I sent an email to Eric Massa some time back, thanking him for voting against HR 3962, and specified that I didn't need a reply, as I'm not one of his constituents. I got a 'form letter' response anyway, and thought I would share it.

Dear [hipparchia]:

Because you have previously been in touch about health issues, I am writing to let you know why I voted "no" on the 2009 major health care reform bill (H.R. 3962). Being accountable to you for my actions, perhaps you will forgive a detailed response.

Andrew Sorkin:

Many of the most senior members of management on Wall Street now consider themselves “survivors,” as if they were cancer survivors or something. That’s the word they use. While many of them are self-aware enough to politely nod at the notion that they received help and were part of the problem, they seem reluctant to acknowledge they were “rescued” or “saved.” There are probably a few exceptions, so I shouldn’t paint them all with the same brush, but on the whole, that was the takeaway.

I recognize that that answer will only increase public outrage. But it is true.

Funny. I guess I'd see it differently; the banksters aren't "cancer survivors"--

Samuel Metz in the Oregonian:

Smoking kills. So does the health insurance industry.

In the 20th century our tobacco industry, threatened by associations between its product and a lung cancer epidemic, diverted public discussion to a multitude of highly charged and largely irrelevant issues. It succeeded so well that even now, 50 years later, it still freely markets its dangerous products with only minor packaging concessions.

I think "Department of all the Damn Gall" is an understatement.

AP:

The Food and Drug Administration has allowed drugs for cancer and other diseases to stay on the market even when follow-up studies showed they didn’t extend patients’ lives, say congressional investigators.

A report due out Monday from the Government Accountability Office also shows that the FDA has never pulled a drug off the market due to a lack of required follow-up about its actual benefits — even when such information is more than a decade overdue.

When pressed about that policy, agency officials said they have no plans to get more aggressive.

"I love you, little baby, even though you are a freak of nature."

Via Daily Mail:

Human eggs and sperm have been grown in the laboratory in research which could change the face of parenthood.

It paves the way for a cure for infertility and could help those left sterile by cancer treatment to have children who are biologically their own.

But it raises a number of moral and ethical concerns. These include the possibility of children being born through entirely artificial means, and men and women being sidelined from the process of making babies.

That's the kindest explanation I can think of.

Bloggeth the formerly-liberal perfesser a few days ago:

What this suggests is that the really important thing, for reformers, is to get the principle of universality established. Once that happens, there’s no going back.

Yeah, well, I guess it helps if you define universe.

Shared sacrifice!

In March, [Bill Caudle] was laid off from his job as a raw materials coordinator for a plastics company called PolyOne, where he'd worked for 20 years. His severance package had provided several months' salary, but by August the paychecks were winding down. Soon the cost of his family health coverage was going to triple, then a few months after that, nearly triple again. They needed coverage so Mom [Michelle Caudle] could fight her cancer.

Dad's solution: a four-year hitch in the Army.

OK, that's the feature part.

WaPo:

The bipartisan initiative [Hold onto your wallets! -- lambert], largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.

The current legislative effort would take the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and organizations devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.

Critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans.

President Obama and members of Congress have said [and of course, we believe them -- lambert] they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Or... Whatever! Pre-existing conditions are right back in the game, except now they're called "risk factors." Can anybody seriously believe that the bill won't create a whole industry devoted to finding "risk factors" and denying people care who have them? Or can plausibly be said to have had them, perhaps during rescission? Ectomorphs under the bus! Endomorphs under the bus! Black men have a higher "risk factor" for stroke? Under the bus! People who worked in chemical plants have a higher "risk factor" for cancer? Under the bus! People with blue eyes have a higher "risk factor" for uveal melanoma? Under the bus! Women have a higher "risk factor" for pregnancy? Under the bus!

It's the same old game: Collect premiums, deny care.