AZ Democrats

This Saturday May 10th, the postal carriers union is collecting non-parishable foods and delivering them to the Food Bank. Hang the sack on the mailbox handle, so they don't have to get out of the truck every houes.

A series of ill-conceived Medicare cuts in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA)

are currently jeopardizing patient access to critical medical imaging technology — a reality that will become particularly problematic for seniors and residents living in rural and underserved areas. Your support is needed now to ensure the passage of bi-partisan legislation in the Senate and House that would place a two-year moratorium on these drastic cuts to critical diagnostic imaging services, and require a comprehensive GAO study of patient access and service issues. Of equal importance to passing the moratorium, Members of Congress must prohibit additional cuts that compromise access to diagnostic imaging, screening, and treatment for Medicare patients.

The following outlines the negative impact of medical imaging cuts, as well as legislative solutions presented by The Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007 (S.1338 and H.R. 1293).

DRA cuts to medical imaging services are capable of unleashing a series of harmful consequences including the following:

• Far-reaching ill-effects. Everyday, medical imaging achieves enormous advances — including reduced hospitalizations, less invasive procedures, faster healing times, and more accurate diagnoses. DRA cuts, however, are denying patients this life-altering technology and could potentially yield long-term harm

• Drastic cuts to vital tests. Disproportionately large cuts for imaging services will negatively impact the availability of ultrasound analysis, PET/CT exams used to diagnose cancerous tumors, bone densitometry tests that identify osteoporosis, and MRI scans used to detect the location of aneurysms.

Under the DRA guidelines, reimbursement for these tests have been cut anywhere from 40 to 65 percent.

• Imbalanced reimbursement ratio. According to a February, 2007, Moran Company report, DRA cuts mean that total Medicare reimbursement for imaging services in physician offices and imaging centers will fall an estimated 18 to 19 percent below total reimbursement for similar services in hospital outpatient departments. This is a massive imbalance that translates to patients’ reduced access to these services. To read the Moran report, please

• Reduced rural access. Beneficiaries may be forced to drive long distances for imaging services if providers reduce or eliminate imaging locally. Physicians may also choose not to invest in telemedicine equipment that allows specialists at distant locations to help interpret a patient’s scan — again harming rural access.

• Delayed diagnosis. Cuts also threaten to limit Medicare beneficiary access to nearby imaging services that allow for more timely diagnosis and initiation of treatment, as well as dramatically increasing the waiting periods for patients.

imaging is a standard of care for medical conditions that plague Medicare beneficiaries, such as stroke, cancer, and heart disease.” Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)

“ Medicare cuts to diagnostic imaging services have caused a local community women’s health clinic in Charleston to stop performing osteoporosis screening and treatment services altogether because they can no longer afford to do the procedures.”

Steven A. Artz, M.D., Professor of Medicine,
WVU College of Medicine and Chair of the WV
Chapter of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)

Bipartisan legislation in the House and Senate aims to stop medical imaging cuts from negatively impacting patient care, physician practice, and health outcomes.

The Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007 (H.R. 1293) was introduced on February 28, 2007, by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), along with Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Representative Gene Green (D-TX), and other cosponsors. This legislation would delay the implementation of the

DRA imaging cuts for two years, and authorize a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that would guide Congress in developing thoughtful Medicare imaging policy that preserves access to these vital services.

On May 8, 2007, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Gordon H. Smith (R-OR) introduced a companion bill, S. 1338, the Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007, which also calls for a two-year delay of the DRA imaging reductions to allow enough time for a thorough analysis of these issues by GAO. Senator Rockefeller expressed his concern for “patients who depend upon imaging services outside of the hospital setting, especially those patients in rural and underserved areas,” and Senator Smith said Congress needs “a better understanding of the complexities and impacts brought about by these cuts before moving forward with a potentially damaging policy.”

Members of Congress need to hear firsthand how these cuts will impact their constituents. You can help Medicare patients by demonstrating your support for the Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007.

Educational materials provided by The Access to Medical Imaging Coalition (AMIC).

AMIC represents more than 75,000 physicians, providers and patients, as well as medicalimaging manufacturers who employ tens of thousands of workers. The coalition conducts public affairs, advocacy, and educational activities to promote legislation to address medical imaging payment reduction issues. To learn more about AMIC, and to access a copy of the Moran report, please visit: www.imagingaccess.org.

“ Congress must put a halt to further payment cuts in medical imaging services for Medicare patients until GAO can sort through just how this will affect Medicare patients’ access to these life-saving services. Medical imaging is a standard of care for medical conditions that plague Medicare beneficiaries, such as stroke, cancer, and heart disease.”

Steven A. Artz, M.D., Professor
of Medicine, WVU College of Medicine and Chair of the WV
Chapter of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE).

Join thousands of Obama for America volunteers across the country, as we build on our work in the primaries and drive the process of expanding and changing the face of the electorate in this country.

