Republicans Outraged Over RedTube Censoring Of Conservative Voices
‘When They Hide ‘Cindy Lixxx Spread Bald Eagle’ In Their Search Results, They’re Silencing All Of Us’

WASHINGTON—Saying the website has mounted a direct assault on free speech, Republicans in Congress told reporters Tuesday they were outraged by reports claiming the pornographic video site RedTube has censored conservative voices on its platform. “Sadly, RedTube displays a consistent left-leaning bias, whether through its temporary ban of outspoken Republican porn star Cindy Lixxx’s popular ‘Spread Bald Eagle’ channel or its hiding of search results for phrases such as ‘Stars and Stripes double penetration,’” said Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who echoed dozens of GOP lawmakers as he argued that such actions not only suppress important voices, but also discriminate against conservative viewers who simply want to see bondage scenes of right-wing cam girls blindfolded and bound with the American flag. “RedTube operates a widely used public forum for the exchange of hardcore materials, and it should not be allowed to determine whether Americans are permitted to watch rock-hard Republicans cuming on the tits of fiscally conservative adult film stars. Otherwise, before you know it, the only pornographic videos online will be liberal bukkake or—I shudder to even say it—socialist gang bangs.” In response, a RedTube spokesperson cited the company’s history of providing a neutral platform and pointed to its long-running offerings favored by establishment Republicans, including the premium pornography channel, “Bush.”

Article

Kansans drank contaminated water for years. The state didn’t tell them.

The state allowed hundreds of residents in two Wichita-area neighborhoods to drink contaminated water for years without telling them, despite warning signs of contamination close to water wells used for drinking, washing and bathing.


In 2011, while investigating the possible expansion of a Kwik Shop, the state discovered dry cleaning chemicals had contaminated groundwater at 412 W. Grand in Haysville.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment didn’t act for more than six years.

It didn’t test private wells less than a mile away. Nor did it notify residents that their drinking wells could be contaminated with dry cleaning chemicals, known as perchloroethylene, so they could test the water themselves.

“We didn’t find out for 7 years,” said Joe Hufman, whose well was contaminated by a Haysville dry cleaner. “Haysville knew it. KDHE knew it. Kwik Shop knew it.”

MORE

Single Payer Is Actually a Huge Bargain
It would save both dollars and lives compared to our current system.

snippets...

"Overall, as two of us documented recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a single-payer system could cut administration by $500 billion annually (image below), and redirect that money to care. Blahous, in contrasts, credits single payer with a measly fraction of that—or $70 billion—in administrative savings.

Our profit-driven multi-payer system is the source for this outlandish administrative sprawl. Doctors and hospitals have to negotiate contracts and fight over bills with hundreds of insurance plans with differing payments rates, rules, and requirements. Simplifying the payment system would free up far more money than Blahous estimates to expand and improve coverage.

Yes, there will need to be some new taxes—albeit much less than Blahous estimates. But those new taxes would just replace—not add to—current spending on premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Additionally, at least some of the new taxes would be virtually invisible. For instance, the $10 trillion that employers would otherwise pay for premiums could instead be collected as payroll taxes. Similarly, Medicare for All would relieve households of the $7.7 trillion they’d pay for premiums and $6.3 trillion in out-of-pocket costs under the current system.

It’s easy to get lost in the weeds here. But at the end of the day, even according to Blahous’s errant projections, Medicare for All would save the average American about $6,000 over a decade. Single payer, in other words, shifts how we pay for health care, but it doesn’t actually increase overall costs—even while providing first-dollar comprehensive coverage to everyone in the nation. The Post’s fact-checker is wrong: Single-payer supporters can and should trumpet this important fact.


MORE

Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' in new poll

A vast majority — 70 percent — of Americans in a new poll supports "Medicare for all," also known as a single-payer health-care system.

The Reuters–Ipsos survey found 85 percent of Democrats said they support the policy along with 52 percent of Republicans.

It seems that #SinglePayer opponents are gaining traction with the argument that improved #MedicareForAll would require painful sacrifices from doctors. This is false. In fact, the opposite is true. Let's nip this in the bud, shall we?


