Posts with the tag insurance

www.huffingtonpost.com: Wendell Potter 12/24/2009

Eric — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:24:10 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/why-im-not-joining-the-ca_b_403176.html

...I understand their frustration, but I believe that when they stop and think about the real consequences of what they demanding, they will realize that for all its disappointing compromises and flaws, even the Senate-passed bill should be viewed as a foundation that can be built upon in years to come. Ted Kennedy, who advocated for a "Medicare for All" type system before many of today's activists were born, would truly have been proud of this beginning. He would not have liked everything about the bill, that's for sure, but he understood what it means to live in a political world and that compromises -- even big ones -- almost always have to be made on the journey toward an ultimate destination....

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Wendell Potter has served since May 2009 as CMD's Senior Fellow on Health Care. After a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, last year he left his job as head of communications for one of the nation's largest health insurers to try his hand at helping socially responsible organizations -- including those advocating for meaningful health care reform -- achieve their goals.

Based in Philadelphia, Wendell now provides strategic communications counsel and planning services as an independent consultant. He also speaks out on both the need for a fundamental overhaul of the American health care system and on the dangers to American democracy and society of the decline of the media as watchdog, which has contributed to the growing and increasingly unchecked influence of corporate PR.

Before his big switch, Wendell held a variety of positions at CIGNA Corporation over 15 years, serving most recently as head of corporate communications and as the company's chief corporate spokesman.

Prior to joining CIGNA, Wendell headed communications at Humana Inc., another large for-profit health insurer. Before that he was director of public relations and advertising for The Baptist Health System of East Tennessee. He also has been a partner in an Atlanta public relations firm, a press secretary to a Democratic nominee for governor of Tennessee and as a lobbyist in Washington for the organizers of the 1982 World's Fair in Knoxville, Tenn. He also served as a member of the public relations and international marketing team for the Fair and traveled to Europe, Africa and South America on country recruitment missions.

Wendell also was a journalist. His first job after college was as a reporter for Scripps-Howard's afternoon paper in Memphis. He wrote about Memphis businesses and local government before being sent to Nashville to cover the governor's office and state legislature. Two years later he was promoted to the Scripps-Howard News Bureau in Washington where he covered Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court and wrote a weekly political column.

Wendell is a native of Tennessee and a graduate of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville where he received a B.A. degree in communications and did postgraduate work in journalism and public relations. He holds an APR, which means he is accredited in public relations by the Public Relations Society of America, and is still a proud dues-paying member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Press Club in Washington. Show full bio

Washingtonpost.com: Winning ugly, but winning

Eric — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:07:38 EST

Washington Post: Winning ugly, but winning: Ezra Klein

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/winning_ugly_but_winning.html

...But this bill will do most of the things supporters hoped it would do: cover about 95 percent of all legal residents, regulate insurers, set up competitive exchanges, pretty much end risk selection, institute a universal structure that we can improve and enhance as the years go on, and vastly reduce both medical and financial risk for families. ...

By Ezra Klein | December 24, 2009; 7:50 AM ET

Senate Ddebate-Health Care Reform Bill

Tom Rodgers — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:36:08 EST

I am watching the debates daily. It realy Irks(Nice Word) me that repeatedly the opposition continues to say they have not seen bill,ammendment, etc.

Well I say to all of these Senators that state this.You need to teach your staff how to do their JOBS. Actually you should FIRE everyone of them because either they are not doing their jobs are you are Damn Liars.

Everything that you Senators Discuss,All the papers,Bills,Ammendments are recorded Daily here: http://senate.gov/legislative/Congressional_Records/Daily_Digest.htm Then your staff can find Health Care Bill and all ammendments on the Thomas system of the Library of Congress. Yes it takes time to look this up,to print and submit,But hey your staff is getting a paycheck to do their JOBS.

What are the taxpayers of America paying you and your staff to do if you keep saying you have not seen bill,ammendments,etc In my opinion a senator that states He/She has not seen anything should resign immediately,and then the newly elected Senator can hire a staff that will do their job.

Tom Rodgers,Founder T&C Services http://tomrodgers723.community.officelive.com

Health Care Reform Debates

Tom Rodgers — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:06:34 EST

What I have noticed by watching these debates is that most of the Republican Senators are doing nothing more than Rambling.

They go on and on about what it will cost by 2017 etc. When will they Wake Up and Realize that if they do not pass this bill this year America may not be around in 2017. They should know this bill is the biggest step to rebuilding our economy and most importantly it is Urgently needed now to Save the Lives of The American Citizens.

Dr's + Insurers EQUAL MuRdErS

Art for the Soul — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:32:49 EST

Death pours from the HATEARTLAND,

dripping in money,

they turn a blind eye

as the HATEARTLAND

drinks blood.

Health Reform Video Challenge

Preston from Iowa City, IA — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 02:14:18 EDT

Quick post... Just wanted to share my submission for the recently announced Health Reform Video Challenge.

You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeGdldzBkXo

Thank you

J.C. — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:58:38 EDT

Thank you to all that participated today at the Health care Booth chit chat. At the empire theater, coffee house on Miracle miles. It was the opportunity to pass out flyers and phone numbers, and share valuable knowledge regarding the topic that concerns the precious health of Americans. Though the setting was not fancy, informal and relax, hey, what do you expect from a health care booth! A health care booth, is just a place with seats, and a lot of information. Just like a phone booth is where people talk and share information, same thing, for a health care booth. I wanted to sincerely thank Joyce, and Adrian, Esperanza and others that came out, and received flyers. Their presence added worth, and wealth to the effort of the president of united states toward achieving the goal of the American people.

Now, let's stay tune for further events, and keep pressure on congress.

I have a chronic Illnes and Now No Insurance

Cherie from Eustis, FL — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:28:58 EDT

I just wrote what I thoguht was a blog post and dont have the energy to write it again. I have Multiple Sclerosis, long term medications primarily for pain. My HUsband lost his job, Cobra still out of reach. Help me please

Why We Shouldn't Fear the Public Option

Skye Wallin — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:56:22 EDT

People often forget, either due to distractions, blinding cynicism or a lack of education, how unique this country really is. The United States of America is a nation forged and grounded in a rich tradition of protest and persistent refusal to accept the status quo. In many ways this tradition has been in hibernation--recent decades will never be known as the years of particularly impressive citizen participation in government and policy. Indeed, the American people have become increasingly apathetic and stupid, but I believe that the spirit has remained alive--in fact, I predict that the drive to change our most negative aspects of society is building momentum; isn't it obvious?

Take the town halls on health care, for instance. Though CNN, FOX and MSNBC only cover the crazies, there is some remarkable dialogue going on--and not just by the supporters of health care. When it comes to the Public Option, there is a genuine philosophical debate to be had. Remember that the whole point of the American Revolution was to establish independence from an abusive and invasive government that taxed excessively and unfairly. We have come a long way since then, and have perhaps gone full-circle in many ways. I share many Libertarian concerns of the expansion of the U.S. government, excessive spending and the limitations placed upon civil liberties; not to mention our often tyrannical foreign policies. Indeed, the United States became the very empire its citizens died to defeat. People think I'm a big gov liberal, but the fact of the matter is that the federal government IS WAY TOO BIG! The War on Drugs is a fiscal and societal disaster, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are squandering our treasure. The IRS ought to be torn down and replaced with a simpler tax code, and the Patriot Act ought to make every single American extremely wary of what leaders know about our personal lives. Not to mention the militarization of government that has seeped into the media and saturated our culture.

So when people say to me: "I just don't believe the federal government should expand! It's already too massive" I agree! The problem is that in this modern world, there are modern problems that require state intervention. Spying on Americans is not one of these exceptions. Drug abuse isn't either. Nor is Saddam Hussein or Ho Chi Minh! But to the people who believe the Public Option is some kind of government takeover and the onset of communism: should we not fight to end the excessive federal policies that actually hurtpeople? The War on Drugs fuels a culture of crime in the inner-cities. At least a million Iraqi citizens are dead because of the current conflict--not to mention the 4,339 dead American soldiers. But now you oppose a public health plan? A plan that will help your fellow citizens get the care they need? A report by the Institute of Medicine suggests that as many as 22,000 American citizens die annually due to the lack of an insurance policy--one that either could not be afforded or was cut by employers!

And let us not forget that the Public Option is an OPTION! While the true Left wing of this USA would really like a single-payer system, it is simply not going to happen with this legislation. Big Insurance is the most powerful lobby in Washington, and certainly has great influence on the bill--in other words, the argument that people will be forced to take the government plan is bullshit. The truth of the matter is that most people will keep their private plans; plans, by the way, made more consumer-friendly due to other reforms that will be in the final legislation (including the preexisting condition issue and the ability to choose your own doctors).

Though this is an expansion of government services, I want to tell you how the Public Plan is actually more economical and sustainable than the current system. You see, being private enterprise, Big Insurance seeks to charge as much as possible while providing as little as possible. I have no problem with capitalism (I am a Capitalist), but this is the reality of the basic operations of a firm. While this is perfectly acceptable in most sectors, health care is an entirely different beast. Since 2000, insurance premiums have nearly doubled! In 2007, the U.S. spent about $2.2 trillion on health care,* which comes out to approximately 16.2% of GDP--nearly twice the amount of the rest of the developed world! ** If you aren't worried yet, then you have read these numbers: by 2025, costs are expected to rise 25%; by 2082, 49% ! *** Oh, and did you realize that every GM vehicle is $1,525 more expensive because of employer-based health care coverage? Insurance is by far GM's biggest expenditure--even more than steel! ****

And the numbers go on and on. This is the financial argument, and it is all tied to the Big Insurance practice of driving up costs for higher profit margins, and making up for their clunky and inefficient administrative costs. Medicare costs are skyrocketing because they are subsidizing these inflating premiums, and this must be replaced. The Public Option must establish a much simpler and transparent system that injects competition into this stale and unsustainable market. It is fiscally sensical and it is moral.

But just any Public Option will not do. Next week I will tackle the question of "what must a Public Option look like in order to drive competition and cut costs?"

Absorb it, discuss it, and hopefully support it. Leave your comments below.

*Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Data for 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

**Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2008.

***P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948

****R. Wagoner, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, December 5, 2008.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/gm-health-care-reform/
my blog: http://www.theskyewire.com

Denison University 2011

*Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Data for 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage **Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2008. ***P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948 ****R. Wagoner, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, December 5, 2008. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/gm-health-care-reform/

Extra food for the cat

Mommie-x-2 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:13:51 EDT

My Aunt Dona sent this to her representative this a.m. after trying to send a response to Rep Eric Cantor after his appearance on GMA this a.m. (Cantor's website wouldn't let her post a comment since she's not in his district).