To RSVP or for more information contact Donna Gratehouse at 602-770-4754 or donnagratehouse@yahoo.com

Along with the 100-year war in Iraq, the McCain platform promises to make the upper-bracket tax cuts permanent after he is elected President. The upper-bracket tax cuts were financed with borrowed money, to the tune of $400 billion per year for seven years and counting. After McCain makes these upper-bracket tax cuts permanent, it ensures that the Bush deficits will be repaid by the middle-bracket taxpayers and their children and grandchildren, who did not get a tax cut during the Bush years, nor did they get to participate in the seven-year Republican orgy of Spend, Borrow, and Steal.

By the time the upper-bracket tax cuts are made permanent, McCain will have completed history's largest transfer of wealth from the pockets of middle-bracket taxpayers into the pockets of upper-bracket taxpayers. It remains to be seen whether this social engineering in reverse will be of any long-term benefit to the US economy, although the US economy hasn't benefited particularly well so far.

This reverse social engineering will make it easier for John McCain to raise large amounts of money from grateful sources, and it is reasonable to assume that those donors may expect something in return down the road, also on the backs of the middle-class taxpayers. McCain has already prostituted himself and sealed the deal with a full-body hug of George Bush last week, and George Bush danced for the cameras.

Back in the seventies, during the Watergate hearings, the late columnist Art Buchwald remarked about how nicely attired the Nixon men were, and that they all wore American Flag lapel pins as they perjured themselves before the Watergate committee. Buchwald concluded his column that "...the moral of this story is that even if you wear an American Flag pin in your lapel, you shouldn't lie to a grand jury..."

The American Flag in the lapel has been prostituted by the Republicans, and now represents an intent to commit perjury rather than an expression of patriotism. I don't blame Obama for not wanting to wear it.

In their first breath, all of the Republican candidates for President profess their undying Christian faith and their long-held devotion to God, professing to be far more devout than any of the other candidates, and declaring that God is the most important thing in their life, next to family values, deficit spending, and guns. In their second breath, they will assure you that their devout Christian faith would in no way affect or influence their actions or decisions as President.

This “trust me” attitude has not always served us well in the matter of Presidents and their faith, whether such faith is genuinely held or is merely electoral in nature. As a parallel, we should consider the actions of President Kennedy, who was one of our better presidents and who made a similar pre-election attestation not to subsume his Catholic faith in matters of US interests. Yet very early in his presidency, a Catholic Archbishop approached Kennedy in New York and introduced him to a Vietnamese Catholic named Nguyen Van Thieu, vouching for his character and apparently embracing a political-military agenda. Very soon thereafter, the CIA engineered one of their many coups in Vietnam, and the new figurehead President of this Buddhist country miraculously turned out to be a Catholic named Nguyen Van Thieu. Concurrently, President Kennedy sent 16,000 US troops to Vietnam as “advisors.” Presidents Johnson and Nixon sent hundreds of thousands of additional surges of troops to Vietnam, who died by the thousands. Johnson and Nixon proclaimed victory countless additional times, and US interests steadily declined in Southeast Asia.

The folly of installing a Catholic president in a Buddhist country was a theological decision and a mistake from Day One, a mistake that could not be erased by the lives of 58,000 American soldiers and the limbs of additional thousands. Thieu was universally unpopular in Vietnam and would have been deposed nearly immediately except for the support of US troops and countless billions of American dollars. He established new records for needless brutality among his people, and millions of US dollars disappeared into his pockets. Under Thieu, any hope of US support in Vietnam was hopelessly compromised and eventually disappeared entirely. When elections were held in South Vietnam in 1971, Thieu arrested anyone who entered the contest to replace him. Supported by US bayonets and the unqualified support of the Nixon-Agnew administration, Thieu ran for President unopposed and received 100% of the vote. I had a front-row seat for this military action. When his US support ended, Theiu’s government collapsed and he fled the country after looting its Treasury of several millions in gold. In history’s cold evaluation of the American effort in Vietnam, the fact remains that the original decision to commit US troops was a religious decision by a US President that did not serve US interests.

The present crop of Republican presidential hopefuls are all running for President on platforms promising to advance rather than subvert religious prerogatives during their terms of office. The potential for similar missteps in foreign affairs is considerably higher than during Kennedy’s term of office. Since the Iraq occupation poses so many similarities to Vietnam, and is similarly not in US interests, it is logical to question whether or not the Iraqi intervention has already been a religiously motivated miscalculation. As a veteran, I hope not, but the parallels are troubling.

Democracy Corps, a non-profit research group, just posted an interesting document on its website. The national study published on October 30, 2007 reports on the results of focus groups and surveys about the state of the country and Democrats. In the report, “Finding Their Voice as Agents of Change: The state of the country and the Democrats on year before 2008 elections, the analysis concludes that:

“Voters are determined to vote for change and they want leaders who will work for the middle class, putting the interests of the public and country first, after the Bush years when leaders did not see the average person, when greed of executives and the self-interest of politicians determined our unfortunate course. That is the framework for Democrats to articulate their critique and progressive vision. The country wants to vote for change.”

The research reports on how Independents and Democrats feel about what is wrong. People cited the following issues for why our country is going in the wrong direction: