Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Woeful Health Care Voting Record of Senate Republicans

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:18 AM
Original message
The Woeful Health Care Voting Record of Senate Republicans
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 08:06 AM by Time for change
The health care crisis in our country has been seriously exacerbated by the Bush administration in conjunction with our Republican Congress in the last several years. There were 46 million uninsured Americans in 2004 (the latest year for which data is available), up 6 million from 2000. Almost twice that many Americans were uninsured at some time between 2003 and 2004. This lack of health insurance is often fatal, as it is estimated that it results in an excess of 18,000 deaths per year, just in the 25-64 year age group alone. In addition, under the Bush administration we experienced the first increase in infant mortality rate in 40 years, rising 3% between 2001 and 2002 (As far as I can tell, the Bush administration stopped reporting infant mortality rate in 2002). Furthermore, lack of health insurance results in approximately two million bankruptcies in the United States annually.

The health care industry in our country is represented by very wealthy and powerful interests, and lawmakers who are friendly to those interests receive lots of money from them. On the other hand, lawmakers who act and vote favorably for the health and welfare of the average American citizen generally lose out on campaign contributions from the health care industry, thereby putting themselves at an electoral disadvantage.

In order to help equalize this situation, the American Public Health Association (APHA) rates Congresspersons on their health care votes in order to provide ordinary citizens with a good idea of how much their elected representatives are concerned about their health. APHA is an Association (which I belonged to for several years) of individuals and organizations that works to improve the public's health and to achieve equity in health status for all. They promote the scientific and professional foundation of public health practice and policy, advocate the conditions for a healthy global society, emphasize prevention and enhance the ability of members to promote and protect environmental and community health.

The purpose of this post is to compare the APHA ratings of Senators (and non-Senators where applicable) who are running in the closest Senate races this fall. Before listing the ratings, I’ll first briefly describe the major categories of legislation on which APHA has rated them.


Provision of benefits

Though passage of a national health insurance plan is not a possibility with our current Republican Congress and President, there have been a number of measures voted on that would have at least provided some relief for the most vulnerable American health consumers. These included a vote to expand enrollment for the Medicare prescription drug program, votes to provide prescription drug benefits for Medicare, and a vote to limit the self-employment tax deduction. The first three of these (all rejected) would have provided much needed benefits to persons who can ill afford the skyrocketing costs of today’s drugs, and the last noted bill (passed) reduced health insurance related tax breaks for those who most need it (Hey, I thought Republicans were against taxes?).


Breaks to the pharmaceutical industry that result in increased drug prices

Two measures that would have made prescription drugs more affordable to average Americans but would have cut into the profits of the pharmaceutical industry were an amendment that would have allowed the federal government to negotiate with drug companies in determining the prices of drugs used in the Medicare program, and a bill that would have facilitated the ability of Americans to obtain drugs from Canada. Both were rejected. The excuse that the pharmaceutical industry uses to disallow the obtaining of drugs from Canada is that drugs from other countries are not safe. I can’t imagine what excuse they use to argue that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate drug prices with them.


Tobacco restrictions

Approximately 400,000 annual deaths in the United States are attributed to cigarette smoking – far more deaths than all other drugs (the use or sale of which leads to hundreds of thousands of imprisonments in the United States) combined. Yet, unlike numerous other far less addicting and dangerous drugs, cigarette smoking is legal. A bill that would have led to some control by the Food and Drug Administration over the sale of cigarettes in the United States was successfully filibustered by Republican Senators.


So-called “tort reform”

With widespread corporate deregulation by our Republican Congresses and pResident over the last several years, one of the few remaining means of protection for average Americans against corporate malfeasance is our courts. Yet even that protection is too much for today’s Republican Party, and health care is no exception. The Democrats managed to filibuster a bill that would have limited medical liability lawsuits to $250,000, and they were able to pass with some Republican help a bill that allowed patients to sue their HMOs.


The APHA ratings of Senators who are facing apparently close races this fall

Current Republican held seats

OH: DeWine (R) – 0%; Brown (D) – 100%
PA: Santorum (R) – 0%
MT: Burns (R) – 0%
MO: Talent (R) – 0%
AZ: Kyle (R) – 0%
VA: Allen (R) – 0%
RI: Chafee (R) – 75%
TN: Ford (D) – 86%

Current Democrat held seats

NJ: Menendez (D) – 89%
FL: B Nelson (D) – 100%; Harris (R) – 0%
MN: M Kennedy (R) – 0%


Conclusion

Today’s Republican Party, with few exceptions, votes for the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, against the interests of the vast majority of American citizens, but they maintain their political viability with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, donated by the wealthy interests that they spend their careers protecting.

