But sizable majorities back two key and controversial provisions: both the so-called public option and a new mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance.
Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage.
But in a sign of the fragile coalition politics that influence the negotiations in Congress, Obama's approval ratings on health-care reform are slipping among his fellow Democrats even as they are solidifying among independents and seniors. Among Democrats, strong approval of his handling of the issue has dropped 15 percentage points since mid-September.
These numbers underscore the challenges ahead for the president and Democratic leaders in Congress as they attempt to maintain support among liberals and moderates in their own party while continuing to win over at least a few Republican lawmakers.
Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town hall meetings over health-care reform. Seven in 10 Democrats back the plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents divide 52 percent against, 42 percent in favor of the legislation.
There are also deep splits in the new poll over whether the proposed changes would go too far or not far enough in expanding coverage and controlling costs. Twice as many see the plan as leaning toward too much government involvement, but since last month there has been a nine-point increase in the number who say government should be more involved.
On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)
If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.
Fifty-six percent of those polled back a provision mandating that all Americans buy insurance, either through their employers or on their own or through Medicare or Medicaid. That number rises to 71 percent if the government were to provide subsidies for many lower-income Americans to help them buy coverage. With those qualifiers, a majority of Republicans say they support the mandate.
The public option
Faced with a basic choice that soon may confront the administration and Democratic congressional leaders, a slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, would prefer a plan that included some form of government insurance for people who cannot get affordable private coverage even if it had no GOP support in Congress. Thirty-seven percent would rather have a bipartisan plan that did not feature a public option. Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of this question, while independents prefer a bill that includes a public option but does not have Republican support, by 52 percent to 35 percent.
But if there is clear majority support for the public option and the mandate, there is broad opposition to one of the major mechanisms proposed to pay for the bill. The Senate Finance Committee suggested taxing the most costly private insurance plans to help offset the costs of extending coverage to millions more people. Sixty-one percent oppose the idea, while 35 percent favor it.
Nearly seven in 10 say they think that any health-care measure would increase the federal budget deficit, a possible concern for Obama. But nearly half of those who see the legislation as growing the deficit also say the increase would be "worth it."
Concerns about the implications for Medicare continue to cloud the debate. More than twice as many Americans (43 percent to 18 percent) say they think the legislation would weaken Medicare. Despite the dip in opposition to a health-care overhaul among seniors, most, 51 percent, still think reform would hurt the popular program.
Overall, 57 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president and 40 percent disapprove. While those numbers have moved only marginally over the past few months, here, too, are fresh signs of restiveness among the party faithful: "Strong approval" among liberal Democrats is down 16 percentage points over the past month.
On the economy, 50 percent approve of Obama's efforts, while 48 percent disapprove.
The president receives better marks from all Americans for his handling of international affairs and his performance as commander in chief (57 percent approval on each). Slim majorities also approve of how he is dealing the situation with Iran and his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. A majority disapprove of his work on the federal budget deficit.
Partisan divide
Despite those mixed reviews on domestic priorities, Obama continues to hold a big political advantage over Republicans.
Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.
Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.
The wide gap in partisan leanings and the lack of confidence in the GOP carries into early assessments of the November 2010 midterm elections: Fifty-one percent say they would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the elections were held now, while 39 percent would vote for the Republican. Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.
The poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone from Oct. 15 to 19 among a random sample of 1,004 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full poll is plus or minus three percentage points.

Legislation - Health Care: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Legislation - Health Care: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Monday, September 21, 2009

Mad as Hell Doctors rally in Nashville in front of HCA headquarters

I wondered if I would feel guilty about protesting in front of HCA since I worked for HCA for about 9 years, but I didnt.  It was actually pretty cathartic.  I shouted SINGLE PAYER NOW and sang songs about the evils of our insurance industry and had a great time with people of like mind about health care in America.  On that note, most of them were physicians, nurses and union leaders.  I found that very telling as it concerns the entire debate.  The providers are disgusted with the inhumanity.  I loved the quote they said at the rally "Of all the forms of inequality injustice in healthcare is the most shocking & inhumane" by. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. It amazes me that more people are disgusted too.

I blame the media for not getting the truth out there.  I blame the insurance industry for spending 20 billion this year on fighting health care reform.  I blame big pharma for spending 20 billion on fighting healthcare reform.  I don't blame the people as I feel unless you have a large view of healthcare the whole issue is very difficult to understand.  It is probably difficult to see the relationship between health outcomes and fee for service.  I really didn't get it until recently when I saw procedures abused and ordered without clinical indication.  After the 100th CT of the brain on a person who had no clinical indication I realized, hey, wow, we are doing this to make money!!!  It was a light turning on moment and I felt very disgusted.  We were irradiating peoples brains for profit and increasing their risk for brain cancer!!  Unbelieveable!

Anyway, I really don't have much more time to blog tonight but I just wanted to say this "do you really believe that Corporate CEOs have your best interest in mind when they decide how much your life and health is worth?"

Mad-As-Hell Doctors On Cross-Country Tour with a Mission Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/imad-as-hell-doctorsi-on_b_286591.html


They have been ostracized and marginalized in the great U.S. health care reform debate, but now a group of doctors, many from Physicians for a National Health Care Program, are hitting the road and taking action, and they visited Denver on September 14. They will arrive in Washington on September 30 in time for a rally in Lafayette Park, next to the White House.
2009-09-15-capitoldocs.jpg
Doctors and others demonstrate for single-payer

Retired physician Dr. Joe Eusterman calls single-payer health care the "fiscally conservative, socially responsible" health care reform. Private insurance is simply not sustainable. When he encountered Wendell Potter, former CIGNA executive, at a recent rally, Potter told him there should be no place for insurances profiteering from primary health care. Dr. Eusterman notes that the Swiss and most other industrial nations don't tolerate for-profit primary care. He cites a recent study by the California Nurses Association demonstrating that a family of four with an annual income of $56,000 would pay just $2,700 per year for health care under HR 676, the proposed House bill for single-payer coverage.
A number of Colorado doctors lent their support to the traveling physicians. Dr. Cory Carroll, a solo family practice provider from Ft. Collins, describes a U.S. "nonsystem" of health care that is "destroying primary care." One of his patients has insurance with a $3,000 deductible, and thus refuses to have a diagnostic colonoscopy because he cannot afford it. Because government insurance payments are more timely and simple to file for, Dr. Carroll notes that 60% of his practice consists of Medicare recipients. Due to laborious, costly administrative paperwork required by private insurances, he predicts he is six months from dropping all commercial insurances.
The U.S. has good practitioners, but we don't get early treatment. "You can't get preventive care in an emergency room," said family practitioner, Dr. Eugene Uphoff. Through his three months in Yugoslavia post-medical school, he viewed a place where medical school is free, and no med student can choose a specialty until they have dedicated two years providing primary care in high-needs, rural areas. He notes it is not uncommon for new doctors in the U.S. to carry medical school debts of $250,000 to $300,000, one reason so many shun primary care for a higher-paying specialty.
A Canadian physician he recently met asked Dr. Bob Seward point blank, "Why don't you Americans take care of your own people?" Dr. Seward spent 15 years at a VA Hospital, where the care was good, and he was never told he could not order a test for a patient. The switchover to electronic records was tough, he said, but reaped many rewards. Though 100,000 vets were displaced by Hurricane Katrina, all of their medical records remained accessible.
Dr. Margaret Flowers flew to Denver to join the doctors' tour through a couple of cities. Dr. Flowers is one of the "Baucus 13" -- doctors, nurses, lawyers and other single-payer advocates who were arrested and charged with "disruption of Congress" after standing up before Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee to ask that a single-payer advocate be permitted to testify. The May hearings were intended ostensibly to listen to a representative cross-section of health care stakeholders, but inexplicably marginalized the single-payer model. On June 11 Flowers was finally granted the right to testify before the Senate HELP Committee.
Dr. Flowers left her pediatric practice in Maryland a couple of years ago to work for single-payer health care reform full time. Lack of political will is the only obstacle she sees to meaningful reform. She reminds everyone that the Weinder Amendment presents an opportunity for our representatives to vote for HR 676, a Medicare-for-All reform model after the House reconvenes in September.
The doctors plan visits to congressional leaders on October 1, and intend to request a meeting with President Obama in Washington. Their message to legislators, stated on their website, is to reboot the conversation, and use HR 676 as a starting point for a new health care conversation. Assemble a team of the "best minds among health care professionals" to present a single-payer proposal to Congress. With concerns about deficit spending, single-payer remains the only model that saves enough money to provide comprehensive health care access to all -- a point that has been glossed over in Washington.
The doctors ask that white ribbons be worn and tied wherever visible. If you are in Washington tie a ribbon to the White House fence and take a picture and share it with them, suggests Margaret Flowers. The ribbons demonstrate the dire need for action in memory of the 60 people a day who die without health care access in the U.S.
For more news and commentary from Colorado, check out HuffPost's just-launched Denver section.