| http://www.cprights.org | Last reboot | unknown  Uptime graph | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Domain | cprights.org | Netblock owner | Local Launch | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IP address | 72.32.147.161 | Site rank | 266969 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Country |  US | Nameserver | dns1.stabletransit.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date first seen | August 2002 | DNS admin | ipadmin@stabletransit.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Domain Registry | unknown | Reverse DNS | unknown | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Organisation | unknown | Nameserver Organisation | Click And Name, 9725 Datapoint Drive, Suite 100, San Antonio, 78229, United States | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check another site:Conservatives for Patients' RightsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaConservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) is a health care pressure group founded by Rick Scott, a lawyer by trade, in February 2009. Scott has stated that CPR is intended to put pressure on U.S. Democrats to enact health care legislation based on free-market principles.[1] CPR opposes the broad outlines of President Obama's health care reform plan, and has hired Creative Response Concepts, a public relations firm which previously worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.[2] Scott has been accused of using swiftboating tactics in an attempt to defeat Obama's health care reform plan.[3][4]
[edit] Funding sourcesAs of March, 2009, Rick Scott had given about $5 million for a planned $20 million advertising campaign by CPR.[1] CPS does not identify any of its funding sources on its website and it is unknown where the balance comes from.[5] Scott founded the Columbia Hospital Corporation in 1987, but was ousted by the company's board of directors in 1997 in the midst of the nation's biggest health care fraud scandal, which involved Medicaid and Medicare fraud.[6] Canadian physician and private insurance advocate, Dr. Brian Day, appears in an advertisement running on television for CPR, although in a situation reminiscent of the Columbia/HCA fraud case involving Scott, Day's private surgical clinic in British Columbia is currently under investigation by the B.C. government for illegal billing practices.[7] Parallels have been drawn with the Harry and Louise campaign funded by the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industries against health care in the early Clinton years when the last attempt was made to get significant heath care reform.[8] This time around, with US health spending already at 17.6% of GPD, and predicted to be at 20.3% in 2018,[9] the health care industry may not want to be visibly associated with this campaign. CPR is often mentioned in conversations surrounding lobbying against health-care reform. [edit] CampaignThe American public seems more ready for health care reform now than ever,[10] with many actually without health care at all.[11] Conservatives for Patients' Rights assert themselves as advocates for better health care. Their plan is described as the pillars of health care reform:"choice, competition, accountability and personal responsibility."[6][12] The CPR campaign for competition suggests a release of "burdensome regulations" against private companies in allowance of unfettered "competition" across the states. [12] Scott said at that time of the CPR launch, "[When] the government gets involved, you run out of money and health care gets rationed."[1] Scott has created and starred in a series of commercials advocating against greater government involvement in health care. One CPR tactic against the President's plan is to protest at town hall meetings on the issue. They have provided a list of local town hall meetings on the issue which the group urge their supporters to attend and have provided video footage on how previous people have handled the situation. [13] [14] [edit] Opposition to the campaignThe Service Employees International Union suggests that the CPR promoted "interruption" strategy at town hall meetings are essentially diverting any attention away from productive dialogue. [15] Robert Gibbs says that groups like CPR are right-winged investments in the "status quo". Chuck Schumer calls them a "'small fringe group' who want to 'monopolize conversation'"[16][17] White House Democrats are claiming that the rowdy protests are orchestrated by lobbyists and the right wing.[18] "'This mob activity is straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives,' the Democratic National Committee says in a new Web video. 'They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob.'"[19] Health policy analysts disagree with Scott's assertion that the Obama plan is "socialized medicine."[20][21] A nonprofit news organization from Washington DC, points out that CPR campaigning supports false allegations against the Presiden't plan: The CPR presents commercials of how health-care reform will "sqeeze" Americans: "higher taxes, an inflated deficit, skyrocketing premiums and lousy public health coverage." In May 2009, the group Health Care for America Now (HCAN) started broadcasting an advertisement in the Washington, D.C. area and in Scott's home town of Naples, Florida, highlighting the Columbia/HCA fraud case and the millions made by Scott with that company.[22] HCAN said of Scott: "He and his insurance-company friends make millions from the broken system we have now."[23] Some conservative health care policy experts[who?] also questioned Scott's involvement on grounds that Obama's health care plan had yet to be made public, or on grounds that the insurance industry is willing to consider a compromise which would allow greater government involvement in health care. Other conservative groups[who?] have been more welcoming. The director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance indicated a willingness to work with Scott, saying: "He's bringing a lot of money to the table."[6] In August 2009, Katie Brickell and Kate Spall, two British woman who featured in a CPR commercial attacking the National Health Service, said they were "duped" and the commercial misrepresents them because in reality they strongly support state-funded health care. Both told The Times newspaper that they had been told they were being interviewed for a documentary examining healthcare reform, and neither knew the footage would be used for such a commercial. [24] [edit] Claims made by CPRClaim #1: Health reform "could raise taxes by $600 billion—even taxing soda." The ad cites a July 10 Associated Press article in Newsday reporting that House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-NY., "has said his committee needs to come up with $600 billion in new taxes to deliver on Obama's goal of sweeping changes to bring down costs and cover the 50 million uninsured." The ad doesn't note that the $600 billion is a figure over 10 years. Holahan says that number could turn out to be right, but it likely will be less. "There are all kinds of proposals out there, and [the cost] depends on the design choices, including how generous it is in terms of benefits and subsidies, what savings they can get out of Medicare and Medicaid and whether there's a public plan." And, a soda tax is just one of many proposed revenue-raisers, including a cap on the tax deductibility of insurance premiums, a tax on the wealthy and an alcohol tax. Claim #2: Health reform "could add a trillion to the federal deficit." For this one, the CPR cites a commentary from Fortune. The Congressional Budget Office did score the House tri-committee bill as having a total cost of around $1 trillion, but doesn't mention that could accumulate over a ten year period, not in a single year. Holahan points out that an increase in the federal deficit means spending money without raising taxes. "It's almost impossible to both say that you're going to raise taxes by $600 billion and increase the deficit by $1 trillion—that means there's no savings at all anywhere. That can't be right." Claim #3: Health reform "could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent." This number comes from a study by The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, an advocacy group for insurance carriers in the individual, small group, HSA and senior markets. The CAHI study looked at what would happen if a health care overhaul banned insurance plans from determining premiums based on a potential customer's risk factors, such as age and any "pre-existing conditions." The study finds that even with an individual mandate, eliminating all risk assessment would increase premiums by around 95% but does not include an explanation of how the numbers were derived. But Holahan says that, in the absence of health reform, premiums are "almost guaranteed" to grow 95% over a 10 year period. Claim #4: "You still might end up on their government-run health plan." The CPR cites a study from The Lewin Group. Republican lawmakers often quote the study as saying that a public plan would cause 119 million Americans to drop their private health insurance. But that was only under a scenario in which the public plan is open to everyone and paid providers at Medicare rates. Under other scenarios, the same study found that as few as 10.2 million Americans would drop out of private plans." [25] [edit] See also[edit] References
[edit] Further reading
[edit] External links
| Netcraft Site Report Gadget |
I am a geek, world history buff, my interests and hobbies are too numerous to mention. I'm a political junkie with a cynical view. I also love law & aviation!