Hi guys:

This morning I was watching Good Morning America and they interviewed Eric Cantor (who apparently is the Republican WHIP). I don't know if you guys saw his comments, but I was appalled by them and by his attitude.

I wanted to send him my thoughts on his comments, but on visiting his website, the effort to contact him directs you to your own Republican representative. In my case, that is Mary Bono. So, I did send her a message. Here is what I wrote to her:

I DON'T LIKE WHAT I'M HEARING

Dana from Riverdale, GA — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:17:08 EDT

SUBMITTED TO THE AJC- DID NOT PRINT, SUBMITTED TO THE WASH POST-HOPE THEY PRINT

Dear Editor,

the old adage, "if you don't like the news, make some of your own." well, i don't like the news i'm hearing. i have watched, on CNN, the angry protesters, at town hall meetings across this nation. people are fired up over "government take over of healthcare." Obama has been compared to hitler, the joker and, of course, the S-word, "Socialism."

the REAL death panels? i'll come back to that. our own, Johnny Isakson, introduced this "end of life counseling" in the bill. it is something that is done, daily, by DR's and hospitals. i can remember taking grandaddy to the hospital and being told to make a decision as to, "how aggressive do you want us to be in treatment?" i'm thinking "SH*T!" it was just me and uncle robert. i start to think, "how can we make this decision?" a directive,done ahead of time, would have solved all doubts, worries over how to proceed, and alot of anxiety. a verbal directive or one in writing for all to see. Knowledge is Power. when is it more important, than to have power, over how you die. Isakson, just wanted DR's and healthcare workers to be compensated for providing this valuable service. now, back to the real death panels-CORPORATE AMERICA-the INSURANCE CO'S.

we all know how insurance co's deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and refuse patients treatment. another trick, their using, is rescinding policies. if you get diagnosed with an expensive condition, like cancer, the insurance co's pour over your initial health questionnaire. in most states, insurance co's can, retroactively, cancel individual policies, if any condition was not disclosed, even if the medical condition is unrelated and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. how this translate to real life-a texas resident found a lump in her breast. Wellpoint investigated her medical history and concluded she had been previously diagnosed with osteoporosis. the Insurer(Wellpoint), rescinded her policy and refused to pay for treatment of the lump. three large Insurers have rescinded almost 20,000 policies over 5 yrs, saving $300 million in medical coverage. employees performance evaluations reflect such savings. these insurance co employees are encouraged to revoke sick people's health coverage.* these are the real DEATH PANELS!!

a Public Option is IMPERATIVE! we have to have a public option to combat Corporate America. what's going on in our country, right now, is evidence of how we can make our government do the right thing. we can change the face of govenment, but we can't make Corporate America do the right thing. doing the right thing is last on their agenda. Corporate America has no ethics-only a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders-which means cutting cost and producing profits.

WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?

do you know where the catch phrase "government take over of Healthcare" came from? it was started by the insurance co's. they perpetrated this phrase, on purpose, to scare, anger and incite americans.**

Corporate America is laughing all the way to the bank. with all the scare tactics, misnomers and false information being bandied about and all the angry americans, reading and believing the lies, Corporate America's dirty work is being done. i wouldn't mind, so much, if the opposition to healthcare reform were honest and educated with the facts.

come on people! you CAN do better! you owe it to yourselves and this nation to do a better job and arm yourself with the facts. the internet is full of false information. here say, doesn't count. cable news is another HUGE problem. stop watching news to "fit" what you believe. FOX News delivers the news to fit right wing conservatives. Bill O'Reilly, Beck, etc. are not news anchors, especially not the likes of Walter Cronkite. they give performances based on opinion-not facts. MSNBC caters to the left. they have their pundits, as well, whom wax profusely with opinionated news. CNN has a worldwide audience, they deliver both sides of the debate and "you" the viewer can make up your mind. they don't come any better than Wolf Blitzer "In the Sitation Room." i dare you to step out of your comfort zone and try viewing the world from a different perspective. remember knowledge is power.

the problems our nation faces are HUGE! the President cannot fix our problems by himself. the government cannot fix our problems by themselves. that's reality folks! fixing our problems- bottom line - is going to require sacrifice- real sacrifice- by everyone. but i think the majority of the sacrifice should come from Corporate America. they are responsible, totally, for where we are RIGHT NOW! all the horrible things we are trying to fix about healthcare, Corporate America created. instead of fighting healthcare reform they should voluntarily sacrifice to save Healthcare. Obama is not a socialist. he does not want socialism. he only wants capitalism with responsibility. we do not have THAT, in this country. we have had a long era of nonregulation, deregulation and unregulation. we have given Corporate America free rein- LOOK WHERE THEY HAVE TAKEN US:

AN ECONOMY ON THE BRINK\

JOBS LOST

HOMES FORECLOSED

AND PEOPLE GIVEN DEATH SENTENCES, ALL DUE TO ONE WORD "DENIED" AND WHEN I SAY "CORPORATE AMERICA" I'M INCLUDING CORPORATIST POLITICIANS, CORPORATE LOBBYIST AND CORPORATE AMERICA.

we have to have a public option to keep Corporate America straight- not honest -Corporate America has proven they aren't honest and that they are not willing to do the right thing.

income inequality is at an all time high. from Clinton, beginning in '93' til the recession in 2007, the top 1% got half of all economic growth. during the Bush years, 2002-2007, they got 2/3. one of the scariest things this nation faces is the erosion of the middle class, especially when it's being pulled apart at both ends.

Citigroup, a massive bailout recipient under Bush($50 billion TARP), is reportedly asking to write a check for $100 million to a single employee. the head of the Energy Trading Unit at Citigroup is due to receive $100 million for his performance- this is the disconnect between Corporate America and "we the people." this is the disconnect President Obama is trying to fix. he cares, little, for taking over peoples lives. he has canvased this nation and listened "well" to the plights of Americans. he is only asking, that this era of politicians, lobbyist and corporate America manipulating things to their own end, STOP! what's wrong with that?

i am highly offended at what i'm hearing at the town halls. people yelling, "i want my country back." back from WHAT? a democrat? a black man? i say, back from Corporate America.

people are, also, incensed over insuring the 47 million uninsured. are we really, that selfish , as a nation? let's not be like Corporate America.

we're better than that! last sunday, i spent 2 hours making phone calls for organizing america. i asked everyone whom answered if they supported President Obama's three main core principle's of healthcare reform:

1)affordability-make healthcare affordable

2)availability-making healthcare available to all including a public option

3)choice-everyone has a choice of dr, etc.

i made 90 calls in 2 hours. the majority were answering machines or disconnected numbers. i actually reached 22 people. out of 22 people, 21 supported president obama's plan. all 21 pledged public support, which means their names will go on a list, showing support for president obama's healthcare reform. the lone dissenter, simply stated, "i don't have time for this." out of the 21 pledging public support, 4 signed up to volunteer. i was calling GA residents. we aren't even a purple state. we're red. this is not a democratic problem. this is not a republican problem. this is an american problem. i have come to the conclusion, that all dissenters at the town halls, although vocal, are a minority.

i was watching Dana Gould do a set about healthcare reform. he highlighted the protesters- all angry - holding up signs, shouting. a few miles down the road, people gathered at 2 in the morning to get in line for free healthcare. Remote Area Medical, whom are meant to service third world countries, have found an enormous NEED, right here in our country. most, were working americans with insurance. one little girl was trying to find a pair of glasses. if Remote had not given her a pair of glasses, her alternative, would have been to live without. these people were not angry. they were thankful, they were hopeful. the question was raised, "why are the people whom have the most, angry and screaming and the ones whom need help, are hopeful? this nation is so afraid his neighbor is going to get more than him. the blessed are begrudging the not so blessed.

healthcare is not a privilege. if you have good healthcare- your lucky - not privileged. if healthcare reform is not passed, don't look to have your healthcare forever. remember it's not a right. do you think Corporate America will think twice about cutting your benefits for the sake of the bottom line? nobody's safe. i do not trust Corporate America.

we are #37 in healthcare, yet we spend the most money. dollars do not equivocate quality. France is #1 and they have a hybrid- a public and a private option. you think having a public option will kill the insurance co's? think again, they're like roaches. they'll adapt and survive. it may not be business as usual but, "hey", "that's a good thing!"

Dana Lewis

*Washington Post

**CNN

Insurance vs. Healthcare

Rick Dullard — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:11:07 EDT

Why do we treat healthcare and insurance as comparable things. To me insurance is for accidents in homes and cars and other things like butts or throwing arms. To me healthcare is just that, health care. If you accidentally break your leg you should use insurance or out of pocket to pay for it. If you have the flu, diabetes, aids, cancer or something else that effects your health and/or can be spread to other people, to me that would be something we should want our government taking care of and keeping an eye on (not the individual, the health issue).

For those whom can't afford insurance to cover for accidents, we could bring back non-profit or religious based hospitals.

If someone decides to be stupid and gets hurt from their actions - let the for profit and not for profit organizations handle it.

Peoples' health/healthcare should not be controlled by individuals whose primary job function is to turn a profit!!

Sincerely...Rick Dullard

A True Healthcare Story

Dave R — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:34:35 EDT

My ultra Republican friend needed to use my phone to call a doctor that his primary doctor wanted him to see. The doctors office that he called refused to talk to him because he had the wrong insurance. He then called his pharmacy to fill a prescription for a drug called Celebrex and they refused to pay for that drug because he had the wrong drug card. The medicine they would cover was a generic pain killer. This is a perfect example why we need heathcare reform. The Republicans complain when the Democrats speak of single payer or public option and offer nothing but obstruction. I hope more denials come to more Republican naysayers and create one more reason that all Americans need healthcare reform.

Time to Get the Job Done

jsq — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:38:45 EDT

On this Labor Day morning I sent this feedback through whitehouse.gov:

I campaigned for you, like many others. We elected you and majorities of Democrats bigger than Newt Gingrich ever saw to get the job done: end the war, close gitmo, end warrantless wiretapping, implement universal health care, and the other things you said you would do.

I'm sure it's hard once you get there, but gitmo is still open and there's a lot of talk that you're thinking of abandoning the public option on health care. A public option is already a compromise. The real solution, as you yourself once said, is single-payer. Medicare for everyone!