The issue of health care is no exception to this rule. If the Republicans lose six of the eight seats listed above (not unlikely, the way things are shaping up), and the Democrats hang on to their seats, the Democrats will take control of the Senate. If voters vote based on how well their candidates represent their health care interests (and the same can be said about any number of other issues as well) they will win the Senate this fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is some good stuff.
Could you sum it up for a commercial spot, because this should be another issue like the environment to drive home to the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thank you - I'm not sure what you mean about
summing it up for a commercial spot. Could you explain - thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. very nice. thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Thank you - When you think about it, it's amazing that these Republicans
can win elections with voting records like this. That says volumes about the role of money in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. And people think Repukes just want to kill Arabs!
Hey, they're doing a mighty fine job of killing people here, by withholding medical care and medications from the sick!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Not at all
They don't care who they have to trampel over or kill in order to get what they want.

Just think of Katrina, and the fact that the minimum wage is now so low that working for minimum wage put yourself way below the poverty level.

Not to mention 9-11 :tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. It would be interesting to know how much that 46 million number
has increased since 2004. That's the year we had to give up our health insurance because we couldn't afford it and the cost has only gone higher. I'm afraid, unless we get a significant Democratic majority in Congress as well as a Democratic president, we're up the proverbial creek. Republicans want to do away with all taxes, apparently believing the government can run on hot air and a charge card, and they'll never move toward universal coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Most of today's Republicans don't give a shit about anything but their
own power and money. :grr:

Damn right we need a Demcoratic Congress and President
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkyisBlue Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Taxes
Republicans only want to do away with taxes for the wealthy and for corporations; they want to keep fees and taxes on the poor and middle class (how else would they be able to give corporations lucrative government contracts for providing shoddy goods and services)? It's okay if your corporation is based off-shore so that it doesn't pay any taxes. The IRS audits target those at the bottom of the economic ladder, not the wealthy at the top.

As far as I can tell, gas prices that have tripled in price and rising energy costs are just like a regressive tax, as it hits those who have the least amount of money the hardest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Right - people with moderate or low incomes hardly benefit at all
from the Bush tax cuts.

And because of them state and local governments have to cut numerous services, including Medicaid, so that they end up being hurt by the "tax cuts" much more than they're helped by them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. America spends more per capita but has worse health than any !st world
Edited on Fri Aug-04-06 04:35 PM by McCamy Taylor
nation.

Make this the lead line in a commercial. Mention a couple of the most shocking indicators such as our sky high infant mortality, high prevalence of chronic, preventable diseases, say these are due to our lack of commitment to disease prevention programs and the high rate of uninsured Americans (INCLUDING WORKING CLASS AMERICANS)

Then mention that the Republican Congress likes things this way, because it makes money for insurance companies and drug companies.


Run a series of these ads.


Americans care a lot about health care. These ads appeal to Americans patriotism (they hate to be last among world leaders). You can vary the message. Some can be about infant mortality, some can be about chronic disease, some about the uninsured. All will show that Republicans favor policies that keep Americans sick so that they buy drugs and pay over priced insurance premiums for coverage that only some people can afford (typically not those who are truly sick or needy, they are on Medicare and Medicaid)

These ads would get a lot of attention, esp if the Dems make some promises. Bonus points for ads which attack the GOP for not fixing the Medicare Drug Donut which they had two years to fix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I like all those ideas
And Americans DO want a universal health government sponsored health insurance program, by almost a 2-1 margin:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

You'd think that with support like that, we ought to have one by now. But every time we get close, the money from the HMOs and health insurance industry starts pouring in, and it's stopped cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkyisBlue Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Republicans are pro PRE-life, not pro-life.
They only care about stem cells, embryos and fetuses before they are viable, and don't give two hoots about them once they're born.

I love how, when this government doesn't have good news to report, they either lie, distort the results or don't report it at all. The infant mortality rate has increased since Bush took office? Okay, don't say anything about it. Why would anyone need that information anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Yes, but they're also POST-life
Don't forget about the rapture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkyisBlue Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-05-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Oh yeah, can't forget about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-04-06 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. Current polls show the Dems picking up a net of 5 seats in Senate
June 21 Quinnipiac poll of PA Senate race: Casey (D) 52% – Santorum (R) 34%
July 6 Rasmussen poll of MT Senate race: Tester (D) 50% - Burns (R) 43%
July 11 Rasmussen poll of RI Senate race: Laffey (D) 46% - Chafee (R) 41%
July 20 Rasmussen poll of MO Senate race: McCaskill (D) 45% – Talent (R) 42%
July 27 Rasmussen poll of OH Senate race: Brown (D) 44% - DeWine (R) 42%

So if everything stays as it is right now the Democrats would be one seat short of taking back the Senate. Maybe they can pick up one more seat, perhaps Frist’s open seat in Tennessee, where Harold Ford is currently slightly behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC