Pacific Progressive

Nurses' Push for Bigger Role Gets Powerful Ally

This article was published by Kaiser Health News.

By Andrew Villegas and Mary Agnes Carey

KHN Staff Writers

A new report may give nurses with advanced degrees a potent weapon in their perennial battle to get the authority to practice without a doctor's oversight.

The Institute of Medicine report says nurses should take on a larger and more independent role in providing health care in America, something many doctors have repeatedly opposed, citing potential safety concerns.

It calls for states and the federal government to remove barriers that restrict what care advanced practice nurses — those with a master's degree — provide and includes many examples of nurses taking on bigger responsibilities. “A qualified health care professional is a terrible thing to waste,” Cheryll Jones, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Ottumwa, Iowa, told the authors.

The report calls for elimination of "regulatory and institutional obstacles" including limits on nurses "scope of practice" -- which are state rules about what care people who are not physicians can provide. 

Think Again: Collapsing Infrastructure? Who Knew?

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Eric Alterman 

Though it somehow felt all but forgotten by Thursday, this past Monday morning designated beltway oracle Mike Allen informed the wired political world that the idea “driving the day” would be President Barack Obama’s 10:50 a.m. Rose Garden statement on infrastructure investment, designed “to build support for the $50 billion ‘roads, railways and runways’ proposal he unveiled on Labor Day.”

Joining the president were Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood; a bevy of mayors; Norman Mineta, a Democrat and George W. Bush’s transportation secretary; and Samuel Skinner, a Republican and George H.W. Bush’s transportation secretary. The president discussed a new report on infrastructure investment from the Department of the Treasury with the Council of Economic Advisers. The report finds that 80 percent of the jobs directly created by investing in transportation infrastructure would be in the construction, manufacturing, and retail trade sectors. It also finds that infrastructure investments have high bang for the buck because construction costs are low due to underutilized resources.

It should surprise no one to see that most in the mainstream media saw fit to treat the issue as an almost purely political skirmish—cast exclusively in the narrative over the election-year fight over jobs. And the politicians played along.

Public Opinion Snapshot: Millenials: Still a Progressive Generation

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Ruy Teixeira

Conservatives are likely to do well in the upcoming election. But they should not delude themselves that the public now embraces their hard right agenda.

Take the rising Millennial generation (those born 1978-2000), for example. Despite the poor economic situation that hits this group particularly hard they have not abandoned their progressive leanings and come over to the conservative side. Far from it, in fact. Consider these findings from a just-released major poll of 18- to 29-year-old Millennials by Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

More 18- to 29-year-olds continue to identify themselves as liberal (37 percent) than conservative (34 percent). The margin is even more lopsided among those in four-year colleges (48-32).

The Pulpit of Bullies

 

by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

 

One of the most memorable moments in television coverage of American politics came during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. Out on the streets, anti-Vietnam war demonstrations were attacked viciously by law enforcement officials in what later was described in an official report as "a police riot."

Inside the convention hall, tightly controlled by the political machine of the city's notorious Mayor Richard J. Daley, CBS correspondent Dan Rather was attempting to interview a delegate from Georgia, who was being removed from the floor by men in suits without ID badges. One of them slugged Rather in the stomach, knocking him to the ground. As the reporter struggled to get his breath back, from the anchor booth, Walter Cronkite exclaimed, "I think we've got a bunch of thugs here, Dan!"

It was an uncharacteristic outburst from America's Most Respected Newsman, indicative of just how terrible the violence was both inside and out and how shocking it was for a journalist to be so blatantly attacked while on the air by operatives acting on behalf of politicians.

As appalling as that 1968 assault was, thuggery is nothing new in politics; it transcends time, ideology and party. But what's even more disturbing in 2010 is how much of the public, especially many of those who count themselves among the conservative adherents of the Tea Party, is willing to ignore bullying behavior - and even applaud it - as long as the candidate in question hews to their point of view.

Generating Clean Energy Jobs: Key Recovery Act Program Deserves Renewal

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Richard W. Caperton, Kate Gordon

In yet another demonstration of the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, new research finds that the U.S. renewable energy industry created 40,000 jobs because of a Treasury Department cash grant program created to provide incentives for clean energy project development. This important Recovery Act program could create another 100,000 more jobs if Congress extends the so called 1603 cash grants when it returns to Washington next month.

Unfortunately, the program is wrongly and disingenuously attacked by political opportunists who charge that Recovery Act funds went to projects that would have been built even without the program and, further, that the projects have not significantly contributed to job growth. At best, these assertions are based on a poor understanding of the cash grant program, which replaced a renewable energy tax credit program that fell apart during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. More troublingly, these claims misrepresent the value of the cash grants and ignore the tens of thousands of jobs on the line if this program is not renewed by Congress.

In fact, the Section 1063 cash grant program enabled alternative energy companies to continue creating good paying jobs at no additional cost to the federal government—jobs that otherwise would not have happened—and can create more than double the number of new jobs over the next year if the program is extended. So let’s examine these facts to rebut dangerous claims that if believed could cause severe job losses and crippling lost job opportunities.

The importance of Section 1603 cash grants

The U.S. Treasury’s new Section 1603 cash grant program provided an alternative to the renewable energy production tax credit program that suddenly was useless amid the turmoil of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Under the new program, renewable energy project developers who were eligible for the production tax credit but could not use it due to the crisis could instead elect to receive a cash grant for a similar value. This cash grant was critical for renewable energy development companies, particularly wind energy, and their employees and new job-seekers in the industry.

Insurers Denied Health Coverage to 1 in 7 People, Citing Pre-Existing Conditions

Marian Wang ProPublica

The nation’s four largest for-profit health insurers denied coverage to more than 651,000 people over a three-year period, citing pre-existing conditions, according to an analysis of insurer data detailed in a Congressional investigation.

Between Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, that averages out to a denial of coverage for one out of every seven applicants, according to an Energy and Commerce Committee memo about the investigation.

The memo, released by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak, both Democrats, touts provisions in the health care reform bill that address pre-existing condition denials.

But all politics aside, the investigation contains some interesting figures and information culled from thousands of pages of documents provided by the insurers. The memo points out, for instance, that since 2007, the number of denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions has risen each year, outpacing the increase in applications for insurance coverage:

A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100.Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.

"Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves," But Could Use Some Help: Fatherhood Policy and the Well-Being of Low-Income Mothers and Children

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Joy Moses, Jacquelyn Boggess, Jill Groblewski

Download this report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

One of the challenges in thinking about the relationship between women and the fatherhood movement is two seemingly contradictory notions held by women who consider themselves to be modern and progressive. Put in easily digestible terms, the first notion is embodied in the 1985 hit song “Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves” by the Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin. The tune reflects feminist notions about women standing on their own two feet.

This spirit of strength and independence may seem at odds with the second notion of “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child,” a purported African proverb that inspired the title of a 1996 book authored by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. Although resulting in its own controversy about the relative importance of family versus community, at a minimum the proverb and the book seem to suggest that successfully raising a child is not a mother’s only proposition.

The Importance of Community Health Centers: Engines of Economic Activity and Job Creation

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Ellen-Marie Whelan 

Download this memo (pdf)

See also: Interactive Map: Economic Benefits of Community Health Centers by Ellen-Marie Whelan

Event: Health Centers as Economic Engines for Their Communities

Community health centers across our country have a 45-year history of providing care in underserved communities for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. By design, these health centers are run by a board of directors comprised mostly of health center patients, ensuring the care delivered is tailored for the needs of the communities they serve.

Community health centers enjoy strong bipartisan support. President George W. Bush committing to double the number of patients seen by these centers during his presidency and succeeded, and President Barack Obama committing an additional $2 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to help these important community health centers expand their operations and build new centers.

Community health centers quickly demonstrated they could put additional federal investments to work, ramping up to provide care for an increased numbers of patients and expand their services. With the $2 billion Recovery Act investment, these centers were projected to provide care to an additional 2.9 million patients over the stimulus act’s two-year funding period, but in fact registered seeing over 2 million additional patients in the first year of funding—indicative of the demand for community health services in our country.

Health Care Providers, Insurers: Accountable Health Care Organizations Bring Legal Worries

This article was published by Kaiser Health News.

By Jenny Gold and Phil Galewitz

KHN Staff Writers 

Doctors and hospitals eager to pursue a new model of health care being promoted by the Obama administration are raising concerns that they could run afoul of antitrust and anti-fraud laws, while insurers are warning that the new arrangements could lead to higher prices for medical care. 

The differences will be hashed out Tuesday, when hundreds of health care representatives attend a meeting with federal officials in Baltimore. The session is being conducted by the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Office of the Inspector General of the Health and Human Services Department.

A key part of the health overhaul law encourages the development of “accountable care organizations” that would allow doctors to team up with each other and hospitals in new ways to provide medical services. Health care providers want to make sure their ACOs won’t be accused of stifling competition or trying to fix prices when they bargain with insurance companies. Insurers, meanwhile, are expressing concern that providers could use the leverage of ACOs to demand higher prices. 

The Role of Faith in the Progressive Movement: Part Six of the Progressive Tradition Series

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Marta Cook , John Halpin

Download this report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

About the Progressive Tradition Series

There have historically been two primary strands of progressive thought concerning the proper relationship between faith and politics—one secular and the other emerging directly from religious social values.

Secular progressive thought, associated with Enlightenment liberalism, is skeptical about particular religious claims in a pluralistic society, and insistent upon keeping religion out of politics and politics out of religion. Prominent American liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, strongly advocated freedom of conscience, religious tolerance, and strict separation of church and state as represented in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This classical liberalism placed a premium on rationality, self-determination, and personal morality above faith, church authority, and public morality. It looked to establish a constitutional order in America that would prevent the merging of religion and government that was prevalent in Europe.

Universal Human Rights in Progressive Thought and Politics: Part Four of the Progressive Tradition Series

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By John Halpin, William F. Schulz, Sarah Dreier

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

About the Progressive Tradition Series

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

— Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

These two elegant sentences from the opening article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or UDHR, constitute a clear and compelling statement of progressive values and represent the culmination of centuries of philosophical thought about the rights and duties of humanity.

Although the primary ideas of freedom, equality, and solidarity expressed in this document arise from multiple sources and contexts, American progressives in the 20th century played a defining role in turning the concept of full and equal rights for all into a tangible expression of international opinion and concern. Leading progressives from Jane Addams and W.E.B. Du Bois to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt—who chaired the committee that drafted and passed the UDHR—built on the political thought of the nation’s founders and the activism of abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights leaders throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. These activists led the charge to enshrine the core belief that all people, by virtue of their common humanity, are guaranteed certain rights, freedoms, and opportunities necessary to lead meaningful and secure lives.

Bankers Should Take Personal Responsibility for the Foreclosure Mess: A Solution to Rebuild Confidence in the Housing Market

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Peter Swire

Responsible policymakers face a dilemma in how to respond to the revelations that employees of some major banks have been “robo-signing” affidavits used in foreclosure actions. The banks deserve serious condemnation for routinely making misrepresentations (the less polite term is “lies”) in what they filed with the judges. As a law professor who has taught professional ethics, I know that even one knowing misstatement to a judge can result in a lawyer losing his or her bar license. Making thousands of such misstatements is far worse.

Yet simply blasting the banks and stopping all foreclosure actions can bring gridlock to the housing market, reducing sales and lowering the market price for nonforeclosed homeowners. The New York Times described one Florida real estate broker who has had half of his pending home sales halted by concerns about improper foreclosure documentation. The same story described how new families are eager to buy the houses where previous owners couldn’t pay the mortgage but cannot purchase them due to the halts on foreclosures. The temptation for righteous indignation and the pleasure of blasting the banks could cause this uncertainty to spread farther into the housing market, further endangering the economic recovery.

State Antigay Adoption Policies Need to Go: Laws Have High Economic and Social Costs

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Jerome Hunt, Jeff Krehely

A Florida appeals court unanimously decided last month that a state ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians was unconstitutional (Florida Governor Charlie Crist also said that the state will stop enforcing the law). This is a reminder that the struggle for LGBT equality extends far beyond the headline issues of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and achieving marriage rights for gay couples.

The victory in Florida is a huge win for advocates of children’s rights and well-being as well as those working for LGBT equality. But several states still unfairly target gay men and lesbians who want to adopt or foster children.

These policies should be overturned. They do nothing to serve our nation’s foster children and have high economic costs. What’s more, evidence shows that gay men and lesbians make just as good parents as their heterosexual counterparts, and the public increasingly supports gay adoption rights.

Current antigay policies

The Family Equality Council finds that only six states have laws or policies that expressly prohibit discrimination against gay and lesbian adoptions (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York). The Florida appeals court’s ruling now decreases the number of states that expressly restrict adoption by same-sex couples to three—Michigan, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

Open Insurance Season May Bring Sticker Shock

This article was published by Kaiser Health  News.

By Michelle Andrews

When you examine your health plan options during open enrollment season this fall, you may get sticker shock from the increases in both the premiums and the cost-sharing for services. Even benefits that are increasing under the health-care overhaul may come with financial strings attached. If you're one of the roughly half of workers with a choice of more than one health plan, or if you're just trying to gauge what you may have to pay to keep your family healthy next year, here's what to look out for:

Higher Premiums

More From This Series:Insuring Your Health

The employee's share of the average $13,770 total premium for family coverage went up 14 percent this year, to $3,997, according to the annual employer health benefits survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust and released last month. (Kaiser Health News is a program of the foundation.) In the past five years, employees' premium contributions have grown 47 percent, while overall premiums increased 27 percent.

Clash Over Clunkers: What the 'Cash-for-Clunkers' Rebate System Did and Didn't Do

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Adam Hersh

Download this memo (pdf)

Armed with a new research study from two business school economists, Atif Mian and Amir Sufi, conservative pundits and editorial boards have trained their sights on the popular and successful Car Allowance Rebate System, more commonly known as the “Cash for Clunkers” program. Yet the logic employed by conservatives when attacking the popular program would be like me blaming Wheaties when I can’t shoot hoops like Michael Jordan. I never expected to achieve such feats, yet Wheaties are still part of a complete and balanced breakfast.

The truth is that Cash for Clunkers was just one small, targeted program among many that helped to steer the U.S. economy away from the clutches of the Great Recession toward a fledgling (though not yet strong enough) private-sector economic recovery. The study by Mian and Sufi actually confirms that the program succeeded in shifting the timing of vehicle purchases, and in reviving employment in auto-producing regions of the country. But the conservative pundits who seized upon their analysis argue that the program did not increase auto sales overall—it only moved up purchases that would have been made later anyway—and caused a major spike in used car prices to boot. Both claims are either on shaky statistical ground or simply defy logic.

On its own, Cash for Clunkers could not and was never intended to save the economy from recession. Nonetheless, this little program punched well above its weight, delivering significant, positive momentum to our economy and our environment. (Remember, the program had the dual purpose of getting gas guzzling, exhaust-belching clunkers off the roads.)