|
||
Bush's Parting Shot Undermines Health Care
Very little about the Bush administration could surprise me anymore, but I was completely disheartened when -- despite the written opposition from more than 200,000 Americans, 150 members of Congress, a bipartisan coalition of governors and attorneys general, the American Medical Association, and women's health organizations like Planned Parenthood -- the Department of Health and Human Services issued a last minute regulation that will undermine health care access at nearly 600,000 pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals across the country.
This sort of "take the drapes on your way out" approach is the final chapter of an administration that has prized political ideology over health care for their entire eight years -- and the rule issued yesterday, with little more than 30 days left in office, is the ultimate holiday gift to the extreme right.
Under this new rule, doctors and health care workers of all kinds can deny patients vital health care information and services, without the patient even knowing. No patient is exempt from the reach of this rule: sexual assault victims could be denied information about emergency contraception that could prevent unintended pregnancy, moms hoping to time their pregnancies can be denied contraception at their local pharmacy, young adults hoping to be tested for sexually transmitted infections could be denied treatment by health care employees who oppose premarital sex.
In short, this rule is likely to create total chaos in an already stressed health care system, and for low-income women and families, this rule may spell the end of the few available health care options. Essentially, any patient that utilizes health care at a provider that receives any federal funds will be subject to the luck of the draw in terms of what kinds of reproductive health care they are offered. This might seem far-fetched, until you realize that groups like Pharmacists for Life have campaigned nationally to have pharmacies refuse to provide women birth control prescribed by their physician.
If you had any doubt that this rule is about politics, not health care, just watch the high-fives among the far right. "This is a huge victory for religious freedom and the First Amendment," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
The bottom line in health care has always been that patients' health comes first; this regulation turns that basic tenet on its head. In fact, they failed to address the basic questions of patients' rights lodged by hundreds of thousands of Americans during that period.
For months, Planned Parenthood has spoken out against the proposed regulation. When a draft version of the rule was leaked last summer, we were the first out of the gate to point out the damage this regulation could do to women's health care. And, in the days and weeks to come, we will work with the new administration and Congress to overturn this disastrous rule. Our goal has always been to expand -- not limit -- patients' access to full health care information and services. If you want to help, please sign our petition.
And count your blessings that this administration is almost finished.
Cross-posted on RH Reality Check.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Perhaps the problem would be diminished if all people who had moral issues with doing certain parts of their job were required to be identified as such so that patients, customers, etc could readily ascertaom where they could and could not obtain service. Pharmacists could wear a badge that described clearly what prescriptions he or she would not fill for "moral" reasons. LIkewise, check-out lanes could be marked by a list of items that particular cashier would refuse to touch or sell because of "moral" reasons.
Employers should also be allowed to refuse to hire or to fire people who can't fulfill the job obligations due to their moral convictions.
If people want to have these options of not doing certain parts of thier job, then they should be required to let others know and should be proud enough of thier"morals" to proclaim themselves in this way.
We all have parts of our jobs that we find annoying or offensive. My artistic sensibilities are defiled daily by some of the things customers insist upon. My choices ---- do it or get another job.
I work in Information Technology. My work involves making it possible to sift through vast quantities of stored information to help companies make smarter customer service and marketing decisions.
I don't have a problem with this. I would much rather have somebody like myself responsible who is VERY concerned about abuse of personal information than leaving it to somebody else who may take a more cavalier approach. Provided any misuse of data is carefully guarded against the work is actually very much in the interests of the consumer. They are offered only products they might be interested in and the more direct target marketing reduces the overall costs of the products significantly.
Now, suppose I DID have a problem with that aspect of my work? I would be told, very simply: "It's a requirement of the job - do it or get out!"
Why should this same standard not be applied to medical staff? We have a law of the land that supports access to ALL legal components of health care. If individuals have a problem with some of this stuff - fair enough but why should they be allowed to force their own morality on others who disagree with them?
Health care should be standardized according to the laws in force and health care professionals should be required to deliver all legal health care. If their conscience gives them a problem with this? Choose another job please!
Already, our state has only one facility that gives a woman a choice, and they have to fight their way through organized hoards of protesters from churches all across the state with a purpose. The only problem there, is that the concern for the young lady once she has her child wains quite a bit.
If they maybe put some of that enthusiasm into opening low cost day care centers, or teach young mothers how to BE good mothers, now that would be giving a "hand out", not a quick decision on how the rest of your life will be chosen FOR you.
George Bush and his mafia are like a person on life support. The end is inevitable, yet the agony is seemingly never ending. ..... R.I.P GW , and GOOD RIDDANCE !!!
I already have a nightmarish time trying to convince doctors to give me the medication I need to function at a basic level for my rare Genetic Condition. They don't like giving it out because in large doses it would kill a normal person.
Ever try to fight with ER doctors when you are paralyzed and unable to speak while they scream at you to stop faking being paralyzed (even though I have documentation approved by my doctor that was handed to them about my condition)? Let me tell you it is a nightmare.
Anyways, I don't need anything making my life any worse when I get forced to go to the ER again. I would rather be paralyzed on the ground in the middle of a busy street (again) than go to another ER.