For starters, PNHP represents over 20,000 American doctors. Our members are passionate about practicing medicine, but they are not interested in taking a substantial pay cut. Under a well-designed #SinglePayer program, they won't have to.
Think about how doctors are paid in our current system. Today, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance pay mostly on a fee-for-service basis. Private insurance usually pays the most, Medicaid usually pays the least, and Medicare usually pays in the middle.


BUT...private insurers make doctors jump through indefensible hoops in order to secure payment. Claims are denied on a regular basis. And coinsurance means we have to bill millions of patients individually. The amount of money our practices spend on overhead is staggering.


Under the plan we support (pnhp.org/nhi) private practices would continue under the fee-for-service model, but our byzantine billing apparatus would be consolidated into a (ahem) single payer. Provider rates would be negotiated with the national health program.

#SinglePayer fee-for-service rates may end up being higher or lower than current Medicare rates, depending on the procedure. Fees could not be so low that they would cause doctors to close up shop, but they don't need to be as high as current private insurance rates.


Of course, private practices are only part of the equation. Hospitals would be funded through "global budgets" based on the populations they serve (with capital expenses funded separately). Physicians here would be salaried employees, as an increasing number are already.


But this debate has been about fee-for-service rates, so let's focus there. Imagine #MedicareForAll rates that are roughly 10% lower than what private insurance pays. Under a well-designed #SinglePayer system, these rates could mean a pay *increase* for some doctors. How?


Improved #MedicareForAll would generate considerable administrative savings. And when we say considerable, we mean $504 billion per year (bit.ly/2Lda0Wp via @AnnalsofIM). That would go a long ways towards offsetting potentially lower reimbursement rates.

Also note that administrative staff aren't the only ones doing administrative work. Doctors spend hours each week (sometimes hours each day) filling out paperwork and haggling with insurance companies. #SinglePayer eliminates that, meaning we can see a higher volume of patients.


Of course, reducing administrative costs also means reducing administrative staff and any responsible #SinglePayer plan needs to provide income support and job training for displaced workers, as ours does.


Then there's the issue of malpractice insurance. We expect premiums would go down, because future medical costs are a big part of current malpractice settlements. #MedicareForAll removes these costs from the equation. Lower potential settlements, lower premiums for docs.


And there's the issue of student loan debt. Today, it's not uncommon for doctors to graduate with six-figure debts. We support tuition-free medical education for not just doctors, but nurses and public health professionals as well. @snahp_national will back us up on this one.

Overall, we estimate that average physician incomes would remain unchanged. Some doctors, such as family physicians and pediatricians, might see a pay increase while others, such as highly-paid specialists, might see a slight pay cut. But painful sacrifices would not be required.


We can also look to Canada for evidence that doctors are not harmed by, and ultimately benefit from, the transition to #SinglePayer. As @AMJPublicHealth notes, "the medical-income argument against moving toward a Canadian-style system is feeble."
The Impact of Single-Payer Health Care on Physician Income in Canada, 1850–2005

Now that we've established physicians won't be losing income under #SinglePayer, let's talk about what physicians (and patients) would *gain* under such a system. In short, we would finally be able to practice medicine.


#MedicareForAll means we would never have to worry about an insurance company overriding our judgement, or whether a patient could afford a particular course of treatment, or whether job loss or other life circumstance might cause them to lose coverage.


Our members understand that #SinglePayer is the *only* way to finance high-quality, cost-effective care for every American. We appreciate our colleagues and patients joining us in this fight. Now it's time for Congress to step up and finally pass improved #MedicareForAll.

Florida candidate says Wells Fargo terminated her campaign account over medical marijuana

Nikki Fried, a Democrat running to be Florida’s next agriculture commissioner, says Wells Fargo terminated her campaign's account because of her links to the medical marijuana businesses.

The Florida Democrat told a local NBC affiliate the change came shortly after she launched her campaign, after the bank questioned her about her campaign platform and donations she'd taken, as well as her stance on medical marijuana.

Wells Fargo spokeswoman Jennifer Dunn said the bank is unable to disclose details regarding a customer’s account.

But in a statement, Dunn said the bank's policy is to not provide services for businesses related to marijuana businesses.

MORE