You can't please everyone. You really can't please Republicans in Congress, because they're not bargaining in good faith: their only goal is to defeat you by defeating health care and anything else you propose. Trying to do it in a bipartisan way was laudable. It didn't work. You held out your hand and they bit it. Time to get the job done.

FDR didn't pass the New Deal by asking Republicans to approve every detail. He accepted opposition and actively campaigned to defeat it and to defeat those Congress members in the next election. His biographer Jean Edward Smith said recently:
“This fixation on securing bipartisan support for healthcare reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.”

LBJ didn't pass Medicare by giving away the store to the Republicans. He said what he wanted and he twisted arms until he got it. If your Blue Dogs are standing in your way tell them to get in line if they want your support for their next bill or at the next election.

You're losing us, your progressive base. We are the great majority of people in this country who want real health care reform, not some compromise with the profit-gouging insurers. Nobody else should have to die so a CEO can get a bonus.

It's time to lead, Mr. President. It's time for you and the Democrats in Congress to do the job you said you would do; the job we elected you to do.

Who, What we are and Why

Ginny — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:14:31 EDT

All you need to know is located at http://thepeasantscottage.com

President Obama, have you forgotten your promise?

BookwormBev — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:20:49 EDT

President Obama,

You were elected with the greatest wave of hope that I have seen since the election of President Kennedy...

...and now I feel terribly let down.

You have allowed, yes allowed the radical right to capture the emotions of this nation.

Although your negotiating skills are important; although your intelligence is important; although your organizing abilities are important; the most important ability you have is the ability to inspire.

You have not been using that ability lately at all. You have gotten sucked into the endless chess game of power and politics, and you have neglected your constituency, big time!

I listen to the news and the talk shows with dismay. I have been to a town hall meeting on health care with Lynn Woolsey. The passion and fear of the radical right was prominent, although not in the majority. It is hard to believe that so much credence is given to such outrageous lying. The right wing does not approach this subject, or any other, as far as I can tell, with logic or facts; its approach is on a crazy version of faith. It is like people who twist the bible to support their hate and then say, "The bible says it and I believe it." They forget that the people who hated Jesus were the ones who upheld the letter of the law, but not the spirit; the ones who were judgmental and divisive, not the ones who believed in love and community.

The greatness of the United States was NOT achieved by people acting alone, as much as independence is prized here. It was achieved by people acting together. People harvested their crops together, raised barns together. People helped each other. They were good neighbors. We developed a system of free public education, so all children could be educated, not just those of the rich and powerful.

Respect for the United States in the world was not born of military prowess, but of respect for the generosity, caring and fairness of the American people. It was because, at one time, we took the high road, the road less traveled!

Now we have fallen. We take the low road, talking about the necessity for something we don't call torture, but is. We kill, not to protect people from tyranny, but to protect *our* resources, even if they are located in the countries of others.

I find it so hard to believe, President Obama, that you seem to be cooperating with those who are so short-sighted as to believe that the well-being of the United States rests with military domination.

You talk about health care, but you have given away everything important that you might have done for health care. You talk about health care costs, but you are no different than President Bush in your spending our hard-earned wealth on death, on military adventures and military toys. Do you hope to save on health care and give those savings to the military?

Is it time for me to realize that I have been had? That in handing you this election, the American people have been had? Where is the man I voted for?

Yes we can...what? We can sit by while you allow the military-industrial complex and the insurance vipers to destroy America? I don't usually use that term, America - it applies to pretty much the whole western hemisphere, but I use it now, for the idea of American. The idea of people living together in freedom and peace, in community, caring for the well-being of all - not just our families, not just our town, not just our state, but everyone, everywhere. I thought we were nice people! What happened? Tears come to my eyes as I write these words. What happened?

I could understand the trend under President Bush - but you?

I know you cannot single-handedly do it all. But you have ceased to be a leader, because a leader inspires. A leader calls to the best and highest in us. The majority of Americans responded to that call when they voted for you. They were overjoyed at the opportunity to put their energy into positive endeavors at last.

You are gone, it seems. You have gone over to the fraternity of the rich and powerful.

I am dispirited, left behind, holding the (empty) bag of hope, while the mean-spirited rejoice.

The Time to Act has Come, Reaffirm Your Commitment

Skye Wallin — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:29:23 EDT

My friends, I apologize for taking an extended summer break, but now the wheels are turning once again, and I must say that never before have I felt this necessity to write for cause. We elected the progressive candidate, though not without a healthy degree of skepticism by many (including myself), and the calling for responsible and energetic citizenship has never been greater. For in the words of the President:

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

For those who voted Obama/Biden on election day, this calling is especially directed towards you! The President is powerless to create fundamental change without his foot-soldiers, and right now you are failing. And so am I.
But today we reaffirm our commitment to transform this country into what it ought to be. When this country decisively elected Barack Obama, he was given a mandate to bring about progressive reform, and now we must help him. Right now, the most powerful lobby in Washington is fighting the fight of its life to destroy any kind of true reform of its corrupt system. The right-wing and conservative Dems have taken the stand that change mustn't come to American health care, and they have effectively waged a crusade of fear and lies against the President's plan--against the President's promise.

If this country wishes to survive, her citizens must become informed on the topics and fight for truth. Indeed, this health care battle is a test: can the people who voted for something transformational actually make it happen? Do we have it in us to bring down the congressmen and women who have prostituted themselves out to the insurance giants? I believe we do; because nothing is stronger than a nation of motivated and optimistic citizens. And right now I want to reaffirm my commitment to this country's potential--that I will do all in my power to be a part of the grassroots of change. Because I voted for it. Because it is my responsibility to walk the walk.

And now I ask my readers--my fellow citizens--will you join me in this commitment to fight for reform by pressuring your reluctant representatives to support President Obama's agenda? Will you fight the myths with your colleagues, classmates and family? If so, I hope that you will leave a declaration of support for this cause below in the comments section. Tell others what you believe in and how hard you are willing to fight. And after your declaration, you must act on it. You must make the calls, attend the town halls and go door-to-door. It is this movement that determined the election, and now it must live on to determine our future. There really are better things on the horizon--indeed, they are within our grasp!

In the coming days and weeks, I will be rolling out a series of articles on the healthcare debate. My hope is to lay out the arguments and contextualize the controversy. Because if you know the facts, you will realize that Obama really is on the right side of things. And after we pass healthcare--with the public option included--it is on to the next fight.

Till next time.

"How far have we come??"

"NERVIE" — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:12:56 EDT

I ran into this blog that I had posted on another site of mine, I thought I'd share a few words because sometimes looking back you see how far you have come:

Saturday, January 31, 2009. I’m happy to hear that on last Thursday, the United States Senate followed the United States House in passing a reauthorization of a child health insurance bill. I do remember twice Bush vetoed this bill. Just imagine 4 million more children in America will have access to health insurance, isn’t that a huge post Bush phenomenon. Another positive sign that the boat has oars with a new helmsman anointed by none other than Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Chair, of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Thank God for Kennedy, now hopefully Obama can step up to all the other healthcare needs called Universal Healthcare! Don’t know about you, but I am still praying for this major fete. Yeah, it may seem odd with my working for the industry now, however, AFLAC, I rationalize was created out of a need for additional healthcare costs. So technically, it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the large “hole” in insurance coverage.

You see, the creators of AFLAC saw bankruptcy due to the illness of their mother who died of cancer. There were procedures the insurance company wouldn’t approve and even though the family had coverage, the costs were exorbitant so what they did have wasn’t enough. So you would think they would be on the side of the President, right?

Wrong, the new marketing director they told us in a Sheraton meeting that we needed to lobby the President to keep things as they are, our jobs were at stake, if there were any changes in the healthcare coverage we had much to lose, and if any of us were interested to see him after the meeting. I cringed. We are lobbying legislators for free? They aren’t paying us to be lobbyist? Is this part of the clean money concept? That was odd.

I thought we were the “good guys” in the insurance world. A promise I made to myself. I said if I ever go back to corporate, I wanted to work for a corporation that believed in “stewardship” as one of their core values and part of their mission statement, not gouging or "pretending to care" about customers, just to make money.

At various companies I saw how not being forthright, withholding information, to downright “verbal kung fu-ing” with the “bottomline concept”. Minerva, do you want to make money or not this week? When in the long run, the relationship with the customer would mean much more service, more referrals; new add ons (only if they needed them) and providing the customer the opportunity to choose what is best for them?) or was I back to the “gaming”, “selling” techniques and twisting the arm which could blow up in your manager’s face and they would ask you to “fall on the sword” because . . . they were the manager? Did I make that mistake again, or what? I really need to explore this new leadership more . . . hopefully I got the message wrong . . . I know the product does what it says it does, but why isn't the corporation supporting the president? Until I get a definitive explanation, I'm slowing backing away . . .

But could hope spring eternal and that even the Republicans are seeing change by having former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, an African American at the lead. Depending on which Republican media pundit you listen to, they would have you believe that Steele’s role is just for PR purposes. Bull. Last I heard the person sitting on the top of the Republican Party had to be a “damn good fundraiser”, and in this economic market where money isn’t falling from the trees anymore, even banks are standing in line begging for governmental support. Now how effective Steele will be with his moderate views makes politics so interesting. Yes, bedfellows in politics get a little weirder and weirder if you take the time to read, to listen and to watch.

Some republicans are trying to say that media commentators weren’t saying that Mr. Blago Bully was a democrat. Blago was voted out of office and out of politics by a group of his own peers and the fallout from the criminal charges are still left to be resolved. Yes, he is a democrat and his behavior based on the information that we were provided was horrible. But I don’t remember anyone NOT saying he wasn’t the democratic governor from Illinois. What does raise my eyebrows was that Democratic strategist James Carvell originally poo-pooed the idea that Blago was under scrutiny in the first place and he said “there is wheeling and dealing going on all the time”. So is this why Blago doesn’t think he did anything wrong?

Hopefully there won’t be large court scenarios but the way Blago went out was heartbreaking to see a man who doesn’t know when he is caught. And if in fact this was politics as usual, I’m sure there are folks scrambling to clean house. Speaking of cleaning house. . . How many flaws can you find in this write up? On reading the “White House Blog”, I found this little gem:

43. GEORGE W. BUSH 2001-2009

George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, was sworn into office on January 20, 2001, re-elected on November 2, 2004, and sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005. Prior to his Presidency, President Bush served for 6 years as the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, where he earned a reputation for bipartisanship and as a compassionate conservative who shaped public policy based on the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, strong families, and local control.

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.

President Bush worked with the Congress to create an ownership society and build a future of security, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans. He signed into law tax relief that helped workers keep more of their hard-earned money, as well as the most comprehensive education reforms in a generation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This legislation ushered in a new era of accountability, flexibility, local control, and more choices for parents, affirming our Nation’s fundamental belief in the promise of every child. President Bush also worked to improve healthcare and modernize Medicare, providing the first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors; increase homeownership, especially among minorities; conserve our environment; and increase military strength, pay, and benefits. Because President Bush believed the strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens, he supported programs that encourage individuals to help their neighbors in need.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our Nation. President Bush took unprecedented steps to protect our homeland and create a world free from terror. He was grateful for the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The President believed that by helping build free and prosperous societies, our Nation and our friends and allies can succeed in making America more secure and the world more peaceful.

President Bush is married to Laura Welch Bush, a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The Bush family also includes two dogs, Barney and Miss Beazley, and a cat, Willie. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewbush/)

I thought it was an amazing play on wording and one day maybe I’ll meet the wordsmith who must have been having a hard time putting this together. See y’all later, Todd says there is no maid, so we have a house to clean today . . .

THE END

Oh well, I recall all of the comments being made about Kennedy, I do hope he rests in peace but I have to admit "his mantle" is really heavy.

Sorry, I never had the opportunity to meet him. But I'll never forget the time, I passed out when I saw President Kennedy on the corner of Rexall Drug Store, sitting on my daddy's shoulders dripping an ice cream cone! I passed out from the excitement it was like yesterday! Minerva

Health reform outside the box!

Forrest — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:33:04 EDT

I am writing this somewhat wordy but pragmatic letter and hope it gets in the hands of someone who can make a clear evaluation and find it helpful or at the least noted as to one perspective to the current Health Care Debacle taking place and under careful consideration, could actually prove very beneficial and part of the future solution. I feel the Democrats are out to make a clear change for the good of the country and the Obama Administration is shaping up to be the best Administration I believe I have seen in my lifetime; however is having a clearly difficult struggle battling the concerns over healthcare. I voted for Obama and even made a contribution to the campaign which was the first time in my life to do so because I believe in his overall vision for the country. Currently I live in Tokyo, Japan, and am exposed to a very different healthcare system as well as have many friends from other developed nations who have socialized medicine, i.e. England, Canada, Australia, etc. I have had various debates and have a good understanding of these systems from the standpoint of their basic citizens and the rights thereof from these systems. Of all the countries, Japan has the most hybrid system between socialized medicine and our current system; however would not be a good political strategy to mention as a talking point. Actually these ideas should be applied as original ideas from the Obama administration to the public and will close this healthcare debate once and for all.

To get directly to my point, I feel the Democrats are doing what they always do, bring a good idea to the table (bring the right idea to the table) but back down based on pole numbers and a clearly, historically based fact, of not managing the emotions of the populous. With that being said, I feel many of Americas fears are superficial in nature and may not address a simple premise of government spending, influence and size. I pose the question, “if you add something, you take something away”, such as adding a public option and taking away the obviously broken, inefficient and burdensome Medicare system. This would have an overwhelmingly favorable impact on republicans and the right compromise with democrats and the masses of people who are looking for that right tax cut would be dancing in the streets. I understand we will be cutting a huge tax generator for the government but we will also cut off and stop the hemorrhaging of a government appendage that is infecting everyone as a whole. It is possible to subsidize those in the current system with the public option, under some “special program” and the democratic party has 3 years to win the Medicare constituency over, plus everyone will be satisfied to know they are not contributing to a possible other welfare system and the welfare system of others, and everyone can take care of themselves. The revenue generated in the public option should closely account for the loss of cutting the program, especially if there is a system where it is an availability for every small business, and for those who may not necessarily be able to purchase the public option program all the time can still fall under a special subsidization program under the public option program but maybe with premium adjustments in time. There could be grandfather clauses to alleviate the “the government is trying to pull the plug on granny“ debate. In order to offset the loss in tax revenue, include a tax incentive for those who have proof of insurance for the tax year and be adjusted accordingly if that is a concern with a favorable adjustment for those who do and an unfavorable adjustment for those who don’t; however if it is going broke it may be best just to cut the losses on it. The IRS has the people and infrastructure and can also be included in the debate to validate proof of insurance. That last point is a little complicated to wrap your head around but could make huge in rows in appealing to those who don’t like any of the current systems, who don’t like picking up the tab from one average American to another and don’t see a clear solution. I feel confident that in 3 years the Administration can satisfy its Medicare constituency and its proponents and this type of drastic change will, and I emphasize WILL, have a huge favorable reaction with the American populous as a whole.

As an additional selling point, Americans should be able to “double down” on their health insurance and drastic changes need to be set in motion as to insurance regulation reform. This is a version of the Clinton play book in areas such as telecom, etc; which WILL be good for the health insurance industry, and everyone as a whole and would probably have them off the governments back for a while because they will be too busy creating/selling and purchasing new products and helping to “stimulate the economy” in many many ways. This is not a non-manageable endeavor, just a little unorthodox. That is one good point about Japan’s current healthcare system, to include insurance products such as hospitalization and rehabilitation remuneration, double coverage, etc. People, in general, like to know they can get something back when paying so much into a system that does just that and actually make some money in the event of such a challenging time in their life and this adds a great since of security and satisfaction in those moments. By the way, this is a homerun idea that will leave a lasting hurt on the republican party and brand because everyone benefits as a whole but carries some of their self-reliance and capitalistic ideals. To add to this point and to expound on the “pre-existing” condition problem of the current system, legislation should also include a wide range of other procedures that are deemed not a necessity and allow coverage of these programs at a price to include allowing the private sector to compete for these dollars and to compensate for the losses they will be incurring with having to cover pre-existing conditions. This could even include aesthetic procedures with a regulatory consultation practice. Deregulating that industry but with the right quality of care in the minds of everyone involved is good for everyone. Personally, I don’t like the whole system but these are the right decisions for everyone as a whole.

I don’t quite agree with this but also monetary penalties could be put in place and deemed necessary by the doctor in the advent of non-life threatening problems clogging the emergency room system. A doctor is qualified to make that decision and should, which would help all commercial entities in the system and help the system as a whole in this day and age in curbing the mass influx of those who use the system. On another point with that debate, people have to work and can’t afford to lose a day’s work when their child has the flu and they sacrifice their sleep and wellness in order to go to work the next day but ensure their child is seen, diagnosed and put on the right treatment regimen. With that being said, maybe a system that rewards afterhours care facilities should be looked at such as a tiered payment system by the industry to the facilitators that addresses this.

I have a few other points to add about this and I don’t want to sound like I’m pulling only the positive points of other systems without recognizing the negative points, yet being that so many systems have been in place and for such a long period of time, I think we can get it right and my points could aid it.

A clear plan needs to be outlined with someone reading charts and tables, pros and cons, and an informative debate needs to be made with a clear vision. There is enough time to regroup and get this done this year and not to be rushed and to have people put in the corner on the issue without all the CLEAR facts. Open debates should be held with the public having easy access to make informed decisions and people should be thinking outside the box such as this letter. I have read the top 5 myths about the new reform and the stats on people polled regarding this debate. I would like to make a statement to the Democratic party as a whole that I am ashamed to see that they cannot debunk the death panel debate and strategically, they should look at and put resources into how to overcome this and future situations such as this. I’m sure they can get a good team of psychiatrists and marketing gurus to look at how their messages get drowned out by basic human emotions of fear and distrust. To add, the immigrant debate is a valid one but no one seems to be showing that who pays into the system only helps support the system in revenue, etc. and should get treatment accordingly. We can look at the Denver Olympics at those facts and it would actually be good for the system for allowing as many of those who can pay into it, do so; to include people with student visas and short term visas, etc. The new program should be run like a private system alleviating people’s fears of the government keeping tabs on them and regulating what they have and don’t have and maybe compare it to the postal system or collegiate education system.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to read this and would personally like to see how these above mentioned points would not work. I have solutions for some of the other internal problems plaguing the system but can’t remember them all at the time I’m writing this; however many of the new options are definitely headed in the right direction. I just felt compelled to offer my “.10¢” after seeing the reform offered getting slaughtered by the American public in the news and it seems more people are buying into the stats shown to them, therefore buying into some of the current falsehoods. By the way, if the right person reads this and finds it beneficial and would like to ask my opinion on other problems facing the system, please feel free to do so or debunk my points.

More musings so I can keep up with this. I do have a job!

ALiveOneHere — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:27:39 EDT

Story from CBS News:

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200.

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections...

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com.

Healthcare vs. Health Insurance

Susan — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:41:19 EDT

I am a supporter of Universal Single Payer Healthcare. If we are forced to buy insurance, stoking the bloated insurance companies, then I am not supportive of a reform. I do not support putting everyone into a private program, or even a coop. I would rather be taxed universally and have that money provide universal health care just as our taxes provide court systems, police protection, education, etc.

The only way to provide preventative care, health education, and truely universal care is to do it through the government which does a terrific job with social security, which has a lower overhead that any corporate health program. I don't understand why people aren't fearful of corporate overlords rather.

If we cannot have a single payer program, then I would rather see the present bill take the form of regulations on the insurance industry, and extend a medicare type program to cover low income eligible people, and then let those that don't want any insurance take that risk. If insurance is just a risk program, then we should have the option to take the risk to survive without insurance.

Eliminating Private Insurance would be a GOOD thing.

David from New York, NY — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:19:29 EDT

I don’t want to be insulting. Its just frustrating that so many people in the US think that having a "choice" of private insurance is somehow beneficial. Insurance companies work to maximize profit, that’s all. They maximize profit by providing as little care as possible, and by denying payment whenever possible.

You have to be blind not to see what’s going on with the current system. The insurance companies are spending millions on a disinformation campaign and are counting on people to come out and scream loud against their own interests, and people are doing it. Because of these people we may even loose the public option (and single payer was disgracefully never on the table in the first place), so forgive me for calling them morons. People are so worried about "gubmint healthcare, " yet they ignore the fact that United States is the only country in the industrialized world without universal health care. All of those countries have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, higher health care satisfaction, and lower per capita health care expenditures than we do. Yet the US can’t think rationally because of its irrational fear of anything that seems like "socialism." Despite this, many of these same reform opponents would riot [justifiably] if any politician were to threaten to dismantle Medicare or Social Security. The worst part is that the plans that are being offered by the Democrats are relatively impotent themselves as they would allow the insurance companies to continue their pillage of the US population. What we need to fight for is single payer, and, while my intention is not to offend anyone personally, I stand by my statement that opposition to single payer is in fact downright moronic.

We need to replace HR3200 with HR676. There is absolutely nothing for the public to gain from pandering to profit based insurance.Wake up!!!! We need single payer now!

What I want from Healthcare…

Obama's Knights — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:57:25 EDT

A) Portability. If I change jobs, I’d like to be able to keep my healthcare as long as I paid my and my employers part. Same person, same deal.

B) Competition. The real trick is ‘how to create competition without a government insurance option’ I see a few ways to do it, here are a couple B.1) allow for insurance companies to compete across state lines. B.2) create more USAA insurance companies. It kind of like a really big credit union but its insurance.

C) No exclusion for pre-existing conditions, this just isn’t fair and it is holding DNA medicine back.

D) Tax soft drinks, salty snacks, and all corn syrup products if possible.

E) Expand S-chip

F) Improve CORBA healthcare insurance

G) No mandatory involvement; but incentives to join.

H) HCAP to include preventive care (e.g. sunscreen, helmets, athletic shoes, etc.)

A big fat government plan will be just like Fannie Mae; great for many years then it’ll implode.

Healthcare and Abortion

J. Rich Wilson — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:07:08 EDT

Whether you believe in the right for a woman to have an abortion or not, a very large segment of the population believes it is wrong. So, if you're trying to pass a sweeping, historic and controversial healthcare bill, why would you give your opponents the ammunition they need to shoot it down? Including abortion coverage in the current healthcare bill language is the surest way to abort this healthcare bill right on the Senate floor.

It's a move so unwise that I wonder if the Democratic leaders really want this bill passed. We live in a democracy and the voices of those who oppose abortion are not neccessarily those that oppose universal health coverage. However, by covering abortion, the Democratic party is building a bridge between these two camps.

I myself am on the fence when it comes to abortion, but I had been a rabid supporter of universal health coverage. I'm a member of this site, I gave money to the campaign. If this new move gives me pause, imagine how it galvanizes those independents who we desperately need to support this bill.

Honestly, between the Cambridge police incident and inclusion of abortion in this healthcare bil, I wonder if the White House has taken the George Bush approach to ignoring polls.

The Health Care Dilly-Dally (aka "the Sidestep")

Angelo Caiazzo — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:24:20 EDT

When all good common sense says one thing, and greed for money says another, our own government is proof that today, unfortunately, money always wins the debate. It's time we at least call this beast for what it is, and stop trying to sugar-coat this thing as if there is any real debate about merit going on at all.

The real reason every citizen's health is not ensured as a right of being a citizen---as in Canada, and much of Europe and Asia---is because of greed, plain and simple. The theory behind this Universal Health Care principle is that if you keep people healthy individually, then you keep the people collectively happy, healthy, able to work... and so, pay taxes. Objections to this idea do not come from any theoretician of any merit, any big thinker, or from any unbiased evaluation. Specifically, the only arguments against such a plan come from the greed of those people involved in the private, insurance-funded field of medical care. These include, but are not limited to, all of the following, in no particular order:

1. Doctors and Scientists, Therapists, etc.

2. Pharmaceutical companies

3. Hospitals, HMOs, Clinics, Mental Hospitals, etc.

4. Insurance companies

All of these four groups argue so vehemently against Universal Health Care because under Universal Health Care they would all stand to lose big money. But again, let's be straight about it. Only these people charge such exorbitant fees for their services and add huge markups to their products. Even in down times, people get sick, in fact, illnesses increase in times of economic and political strife. This is why for too long the capitalization on medical services has been an unfair business. This "debate" about health care going on right now at the Capitol and broadcast through every media outlet in the country is a SHAM debate. it is merely the money, power, and lobbyists of these industries fighting against any change in the existing order of things.

Let's take them one by one. Doctors are esteemed in our society very highly. Most, but not all doctors, therapists, plastic surgeons, and the like come from good families with money. They were graced by the fortune of being able to go to school get educated. They took the Hippocratic oath to only do things to help people and nothing more. We hand them our mothers, wives, and children, let them poke and prod them as they feel appropriate, and so grant them all the respect and trust that we grant to only gods. Yet, this is not enough. 150,000 a year under a UHC (Universal Health Care) system is not enough. Many times I have wondered, too many times, whether helping people stay healthy is really most of these people's true desire in life.

They complain, these doctors, along with several other of these conspirators, that quality of service in countries that have UHC is inferior. There is no objective proof to this at all. And if lifespan statistics be any indication of health, is it any coincidence that this lifespan is highest in countries which have some type UHC along with drug price regulation? The "gotta have it now" argument they peddle states that under UHC people will have to wait for medical services. Really? The last time I saw a doctor at the scheduled time was when I was five years old in the Bronx, and Doctor Granada, the man who delivered me, came to my house with his little black bag. Never have I seen a doctor on time since then, not even once, always I wait like an idiot with nothing to do, reading magazines and watching programs that pump the very idea of disease into my head.

Why, then, should we reward someone monetarily simply because they have an education? In the old days, yes even before my Bronx days, the doctor would work for a chicken, or whatever you had, so long as he could make you well and preserve his reputation as a true man of Hippocrates. But, then, along came drug companies, hospitals, and insurance. Insurance was started, of course, by racketeers, also in New York City, and was meant to, for a fee, protect a person against harm to his being or property. Now the chicken becomes 300.00 for a 12 minute specialist visit. Long deemed illegal, this racketeering has since changed hands and become the insurance industry, so strong that its services are required, and so must be purchased, by anyone who buys a home, drives a car, or who intends to have any sort of decent medical care. Listen to how this industry works: when you are young and do not need health care as much, your premiums are low. Then , the older you get, the more sick you get, the more they go up. In fact, if you ARE sick already, they can just reject you, and so you cannot pay to get better, not those exorbitant fees as they now stand. They are all overpaid, insurance a monopoly. Repeat this mantra to everyone you see: Anything required, about which we have no real choice, should be regulated. You know, like local telephone company...

Now it is funny how every time we debate health care insurance and HMOs and the like are the first things that get mentioned. Here's an idea: eliminate insurance completely from the discussion. Eliminate the middle man.

Now the drug companies. Many countries even without UHC have some form of price controls on pharmaceuticals, and much better quality control than is provided by American "self-policing" and the FDA. A pill that costs two cents to make, a pharm company can currently charge 10.00 for, and nobody says anything about it. When gripes to start coming in, these companies talk about "research and development" and "testing" as justification for the gouging. Another great business to be in, is it not? Like insurance, which is required, drugs are required to treat illness. How would any of you readers like to own a business where your customers pay for your research and testing phases, or how would you like to own a business whose services are required by the state? Pretty cozy setup, wouldn't you say?

And let's not forget the hospitals. The Holiday Inns that reek of alcohol and iodine, that, like the pharm companies, have shareholders and board members who care first of all about the figures. State-run hospitals as an alternative would almost certainly cut their business at least in half, and so they would have to cut their Penthouse Suite rates from 1000.00 a night (with meals) to a more reasonable rate.

In short, there is no argument against Universal Health Care that holds water. Even those supplied by these four overpaid clown posses have no weight at best, and at worst, are downright lies. I have seen state-run medical services in several countries, and their quality of service and appearance are barely distinguishable from the poshest LA psychiatric clinic.

Give the people the choice. Universal Health Care would open up a million jobs just in the construction stage alone, and put several hundred thousand more medical personnel to work after the setup is complete. Offer the option to pay a flat tax per-head, or to go with private coverage.

Nobody wants this, in these four inductries. Because then they would have to adjust their prices in order to compete. By my reading this is the American Way. Mr. Obama, stop the dilly-dallying: make this thing a reality, the same way you stuffed the shirts of too-fat-already bankers.

The Current Health Care Debate

George A Sanders — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:44:47 EDT

This document was put together by Jodi Griffin from Red Lion, PA. She was tired of the spin and misstatements about health care reform. She wanted to know in more detail what the President wanted to achieve; what were the accurate statements and what is spin?

It looks like Insurance Companies (like United Healthcare) and Republican Senators (and some Democratic Senators) think that if the debate takes too long the emerging bill will be defeated. They think it is a victory to push a vote until after the August recess. They think during the delay they can win by spreading fear.

I think that delay gives us time to share accurate information with friends and neighbors and call our senators. Who wins the debate is up to us. We can fight organized money with organized people. We can fight fear. Yes We can.

Declare your support: http://my.barackobama.com/reform

Health Snare... Oh, I mean Health CARE.

LisaLi — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:53:34 EDT

I am by no means an expert on anything except doll making, art, graphics programs, and my own experience. Certainly not how to make a complex industry like health care work for all people all the time. But for the self-employed, it does not seem to work at all.

Being an expert on my own self-employed life has brought up the following questions.

Why, when we rarely have a lifetime job anymore, it the system still set up with your health care dependant on your employers? (Change the focus of the system)
Why, with this changing of jobs, locations and even careers in mind, do we still have to deal with Pre-Existing conditions, strangely set-up prescription rules? (Insurance will pay for a certain amount each month, and after you pay for it yourself, the doughnut hole, etc.)
And finally, Why, with so many entrepreneurs popping up all over the place, do we not have a real Union for things like... Health care?

I know we might be considered a small part of the population, but we are growing and so many people could benefit from the answers to these questions! What do you think?

Li Hertzi
http://www.photoshop4artistsworkshop.com
http://photoshop4artistsworkshop.com/Wordpress_PS4ART/BLOG/

We Need A Healthcare Home Run

Dave R — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:58:36 EDT

The naysayers to meaningful healthcare reform are playing hardball. They are throwing everything over the plate to strike out meaningful reform. The people of the United States have placed President Obama at bat. A wise man once said "We are judged by how we treat the least among us". Republican talking points and blue dog conservatives offer nothing but obstruction. We are on the Titanic of America headed for an iceberg. If we do nothing, reform will come with an expensive price once we hit the iceberg.

Chilling Facts on the Contemporary Health Care Costs

"Voice for Humanity" — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:57:36 EDT

July 21, 2009

By Padmini Arhant - Forwarding Facts Presentation by NCHC

As per the thorough, insightful and informative presentation of –

FROM: The National Coalition on Health Care – NCHC Cost Fact Sheet 2009 - Thanks

Source: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

FACTS ON HEALTH CARE COSTS:

In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012. Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.

Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

More @http://www.padminiarhant.com

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

The Health insurance plan is NOT a solution- it will only make things worse for the population

Prescott from Charleroi, PA — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:38:36 EDT

I cannot afford to pay for helth insurance along with roughly 10 % or more of the rest of Americans- It is not a solution to add forced bills on top of an already bankrupt economy- the more money the president orders made the less valuable the money will become

My Annual Income and Taxes:

Pay Rate       Annual Gross Pay
9.65   Hourly Pay Rate   20,072.00
Tax Rate   Type Tax
15.00000   FED INCOME TAX
6.19981   FICA/EMPLOYEE
1.45004   FICAMED EMPLOYEE
1.00000   LOCAL TAX
   OCCUPATIONAL TAX   10.00
3.07020   PA INCOME TAX
0.06030   PAUC EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION
26.78000       5,375.00

20,072,00   9.65 X 40 X 52 == Gross Pay
5,375.00   Gross Pay minus Tax withholdings
14,697.00   Net Annual Pay

My Basic Living Expenses:

Expense Amount   Necessities- Food, Shelter, Clothing   Annual Expense
395.00   X 12 months for Rent     4,470.00
300.00   X 12 months for Food    3,600.00
125.00   X 12 months for Natural Gas (double in cold winter months)   1,500.00
100.00   X 12 months for Electricity (slightly higher during cold winter months)   1,200.00
100.00   X 4 payments for water and sewerage   400.00
100.00   X 12 months for Refrigerator Rental (18 month contract)   1,200.00
100.00   X 12 months for telephone Service (includes DSL Internet)   1,200.00
50.00   X 12 months for Renters Insurance (insufficient in case of total loss)   600.00
   Total monthly Necessary Expense   14,170.00

My OTHER Expenses

Expense Amount   Other Monthly Expenses   Annual Expense
60.00   X 52 weeks for Automobile Gasoline/Oil    3,120.00
550.00   X 2 payments for Auto Insurance   1,100.00
100.00   X 12 months for Pay television   1,200.00
75.00   X 12 months for maintenance expenses (laundry, dish soap, cleaning supplies, etc)   900.00
200.00   X 12 months for recreation   2,400.00
260.00   X 12 months for savings   3,120.00
   Total Other Monthly Expenses   11,840.00

14,697.00   Net Annual Pay
26,010.00   Minus Annual Expenses
11,313.000   Annual Deficit

$ 9.86 == minimum hourly wage to make ends meet (NO Health Care Insurance, No Savings, No Investments)
Put Health Care into the mix (400.00/mo X 12 months == 4,800.00)

11,313.00   Annual Deficit before Adding Mandatory Health insurance
4,800.00   Annual Cost of Health Insurance ($400.00/monthly fee)
2,529.00   Annual Savings estimate [about 5% of $45,000.00]
18,642.00   Adjusted Annual Deficit

In order to make ends meet under your health plan, I would have to be earning $ 21.96/hour (40 hr work week @ 52 weeks)
$45, 670.00/year or $3,806.00/month. Minimum Wage is $ 7.15/hr or 1/3 of the minimum pay rate to make ends meet.
Use formula 33339=X-.27X=|=33339=.73X=|= 33339/.71=X=||=45,670.00=X=||=X=45,670.00

Healthcare: Change the Debate Support a Real Public Option

Jason M. Christos — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:32:57 EDT

Healthcare: Change the Debate Support a Real Public Option

Wednesday, 15 July 2009 Dear Friends,

In mid-May, in an effort to reach consensus, President Obama secured a deal with the health insurance companies to trim 1.5% of their costs each year for ten years saving a total of $2 trillion dollars, which would be reprogrammed into healthcare. Just two days after the announcement at the White House the insurance companies reneged on the deal which was designed to protect and increase their revenue at least 35% The insurance companies reneged on the deal because they refuse any restraint on increasing premiums, copays and deductibles - core to their profits. No wonder a recent USA Today poll found that only four percent of Americans trust insurance companies. This is within the margin of error, which means it is possible that NO ONE TRUSTS insurance companies...

The plot sickens

Lmpasquali — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:18:01 EDT

In-network, out-of-network, co-pays and deductibles, these are the land mines that permeate our current healthcare system. What's covered? What isn't? Read the fine print, then throw it out because it will all change tomorrow. And according to some, this is the best healthcare system in the world.

We discuss and debate healthcare reform and miss the obvious. We don't need reform, we need a whole new system. A system that puts the patient first and lets doctors do their job. Making healthcare a public service as opposed to the private commodity it has become should be the focus of this new system. Yes, there will be a cost, but the price of doing nothing will be greater. Human lives are at stake here. What happened to our so called 'culture of life'?

People put off check-ups and tests because they fear the cost. What they fear most are the results of tests and exams, as these may show that they need expensive medications or treatments they already know they can't afford. And these are people with insurance. According to a recent issue of the American Journal of Medicine, the cost of obtaining medical care resulted in 62% of bankruptcies in 2007. Among those filing for bankruptcy due to excessive medical bills, 77% had health insurance.

Health Care Reform

"Voice for Humanity" — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:02:27 EDT

By Padmini Arhant

The U.S. Senate is reviewing the components of the much-required health care reform bill. Obviously, the free market profiteers represented by the Insurance industry, hospitals, healthcare providers, Pharmaceutical companies and the entire enterprise strongly lobbying against the public option involving federal health care. Simultaneously, a tentative agreement by the hospitals and health care providers to reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs by $155 billion over a decade has been subject to immense speculation.

The opposition minority along with the cynics and the skeptics are vigorously contesting the legislation on the pretext – ‘tax’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’, an all time favorite issue...

More Details and Visuals @http://www.padminiarhant.com

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Bankfupting the Survivors

Miriam — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:27:01 EDT

A dear friend used to have over a million dollars in his IRA. Then one by one, his parents got sick, nearly bankrupting him. Here is his story.

The first to go was his father. His father had emphysema after 70 years of smoking (since the age of 5!). They put him in intensive care, expecting that he would die at any moment. He lived that way for 6 months before finally yielding to the inevitable.

The prolonged dying was bad enough. Worse was the bill for his last six months of living.

My friend's father was a veteran of World War II, and so got his health care from the V.A. That helped enormously. He retired from a career with the Border Patrol, which also provided health care benefits. But even those two sources couldn't cover the financial disaster that awaited the family.

When my friend saw the bill, he knew that it would have to be paid. His mother didn't have that kind of money. Besides, she was of the old school, believing that one must pay one's obligations no matter what. She would have gone to work (at the age of 78) to pay off these debts. To protect her, her son paid the bill from his IRA.

Then the mother got sick. She nearly died from a nasty case of pneumonia. The doctors were able to pull her through, and 5 years later, she continues to live happily in her independent living situation. But she was a teacher, and her teacher's health benefits paid only a fraction of the cost of her hospitalization. My friend paid this bill from his IRA, too, playing the role of the responsible son.

Before the latest stock market crash, my friend's IRA was only about 1/7th of its former size - not enough to retire on. He is four years short of age 66 - not enough time to make up the difference. As he has put it, he will have to work until he drops dead in the traces.

As fewer and fewer of our retirees have employer-provided pensions and supplementary health care benefits, how many more stories like this one await us?

My friend Marge died from lack of insurance

Miriam — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:49:46 EDT

My friend Marge died last October.

You’ve probably never heard of her. She was one of those “little people” who worked hard, paid her taxes, and tried to live an exemplary life.

According to her death certificate, it was breast cancer that killed her. To my way of thinking, the real reason was lack of insurance.

She was first diagnosed about 15 years ago. They amputated her breast, put her on chemo, and told her to take tamoxifen for the next 5 years.

But tamoxifen is expensive. When she lost her job—and with it her health benefits—she stopped taking it. (The promise of COBRA is empty for so many of us. How do you pay huge health insurance premiums if you have no income?) She found temp work at $9/hr, but that didn’t even pay her bills. She didn’t have anything left over for expensive medicines.

Nine years later, the breast cancer recurred. They treated it aggressively with chemotherapy, but then the hospital discovered that she had no insurance. What? Her new employer had been taking money out of her paycheck every month. What do you mean, no insurance? It turned out that her employer hadn’t been paying the premiums but kept the money himself. The chemo was discontinued. She had to declare bankruptcy. Her employer made promises of restitution, then let her go and dissolved the company. She had neither the money nor the energy for a lawsuit.

Four years later, the cancer returned. This time, her doctor said that it was treatable, but not curable. She qualified for Medicare, and she got good care, but the cancer was everywhere. She showed me the myriad lumps that mottled her flesh. Marge was 5’ 10”, but she weighed 84 pounds when I last saw her. She looked like a skeleton covered with skin. My beautiful Marge, who could have been a model, now looked like a wraith.

Much to everyone’s surprise, she lasted another 10 weeks. But why did she have to die at the tender age of 62? We, who are the richest country in the world, are the only developed country that doesn’t provide health care to all its citizens.

Public officials in Texas and in the health care industry have insisted that we in the U.S. already have universal, government-paid health care, since any citizen can walk into an emergency room and get care. Sure, if you have a bona fide health emergency. And the hospital isn’t already overcrowded. Plus a number of other “ifs” that only matter if it’s your life on the line.

But what if you have a chronic condition, like cancer? Or diabetes? Or asthma? Or rheumatoid arthritis? Or lupus? Or any one of a number of chronic, debilitating diseases that compromise your ability to work and even take care of yourself? None of these automatically qualify you for emergency room treatment. Besides, if you go to one of the hospitals in my area that serves the uninsured, the wait is often 12, 16, and even 18 hours or more. These public hospitals are chronically underfunded and oversubscribed.

We talk about how much it will cost to provide universal health coverage, but no one seems to factor in the cost of lost workdays, lost careers, lost parents, and all the other things that are lost because we let so many people languish in the limbo of the uninsured.

And did I mention that no health insurance provider will insure me at any price?

Miriam Foshay
Dallas, TX

Health insurance and "minor" procedures

Miriam — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:42:02 EDT

The U.S. medical system continues to leave me stunned.

Last fall, my doctor prescribed some minor surgery after a Pap smear came back positive. When I got her bill for the initial work-up, I was stunned, and decided we couldn't afford any more treatment.

I didn't talk to my family about it. I didn't want them to worry. Managing the finances is my responsibility, and not to pursue my doctor's recommendation was my choice and mine alone. Still, the term "pre-cancerous" nagged at me, and it was just a matter of time before I would have to do something. But what? Negotiate to have it done in her office instead of in the hospital?