My biggest problem with this is the secrecy of all involved. I believe that when services are circumscribed in any way, it should be advertised. Drug stores that will not honor certain prescriptions should state as much in their windows, at their counters, in the phone books and in their ads - so that individuals would be able to look for other sources instead of being insulted when they require services.
Doctors and hospitals also should let everyone know of their requirements, so that those needing services that they individuals and institutions will not provide don't insult and belittle anyone. Or are they afraid that individuals turned away from one service will avoid these censorious persons for all services. They are in the nature of skimmers aren't they?
It's difficult to understand only 200,000 people signed on. It's such an invasion of privacy. The majority of employees at pharmacies aren't certified healthcare professionals. Should I have to bring my doctor in (at whatever he charges/hour) to explain necessity? I don't think so! Some of these issues have time constraints, as do most doctors -- and mine and his/hers may not exactly match up. Ya know?
Considering that the doddering fool actually went ahead and did what he said he'd do, it's going to take a lot of people-pressure to overturn that which he's now made law despite all the objections of the Congress who represent American people. And, silly me, I don't actually understand how in a "democracy" one person can single-handedly make a pronouncement that sustains as national law beyond his official King-Potentate, etc. position (and which does not agree with the majority of our "representatives.") Why wouldn't he just then also have pronounced that all of us who haven't agreed with his policies be put in front of firing squads? I don't get it.
Distribute the letter more widely. Start a Facebook cause, adding in HuffPost commenters' fears about AIDS drugs, Viagra, etc. Send your editorial to all the news outlets. Not just to the major papers. To the smaller papers too. When people figure out what the repercussions of this edict are, the folks who read the sports papers and mags, the NYPost and NYDaily news might get upset too.
Please, I'm begging you all....get the copy of Rolling Stone with Brad Pitt on the cover and read about ALL the last minute things Bush has planned. PLEASE!!!! You think this is bad???? Read the article!!!! The Last F.U. to us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have heard Obama say that in one instance, after researching Bush's new rules, HE will write an executive order to reverse ALL of the Bush's hair brained signing orders and his legislative initiatives. Perhaps with the inauguration of Obama, we can have a functioning democracy instead of the dictatorship we have had with G. W. Bush. Bush has made his legacy so easy to describe, ie Dictator!!!!!
Still want religion in your government? This is what it looks like...
I am so sick and tired of people thinking that their religious or moral beliefs give them the right to decide what health care is appropriate for a total stranger. Everyone should know that this rule does not apply only to women and reproductive health care, and it does not apply only to prescriptions. It applies to all aspects of health care. And it means that ANY employee of any health provider, from the CEO on down to the cashier, from the doctor to the janitor, can raise an objection. What if a Scientologist who opposes psychoactive drugs decides to refuse to fill a prescription for someone with schizophrenia or clinical depression? What if a Christian Scientist who is a receptionist at an outpatient facility objects to an emergency surgery on a child? What if a homophobic Christian janitor objects to treating AIDS patients in ICU? Current regs allow someone to object to a procedure but requires the provider to have an alternate staff member render the needed service. The new rules meant you have no guarantee that every time you go someplace, like your local drug store, that your prescription will be filled. It'll strictly be luck of the draw based on who's working that day. Make no mistake, this a full-frontal assault on every American's ability to make their own health care decision for every single aspect of their life. This regulation can not be allowed to stand.,
This is why fiscal conservatives married the fundigelicals. If you push for government funding of anything, they'll sic the fundies on you.
This should re-ignite the controversy over Pelosi's decision 2 years ago to drop all efforts to impeach Bush. I have some serious concerns over the current bunch in Washington who call themselves the leaders of the Democrat Party.
There are several Republicans who support Rep. John Conyer's bill to establish a Single Payer Healthcare System in this country. We can no longer point to the GOP as the main obstruction to providing affordable healthcare for all Americans. We have to question who, besides big Insurance, has consistantly scuddled all attempts to establish a National Healthcare system over the last 60 years, it was originally introduced to the 1948 Congress by the Democrats after they saw a war torn Britain set theirs up among the post world war II devastation of their country. To bad that generation of Democrats no longer exists !
Since when did anything Bush ever advocated have anything to do with mainstream Americans and not some narrow-minded, creationist minority?
Is it too late to reconsider Texas Annexation? Making Bush an alien would solve so many problems.
Not only sex-related issues are involved here. There are also end-of-life issues, where a provider may consider it his religious duty to prolong your suffering long after you have chosen death.
The matter is further exacerbated by the growing practise of having inpatient care controlled, not by the patient's own doctor, but by a "hospitalist" employed by the institution. My own doctor has advised me that once I check into a hospital, he will no longer have anything to say about my care. AND there are areas where the only available hospital is a Catholic one.
Or it could go the other way, and the doctor could kill you if you explicitly state that you wanted to be kept alive.
You don't care about the efficacy of "health care". Because it is not "health care" that you are seeking. What you want is "health insurance". That is a major component in the high cost of health care!
Does this mean then that until we can change things once Obama is in office, that we need to ask health practitioners what their stand is on abortion, contraceptives, etc. before we are treated? There's got to be a way around this...and the word needs to get out to everyone.
I don't think you can even ask before treatment. You will take what they give you and then explain. And you can't sue for malpractice either.
But you CAN go to another provider!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
