which one is better for the economy?A healthy population.OrA sick population.And how does that effect productivity, absenteeism, and the economy?
Does extending coverage to another 40 million people create more demand for services and create jobs?
Do incentives for the wealthy to use their health care coverage and increase them result in more services and growth in the medical industry?
Do lowering health care cost result in people having more money to spend which stimulates the economy?
What is the cost or negative impact on the US economy when 1 million families go bankrupt a year?
What is the cost or negative impact on the US economy when a person dies from lack of coverage and what is the dollar value of a person’s life?
Is The root cause of health problems and increasing health care costs in the U.S. due to the U.S. diet (obesity epidemic, heart and stoke, cancer).
Does The deteriorating health of the U.S. population indicate that there has been some kind of failure by the medical community or some kind of contribution to it?
questions are alway a good way to start.
Share your ideas on any issue facing the new administration, then rate or comment on other ideas.
The best rated ideas will rise to the top -- and be gathered into a Citizen's Briefing Book to be delivered to President Obama after he is sworn in.
'Citizens Briefing Book' sample: Military Medical Coverage
Or there is Bob's Plug! He's a funny guy!
Join us on the H.O.R.N. for truly independent coverage of the Democratic National Convention. No "Buy Gold Now" ads; no ads for herbal baldness cures or vaccuum cleaners that pick up swedish mattresses pioneered by NASA. Just conversation centered on our live on-scene coverage from Denver. Independent media's future is now, and it's on The H.O.R.N., America's Liberal Voice.
headonradionetwork.com [headonradionetwork.com]
Come on down. Jump in the Chatroom. It's like democracy should be. It's Free!
Boy am I slack! I forgot to post that the Head On Radio Network, of which I am a co-founder are broadcasting live from the Pepsi Center. Noon to 1am eastern.
Come amd join Mark Levine, Guy James, Bob Kincaid, Peter Godbold and Myself for conversation radio! Ring in and talk to the guys at the convention. Bob is holding down the fort in West Virginia, Peter is in Florida and I am in Sydney Australia.
Jump in our live chatroom. It's free!
Streaming details at the website.
The only true independent liberal radio!
Listener Supported!
The Head On Radio Network
America's Liberal Voice!
We Call it Conversation Radio!
As a person who has used too many video recorders since 1980 (VHS thank God), I have a major collection of more than 5,000 recordings of poltical programs, events and breaking news. Most of my recordings are from the Washington, D.C. region where I lived.
I have watched (and burned to DVD) with wonder the events of this campaign. I find that it's not until some time after I've made a recording, the news junkie that I am, that I understand the context the event had when it happened. It's puzzle piece in the larger historic picture.
Having ADD, I'm able to listen to a number of broadcasts at the same time and can instantly catch those little elements that seem to get overlooked byt the "professionals" and this is often frustrating.
I'd like to touch base with other newsies who watch and read the news as I do ... in a present day context and in the wider historic context.
The Barack Obama era is without question is heaven sent to us news junkies.
It’s interesting to read European newspapers this morning on Obama’s speech, which were largely favourable – including Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London. Sen. Obama was in an awkward position in delivering a major speech overseas: While American press coverage was critical of the lack of specifics yet if he laid out a policy paper he would have been hit for trying to establish American foreign policy before he is president. Still, he seemed to wow Europeans:
The aim was singular: to present the Europeans with a clear picture of the new challenges of the 20th century. The trans-Atlantic relationship right now needs a new tenor more than it needs new political projects. The degree to which tensions in the relationship have developed in recent years was illustrated by lines Obama gave in his speech that under normal circumstances would be self-evident, like: "The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand." Or even better: "We will reject torture." But these are not normal times. (Der Spiegel)
The European and American relationship is fraught with multiple suspicions. Obama displayed a new approach to trans-Atlantic relations. (Le Monde)
While countless talking heads on US cable channels and bloggers, especially on the right but also among some liberals and Democrats, criticised even his appearing in Berlin, I suspect it’s mostly because doing so helps maintain the “horse race” story line. Moreover, I wonder how many on cable networks are trying to assuage staffers on the McCain campaign who keep screaming “They love Obama and don’t cover us.”
As Keith Olberman said last night, Obama is creating news and McCain is addressing half-empty halls without saying anything new or different.
Alert to Activist Obama Supporters
If anyone has email addresses for each of the major tv networks, news anchors, newspapers, and media executives, please list them here.
This way we can write each of them about our concerns over their:
Enough is Enough !
Let's all work together to let them know we are upset with their unfair coverage !
Today is Sunday 20th July, 2008 and Lou Dobbs is at it again. In 75% of his TV shows aired on CNN, Lou has used every means at his disposal to voice out his opposition to Obama and anyone that knows Lou knows that he is not shy about voicing out his biased views, many times in crude and unprofessional abusive words and insults to express himself. Everyone knows that rather than display fair and objective coverage, Lou has used all his machineries in attempts to cajole and psyche viewers (not all of them are: I have no choice at times but leave my TV on to CNN even during his programs) during the prolonged Democratic Primaries to promote Hillary over Obama. There were times when he would start reporting on a gaffe made by Clinton and deliberately stir the story into "re-reporting" an earlier gaffe by Obama or his surrogates on the campaign trail. Lou gives gaffes from Obama’s camp more emphasis than those from the Hillary’s camp and now, the McCain’s camp.
Now that Obama has won the Primaries (all to Lou's distaste), Lou switched his coverage in support of McCain against Obama. All you need do is listen to the level of his media bias against Obama in the relays of his TV programs. This apathy against Obama is not different even when one of his "stooges" is sitting-in for Lou as though they are all actors on a common agenda against Obama.
It seems to me that Lou will turn to any other choice that he can use to outrun Obama. He has turned to Hillary, Nader and now McCain.
Yesterday (Saturday 19 July 2008), Obama embarked on his Overseas Tour and Lou was at it again: whining over the fact that the three Media Mongols are on this trip with Obama (In fairness to Lou, all the various programs of CNN with the exception of Larry King, are in on this far-cry). Lou says that the liberal media is unfair. Lou goes on to attempt to lecture us on what fair coverage is.
Look who's lecturing us!!!! If being an Independent means camouflaging in hypocrisy, then I can only feel sorry for those that are gullible.
Lou, as a proof of my point, I was listening to your program this evening (like I said, not because I am a fan of yours but because I watch CNN) and just before you ended the program, you started a statement that began with the word "McCain" (as though you wanted to be fair in criticizing both Parties) and in less than six words in the unfinished statement on McCain, you manipulated the statement into a closing criticism of the Democrats!!!!
I hate the fact that the news media hangs on every single, minor detail of obama and tries to exploit it. The news media is not reliable... not even CNN is trustworthy anymore...
They are all so sensationalistic... they are no longer like respectable news reporters, but rather PAPARRATZI... they exploit every detail as a BIG SCANDAL. They have no right to criticize obama's wife, especially when they do not give the same treatement to McCain.
The thing that I hate the most is all the rumors that spread about obama... people have been trained to be so scared by the BUSH administration that they are willing to believe anything bad about obama... It's a sad day when you wake up and realize that there really are a lot of ignorant people in this country...
I am a teacher, by profession... it is my job to educate people, to disarm their misconceptions about the world, and empower them with the most powerful thing in the world: truth.
I wish there was some way I could counteract all these lies, gossip, rumors, and sensationalisms. I want to give people the truth about obama. I just wish there was a way to show them the FACT about obama, and explain why his CHANGE is the correct change for our country.
Let me begin by saying I think the media has behaved pretty badly throughout this primary season, although up until now it has largely been to Obama's advantage. They have routinely portrayed the Clinton campaign as in disarray, out of touch with the voters, unable to grasp the greatness of Obama, etc. When Hillary asked Barack if he wanted another pillow, she (and SNL) had a point.
Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. We saw the beginnings of it at the "debate" last week. (Did you notice Hillary wasn't wearing a flag pin either? Shocking!)
Today, CNN.com had a link on its homepage to its political "ticker" that read: "Poll: Support for Obama fading" I clicked on it expecting (rather downheartedly) to see a story about a poll showing that Hillary was going to take Indiana by a whopping margin, or that superdelegates are swinging her way, or something like that. Instead, I saw this.
