Mike Rogers Defends Wasting $700 Billion Annually

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) receives a lot of money from the pharmaceutical, health and insurance industries, which probably explains why he's pushing false information about health care reform. While speaking at the Michigan Business and Legislative Forum last week, where he repeatedly bragged that he had read all 1000+ pages of the House health care bill, he argued that the House reform legislation would allow the federal government to use the results of comparative effectiveness research to ration costly treatments.

Rogers is wrong (he would have known that if he had read page 524 of the legislation). Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact.com says this claim is false:

But in this case, there actually are provisions in the bill about comparative research to make sure it is not used for rationing. Language in the House version of the health bill specifically states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer."

And let's be clear, comparative effectiveness research has been done by the government for years and years. The Obama administration wants to greatly expand the amount of research. The economic stimulus package also included more funding for comparative effectiveness research. And the bill included a similar disclaimer that it would not mandate insurers to cover or reimburse one treatment or medication over another.

FactCheck.org also says this claim is false, and so does the AARP:

"It boggles the mind" said AARP spokesman Jim Dau, how comparative effectiveness research has been portrayed by opponents of the health care plan as government rationing of care.

"It's just good common sense," Dau said of the research. "It's giving individuals and doctors better evidence-based research so that they can make better decisions."

What exactly is comparative effectiveness research? The Center for American Progress explains that "it evaluates different drugs, medical devices, and clinical procedures for the same illness against each other. In contrast, the bulk of research done today examines whether a specific treatment works compared to doing nothing, but comparative effectiveness research evaluates which therapy works best among a range of possibilities for the same illness or condition." This research is important because it can save money.

It’s estimated that one-third of procedures and treatments administered in the United States have no proven benefit and account for up to $700 billion annually in current spending. Moreover, some of these treatments can have harmful side effects, produce worse health outcomes, and then, as a result, add to the soaring costs of medical care.

I don't know about Mike Rogers, but I don't like paying $50 dollars for a pill that's not anymore effective than one costing a buck, and the media is full of articles questioning whether cholesterol drugs do any good or if angioplasty is advisable in all patients. My favorite story is from last fall when the NY Times published an article about one of the biggest medical trials ever organized by the federal government. It showed that generic diuretics (water pills) costing only pennies a day, and in use for high blood pressure since the 1950s, worked better than newer drugs that were 20 times as expensive. Not only that, the research revealed that the pricier drugs increased the risk of heart failure and stroke.

As CAP points out, "There is no incentive for the companies to fund research that compares their treatment to another since it is not in their best interest to determine if another treatment works as well or better than theirs. Because of this the federal government must invest in this research."

It just doesn't make sense for Rogers to criticize comparative effectiveness research unless he's hoping to protect his big donor's profits. Republicans want us to take charge of our health and spending on health care dollars, yet they seek to limit information about over-priced or hazardous medications or treatments. Not only can that be harmful to our health or downright deadly, it's a waste of money - as much as $700 billion annually.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Republicans two-faced about taxes

I wouldn't send a Republican to McDonald's with a $20 bill to pick up a hamburger for me. Not only would they keep the change, they'd probably eat my hamburger. How did I reach this conclusion? Follow along.

From Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, I learned that five MI GOP Members of Congress sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, House Leader Craig DeRoche, Rep. Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, Fred Upton, and Tim Walberg urging them to hang tough against a state tax increase. Michigan faces a government shutdown if the legislature doesn't pass a new budget by the end of the month. State Republicans want $1 billion in cuts; meanwhile, Gov. Granholm and Democrats called the cuts draconian and said they would hurt our citizens, schools, police, etc.

The Republicans are outraged that Granholm and the Democrats would put people and a decent quality of life ahead of tax cuts. How dare they waste tax dollars they ask? Well, what about Iraq? Where's the outrage about the amount of money we're spending there? We've spent over $500 billion on that lie so far, but according to Daily Kos that's just the beginning.

A new Congressional study finds that President Bush's plans for the U.S. in Iraq over the next several decades will reach the trillions of dollars, on top of the approximately $567 billion the war has already cost. That accounting assumes a significant troop drawdown -- and still tallies a daunting expense for the United States [...] [emphasis added]

A prior CBO study estimated that U.S. costs in Iraq from 2009 to 2017 will total approximately $1 trillion. On top of that, under the reduced-force combat scenario envisioned in this CBO estimate, the U.S. will spend another $1 trillion by 2057 -- the lifespan of the U.S.'s Korean presence to date.

Kos says, "I'd respect the Republicans mishandling this war a tiny bit more if they actually worried about paying for this war rather than blather on about tax cuts."

To paraphrase Kos, I'd respect our state Republicans a tiny bit more if they were honest. They argue that no amount of money is too much to spend in Iraq, but when it comes to meeting the needs of people here at home - the ones who send their tax dollars to Washington to pay for their war - they snap their wallets shut and expect the rest of us to follow along. They know this war is based on a lie, but it's more important to stick to the party line than admit they were wrong.

So you see, it's okay for us to send money to Washington so they can continue their war indefinitely - a war that enriches Republican profiteers and CEO's of defense contractors - but we get nothing in return, not even some change to spend on our schools, infrastructure, health care, etc.

We're being robbed.

Ehlers & Rogers Make "Top 18 Public Enemies" List

Americans United for Change Unveils List of Top 18 ‘Public Enemies of the Middle Class’ in Congress and two of Michigan's Representatives made the list - Vernon Ehlers (R-MI-3) and Mike Rogers (R-MI-8).

"More and more of America's working people are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing," said Jeremy Funk, spokesman for Americans United for Change. "At least two meaningful pieces of legislation to reverse this trend have already come before Congress this year - and, unfortunately, these eighteen Members were no where to be found when the middle class families they represent needed them most. Just last week, they each opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, which would give middle-class workers a fair shake by fixing a badly broken system for forming unions and bargaining with Corporate America for better pay, improved benefits and retirement security. Earlier this year, each of these Members opposed the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade. They couldn't even be counted on to stand up for the most vulnerable workers in their states who live in borderline poverty. [...] It's a question of priorities and a question of values - and it's clear that each of these Members have lost touch with the values of middle class Americans, whom overwhelmingly support these important initiatives.

Americans United for Change said they're prepared to make ‘poster children' out of these 18 members who continue to put the interests of corporate America ahead of the interests of families and workers. I look forward to seeing Ehlers and Rogers on a highway billboard soon.