The headline on the story says "Clinton, Obama Dead Even" It goes on to explain that both the national tracking poll and the poll of polls in Indiana have them tied.
Now, maybe it's me, but based on the teaser, that is not the story I expected to see. I expected to see a story about things going badly for Obama. They're not. They're going about how they've been going: up and down and all around -- Clinton was ahead of Obama by a point or two a few weeks ago.
The fact of the matter is, the media needs to report drama. They want this election to have a plot. Someone has to be going up and someone going down. Someone needs to be gaining support and someone having a scandal. And when the facts don't support juicy headlines, they just slap a juicy headline on a boring story and hope no one notices.
This primary season is not, in fact, an epic drama with a tension-filled climax and a denouement. It is just a really, really, really long story where not much changes. A famous review of a classic movie read, "A Bridge Too Far is an Hour Too Long." That's how I -- and the media -- feel about this election.
A day of coverage solely about a "monstrous" comment and a lot to learn of it. It makes one wonder where the response people of Senator Obama are. To what degree do the events today reflect on Senator Obama's capabilities to make himself heard?
Published in WSJ, Tuesday, April 17, 2007
AARP to Offer Health Coverage To Wider Group
By VANESSA FUHRMANSApril 17, 2007; Page D2
The powerful senior lobby AARP announced an ambitious expansion in the health-care products it markets to older Americans, targeting in particular the roughly 7 million who are still under the age of 65 and have no coverage.
As part of the expansion, the 38 million-member organization renewed and expanded a longstanding contract with UnitedHealth Group Inc. to continue to sell AARP-branded indemnity health plans, Medicare supplement policies and drug benefit plans. It will also market private, comprehensive Medicare plans, known as Medicare Advantage, under the AARP name. The group also struck a new partnership with Aetna Inc. to design, underwrite and administer a range of health plans for the under-65 set.
AARP says its move is an effort to improve the health and to bring more affordable and stable health care coverage to a population that increasingly finds it out of reach. Unless they're covered by an employer, many Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 find individual insurance either too expensive or simply unavailable from health insurers eager to avoid customers in declining health.
The deals also illustrate how providing health care for older Americans has become a big business, even as AARP tries to remain a consumer health advocate for its members.
The deals are a coup for both insurers, though Medicare still represents the much larger share of the business. UnitedHealth's existing partnership with AARP has already helped make it the largest seller of Medicare products, and generates roughly $5 billion in annual revenue just from selling Medicare supplement plans. For the first time, though, the insurers' income will also be tied to whether they improve the health care of plan members, provide easy-to-read policy materials and reach certain benchmarks in corporate governance, responsibility and diversity, AARP said.
AARP executives say the deals will help them reach their target of providing health insurance products to roughly 14 million people by 2014, up from 7 million today. Through its new and expanded partnerships with Aetna and UnitedHealth, AARP expects to generate some $4.4 billion in health care-related royalties over the next seven years, $1.5 billion more than its previous projections. AARP's CEO, Bill Novelli, said much of the money would be ploughed back into other health care access and affordability initiatives.
AARP's scale would help keep a lid on the new plans' costs, executives said.
Although Aetna would still underwrite, or price premiums individually based on a customer's health and demographics, it would be required to take a more flexible approach than many commercial insurers currently do. Members who bought the plans also would have access to disease management programs and other tools designed to monitor and improve chronic conditions such as diabetes—and which are typically only available through an employer group plan.
Likewise in the Medicare realm, UnitedHealth will be required to commit to providing AARP-branded Medicare Advantage plans in a given market for at least two years. Federal law requires insurers to stick to providing the plans a minimum one year.
AARP said the plans would become available at the beginning of 2008.
I was watching CNN this sunday morning 02/11/07 and i felt like coming to my new blog and write something about it.
Obama's presidential annoucement was so successfull that it scares the opponents political analysts. They couldn't say anything bad about it and what they found is to say that the media had a special coverage for Obama. Rudiculous!!!
Obama, keep up the good work, the journey has just began.