Another bill arrived from the doctor's office, with the note "insurance denied." I called the insurance company, and they denied having been contacted by my doctor. As it turned out, there had been an error on the insurance application. Once that issue was straightened out, the cost went down dramatically, so I agreed to the surgery.

It was a day procedure. I had to show up two hours before the noon appointment, having neither eaten nor drunk since the previous night. I got to spend the waiting time lying on a bed in a private room in day surgery, being weighed, measured, and having my history taken, all by competent staff. The surgery proceeded without a hitch. I woke up from the anesthesia right on schedule, and was discharged just in time for my husband to pick me up after work.

And then the bills started arriving. I knew this would be bad.

The worst was the hospital bill - $6,258. There was no itemization for the surgical suite, the recovery room, the nursing care. Because I had insurance, the bill was instantly discounted 35%. Still, my share was $827.
The surgeon, my gynecologist, charged a pittance by comparison - a mere $1326. The insurance write-down on her fee was 78%, so she actually got less than $300, including both the insurance payments and my own.
The anesthesiologist billed $858 and took a write-down of 43%. He was paid significantly more than the surgeon: nearly $500, of which my share was 10%.

Last but not least, the pathologist claimed his share: $1132, of which he took a write-down of 45%. He got $617, of which my share was again 10%.

Had I not had insurance, the total bill would have been about $10,000 for the excision and biopsy of part of my cervix, a minor procedure. If we had to pay this princely sum, it would have required taking out a loan, for we certainly don't have the cash on hand. Luckily, we did have insurance, so the bill only came to a little over half that: $5536, and my share was just under $1000 - still a princely sum in our budget, but certainly much more manageable than the original $10,000.

But what if we didn't have insurance? Then I wouldn't have had the surgery. We are solidly in the middle class, but $10,000 is more than we can manage right now. Now I understand why 50% of bankruptcies result from medical bills. What a disastrous choice: loss of health, or financial catastrophe. How is it that the richest country in the world so penalizes the sick?

Survey Shows Community Interests

Bob — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:36:45 EDT

The White Mountain Rotary Club last Saturday participated in a Community Health Care Survey in front of Walmart in Show Low. Volunteers tabulated the response to three core questions on health care of passers by. (See the results* in detail below)

Some 200 citizens offered opinions on health insurance, medical treatment access, affordability and national health care reform. In general, the results were predictable – most had health insurance, most had access through a private physician, and a bare majority thought the federal government should provide universal coverage of all US citizens.

For our purposes here we did not differentiate between Medicare, Medicaid, Federal or State or Local government plans. Private providers appear to be a niche market.

Only 12% said they could not afford health insurance.

A narrow majority (55%) favored health care as a federal entitlement -- this excluded many seniors who were on Medicare but felt younger working persons should pay their own way.

According to the current week’s Economist, the US public pays $7200 per capita for health care, vs. the OECD average of $2600, most of which are single payer systems.

US health outcomes also lag those of European nations on heart disease, diabetes, and most cancers, some of which may be preventable with better practices.

Rotary Clubs in the region are considering support for a program called subscription health care which allows most medical care to be accessed through a private provider for a fixed monthly cost more affordable for working families. These plans favor wellness programs such as smoking cessation and baseline physicals to help avoid disease.

Health: It's Nothing Personal, It's Just Business

Henry M — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:58:37 EDT

If a Public Option is So Bad, Why are They So Sure that It Would Kill Private Health Insurance?

Henry M

Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?

Eric from Covina, CA — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:07:37 EDT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?

There's at least one thing that Republicans do much better than Democrats, and that's marketing their initiatives. It doesn't matter how regressive the idea, Republicans manage to frame it in a way that if you oppose it you look like you're either degenerate, or at the very least, un-American. For example, instead of accurately calling themselves "The Order of Religious Bigots Dedicated to Shoving Our Version of God Down America's Throat," they market their insanity as "The Moral Majority," and instead of being honest and calling themselves "The Public Vagina Brigade," they call themselves "The Right to Life" proponents (even though they're willing to let that very same life starve to death after it's born). Conservatives get a lot of milage out of their creativity in this area, and progressives would do well to follow suit.

Letting Big Insurers Participate in Single Payer Health Care

cgauthier — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:01:13 EDT

What if: every state designed a single-payer universal coverage plan and put that plan out to bid to all of the insurers large enough to handle it. Aetna, Blue Cross, and any other insurer, could bid on the health coverage for every person in the entire state. With 50 states, there would be enough business to go around. Participation would be universal and mandatory, as it is in Canada. Premiums could be paid by individuals, by their employers, or by state/federal funding for persons qualifying for assistance.

The state would have an oversight duty to make sure that no reasonable service was denied. The insurers would cover the entire population, not just the healthy. The state/fed government would be spared the cost of insuring only the sick that were rejected by the insurers.

Additionally, facilities, such as hospitals, labs, etc., could be funded according to capacity, not according to how many aspirin tablets were dispensed. The state/fed could provide this funding directly, or could require the funding as part of the single payer plan. This would eliminate much of the accounting costs on the part of the providers and the insurers, freeing up more resources for direct patient care.

I believe the idea I have written here, having the insurers compete to become a state’s single payer, could form the basis for a workable solution.

I am a management consultant from California, a U.S. citizen living in BC, Canada. I lost my coverage in California a few years ago when my employer went out of business. With no business, there was no COBRA. I was born in Canada, so I am able to live here with full health benefits. Here is a description of my experience with the BC health plan.

On the few occasions when I have needed medical attention, I was seen very quickly, and I was referred to a specialist when that was warranted. The rumors being spread in the U.S. that Canadians can’t access their health care system just aren’t true, except that there are some places where there can be a long wait in the emergency room, just as there is in the U.S. (I was seen for an eye injury in the E.R. here within a minute, though, without the need to go through a lengthy registration and payment arrangement process.) Where population growth causes these delays, the Province goes to work to expand capacity in that location, funded in part by increased premium revenues from the population growth. In those cases where the need exceeds capacity, patents are sent to another province or to the U.S. for care, but that care is paid for by the health plan of the home province.

Yes, there are some waiting lists for some procedures with certain doctors, but at least people are on a list for a funded solution to their problem. Countless millions of people in America don't even have the hope of being on a waiting list. In the vast majority of case (I estimate well over 95%), patients receive excellent, appropriate care promptly.

Individuals here are required to pay premiums, which are modest by U.S. standards. If they qualify for assistance, they pay reduced or no premiums. Employers can pay the premiums for their employees, and can offer extended benefits, such as dental care and eyeglasses. Affluent individuals can access non-covered services, such as elective plastic surgery, in private clinics.

Every doctor I am aware of in BC is in private practice, ranging from solo practitioner to large group. They are free to take care of the patient’s needs, without worrying about what the patient can afford. Anyone can see any primary care physician they want, and the primary care physician can refer the patent to specialists, which they do without reservation when warranted. The physicians bill the BC medical plan (I believe they would revolt if they had to deal with U.S.-style insurer billing). The hospitals are funded separately – I believe they are funded according to their capacity. I don’t believe they bill per patient day or per unit of service of any kind. There is no patient billing at all.

Canadians love their health care system, and can’t fathom why there are strong voices in America opposed to universal coverage. It won’t be easy, but I am confident that, if we rally around him, President Obama can lead the way to overcoming these hurdles.

PUBLIC HEALTH CARE - CONCISE IN A NUTSHELL

GREG KLINE — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:56:11 EDT

There are roughly 306 million Americans, more than 47 million of whom have no health insurance. That's 1 in 6 Americans, who only seek medical attention in Emergency Rooms, when their stuation is dire. They do not receive preventive care, which is ultimately a fiscal disaster. 60 million Americans have inadequate access to primary health care. 100 million don't have dental insurance. Last year, 116 million ailing Americans fore-went care because they couldn't afford the deductables, were under-insured, or had a lapse in coverage. In 2008, over a million Americans lost their homes, directly attributable to medical bills. Did you know that 2/3 of all personal bankruptcies are related to medical bills? Who pays in the end? We all do.

The US spends $2.3 trillion each year on health care, 16 percent of our GDP. Americans spend $7,129 per person on health care, 50 percent more than other industrialized countries (including those with universal care). Canada spends 10% of it's GDP on health care, England 9%, and France 11%. Yet, we rank roughly 37th in the world, in regard to the quality of our health care (France ranks #1, England #18, and Canada #30). 30% of every insurance dollar goes to paperwork and administration fees. Still, in 2006, the six largest insurance companies made $11 billion in profits, even after paying for direct health care costs, administrative costs, and marketing costs. The number of health insurance industry bureaucrats has grown at 25 times the growth of physicians in the past 30 years. We all know that much of the industry profits come from the arbitrary exclusion of "pre-existing conditions", and terminating people's insurance once they experience a serious illness.

Barack Obama's health insurance plan purports to reduce insurance costs by 30% (more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every uninsured American). He plans to eliminate "pre-existing condition" restrictions. And most criticaly, provide a public health care option. The current Republican tactic, is to call this plan socialism, because it is a loaded term, calculated to scare people. The fact is, police and fire departments are socialized. And your health is a more fundamental right than both of those. Sooner or later, we will all need help from social safety nets, such as Social Security. With health insurance, what we are effectively talking about, is broadening the OPTION of a form of Medicare and Medicaid to everyone. This will cause private insurance companies to respond more reasonably to their clients, and to reduce their rates to be more competitive. The GOP says that Medicare is expensive. The fact is, that Medicare's administrative costs are far lower than any private health insurance plan. The GOP also complains that government run programs are a disaster. Funny they don't feel that way about the government run insurance plan that Congressmen have.

Keep in mind, that privatised health care, introduces the model of profit (with expensive ads that we ultimately pay for). The whole point of profit, is to give as little as possible, for as much as possible. That's no way to address your health. Fun fact: The pharmaceutical industry is the single largest advertiser in America. This might be why the health care industry is spending 100 MILLION DOLLARS (1.4 million dollars a day) to lobby against and kill the public health care option. Their latest tactic is the "trigger option". Don't buy it.

And don't be fooled. Public health insurance DOES work well in Canada, England and France. Yes, one can always find an exception to harp on for political ends. When you research it, it becomes clear that the vast majority of people in these countries are quite satisfied with their health care. Notice that the opposition to public health care, is all about fear, scare, pessimism, status quo, defeatism. Ask about alternative ideas, and you hear silence. Fact is, approximately 73% of Americans want some version of a public health care option "like Medicare/Medicaid".

Another Republican talking point, suggests that a public healthcare option would take health care out of the hands of patients and their Doctors. In fact, that's exactly what we have now. We all know that insurance companies routinely deny coverage for tests, surgeries, and medications. I have personally experienced insurance company kangaroo appeal decisions, where they are the sole arbiturs of a judgement. As I write, though I'm insured by Aetna, I have to wait 6 weeks to see a neurologist that will accept my insurance.

You want to put a human face on this? My daughter was born this past September 28th with a recessed jaw. Her medical bills thus far are over a half MILLION dollars. She easily has another half million in surgery ahead of her. This is insanity. My 6 month old daughter should not be forced to live an obscene legacy of helplessly and unwittingly running her family into poverty. It simply breaks my heart.

It is woefully overdue for people to have a public health choice available to them. Yes, lobbyists and other rats are lining up to fight it, because lower costs, means lower profits for them. It's time they stop running the show. People have suffered enough. My wife and I have suffered enough. Damn the politics. It's time to act civilized. It's time for decency. People need to support Barack Obama's public health option, NOW.

But no person, including Barack Obama, can do this alone. He needs the will of the people. This means that he needs your two cents. A "letter to the editor", blogging, signing petitions. Many people putting in two cents will create the foundation, momentum, and mandate that Barack needs to press his case. We can do this historic thing. Yes we can. Let's go get em.

All Good Things,

Greg

PS - How countrys rank in health care;

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

HC Story: 6 months to find coverage

Ronald from Philadelphia, PA — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:59:04 EDT

Dear President Obama:

When my husband and I decided to move to Philadelphia, I began to research health insurance. I discovered that there was actually no system at all, and no way to get accurate, much less comparative, information on the many private plans. After six months of spade work I discovered that there was a health commissioner in Pennsylvania, who directed us to two different Blue Cross reps for two different plans (As a cancer survivor, one of us was rated differently). In many states, the fact that one of us had a pre-existing condition would have made it impossible for us to get any insurance at all.

Sincerely,

Fran Gilmore

HC Story: I didn't die Chrismas Eve

Ronald from Philadelphia, PA — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:45:18 EDT

Dear President Obama:

I had a career as an opera singer and as a cantor, but if not for a happy accident, I would have died while this career sat on the launch pad. I had a history of health ups and downs for all my adult life, but without consistent health insurance, I never had a unifying diagnosis. I blamed myself for falling out of shape. The real culprit was unmasked on the operating table.

My condition, sarcoidosis, kills onl 5% of its sufferers, but my number came up on December 23, 1998. My new wife looked at my ashen skin, and ignoring my protestations, made me make a appointment with a cardiologist. She had top-of-the-line insurance from her employer. She had made conservative career choices to maintain it. Now it was put to use. My new cardiologist, who asked in disbelief, "Haven't you blacked out in your car yet?", scheduled me for a pacemaker the next day, on Christmas Eve. My disease (which hadn't been diagnosed even then) had shorted out the main nerve conducting a signal to the left ventricle in my heart, which had reached a perilously low 36 beats per minute. In short, I wasn't out of shape. I was dying.

The bill? $47,000, including $25,000 for the pacemaker and $22,000 for everthing else that happened from admission to discharge. As a musician, and a freelancer at that, I would not have undertaken a debt that could not be repaid. I would have made my curtain call before the orchestra finished the overture.

Ronald Fischman

Recession Survival Fair—Volunteers Needed

signsSansSignifieds — Thu, 28 May 2009 10:38:04 EDT

The Recession Survival Fair will take place on 6/6 at the Brooklyn Brownstone School in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. Volunteers are needed now. Details here:

http://signsanssignified.blogspot.com/2009/05/recession-survival-fairvolunteers.html

Single Payer Debate on Linked In

Linda from Winter Springs, FL — Mon, 25 May 2009 23:20:20 EDT

Dear Harvey,

We can agree to disagree. The government does not regulate the insurance companies; and that's why they get away with murder. Insurance companies fall under Sui Generis, which means "unto itself." Each state has a commissioner of insurance that monitors insurance companies. However, most citizens never take their complaints to that height of the food chain.

As for my practice and health-care of "illegal aliens"? I'm a public health physician who has taken care of indigent women throughout my entire medical career. And half of my patients are indeed, "illegal aliens." I'm not the border control. I'm a physician. And when a patient presents to me for prenatal care, I give it. Because that's the oath that I swore upon graduation.

My colleagues are crying behind closed doors because they can't pay their malpracice premiums. Their income has dropped by 40% because the insurance companies and hospitals made back door deals and no one wants to jeopardize losing their hospital privileges. Why do you think there is a plethora of "medical spas" and "retail vitamins" "businesses" emerging within physician practices.

Patient safety is in jeopardy because nurses and physicians are distracted trying to keep up with the increasing demands of Big Pharma and insurance profiteers. With all due respect, Harvey. Don't you be fooled. If you or anyone has a better suggestion as opposed to the status quo of Big Insurance and their shareholders, please tell me. I'm just trying to put the CARE back in healthcare.

Linda

On 05/25/09 7:50 PM, Harvey Stelman wrote:
--------------------
Dear Linda,

A European Socialistic system is what we are headed for. Do not think of what health-care the people in Congress get, although we do pay for it. The government regulates the insurance companies, they now want to regulate how much money you can earn. Please do not be fooled, our President does not want our country to set standards, he wants us to be equals.

Look at how much of your money goes to health-care of illegal aliens. Do you want to treat them for free? You may say yes but what if half your practice was like that?

On 05/25/09 7:15 PM, Linda Burke-Galloway, M.D.,MS., FACOG wrote:
--------------------
Thanks for your comment Harvey, however members of Congress and the Senate have a health plan that does not involve insurance companies. Can that be defined as socialism? Our libraries are paid by tax dollars. Can that be defined as socialism? As a physician, I'm tired of battling with insurance clerks so that my patients can receive care. When I refer a pregnant woman to the hospital because I suspect her unborn child is in trouble and may need an emergency C/Section, I don't appreciate a clerk refusing her admission because she's in the "wrong hospital that doesn't accept her insurance."

If members of the Senate and Congress don't have to deal with unethical insurance companies, why should the American people?

Thanks again for your comment.

On 05/25/09 6:26 PM, Harvey Stelman wrote:
--------------------
Dear Dr. Galloway,

Socialism has no place in health-care. My wife works for Abbott Labs and R & D will be cut immediately. That's why Europe produces less drugs than it once did, fifteen percent of the doctors in England were trained in India or Pakistan, people wait months for surgery and we have NO money to pay for it.

Every doctor I know stands with you. Mr. Spend-Spend-Spend is killing our country.

is working on...
will be traveling to...
is looking for advice on...
is looking for a job
is reading...

Why health care reform is needed!

Kreidermen — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:02:57 EDT

I just went through the health care system debacle with my father who passed away in April. He was in a wheelchair for over 30 years. It was difficult for him to find a job, so he was on Medicare most of his life. Preventative services were minimal (he lived in Wadsworth, OH) and qualified Dr.'s were located hours away.
My Mother not only needed to be his caretaker, but she had to work full-time for health insurance. For the last year, he was in and out of small hospitals (in August 4 times in one month.) No one was able to diagnose or treat him. It was one complication after another. Being out-of-state, it was extremely difficult for me to get information from the Dr.'s and hospitals. In fact, in March, my sister and I had to hire a private Case Manager (at $95 an hour) to help us get a hold of the situation.
Sadly, he passed away April 6th in the same small town hospital that transfered him out of their hospital every time he was admitted.
Now, my mother, who still lives in Ohio, is moving in with me, from Ohio to Colorado in order to pay medical bills. She can no longer make the mortgage payment, so the house that her and my father lived in for 30 years will go into foreclosure. She is not old enough for Medicare, so her current situation is she is unemployed (looking for a new job at 61), living with me and my family, receiving $1300 a month from my dad's Social Security and paying about $500 of that for health insurance.
I am happy to tell you more about this story and why the need for reformed health care is desperately needed! I am only 34 and had to deal with this. It will only get worse as our population ages. My Dad passed away too soon at 65, don't let that be ok.

COLONIALIST MOUTHWASH

caring_independent — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:08:31 EDT

in the name of the fathers and their sons and the Colonialists
who proudly hailed toward some gleaming across the ocean
by Natives saved from death the first winter, leaving twenty-three
paternalists never owning the genocide of nearly an entire race
history not saying much different now, denying Native Sovereignty
while descended from the Daughters of the American Revolution
i'm still steeped in false prides and dreams, woman and subject
among slaves and Natives, would we comprise our own nation
indivisible in shame, doubt and fear within, overlapping virtues
one with no pride, lying under a Governor that would tax Natives
we shouldn't be prosecuting prostitutes for trying to earn a living
just working to get where you are with the little she's been given
that might be doubly enforceable if she had also been a Native
raised lost herself, from life removed by her relations' massacres
sorrows handed down with depressions, as legacies like wealth
as i strolled behind the scenes in the Museums of Natural History
not one pre-Colombian pottery piece, closets filled with the same
bear and animal skins collecting dust, spoils of hunts and safaris
hung on racks in rooms, like so many furs in a dry cleaning store
i guess there was some point of a brass tribute to Roosevelt there
when i and plenty of others with children cannot afford health care
in school taught history, lessons of law and what is right or wrong
insurance companies rape New York and politicians still get votes
call the system "Admitted Carriers" crowned like elitist princes
sixty-nine articles or rules open to the public, i'm just small league
collaring poor Martha Stewart, rich woman in the patriarch game
trying to make it through the meet, entrenched to keep her security
growing girls away from indiscretion like we are born little whores
do any damn newspapers print the true realities of life's hypocrisies
its been a man's world, and i am now told spirituality is on the rise
to see common bonds between Christianity and Native religions
been there before don't you think, twist stories to fatten their hides
we've seen worse than prostitution from the abbots in the abbeys
what more could we ask in lowering our commitment to this world
stewardship, self-determination, humbled by truths of generations
equality of birth; let no slave, Jew, Native or woman not earn honor
spirituality belongs to the individual and their sacred conjugal rights
as each seeks their proper balance and a peaceful place in Nature
to regain our status as human beings everywhere, perhaps in effect
permit globalization of the human society without a fear not to eat
while we are sent back to school to keep up with new developments
time has been calling us up, each and everyone to raise standards
small groups march from West to East coasts to open new life cycles
we comfort in soft chairs behind screens to seek play and distraction
while each have the power within to raise up our spirits' resurrection
redeem injustices suffered upon human beings, land and our future
we need all wear the grimaces of foolish shame and shut our mouths
same on all the faces of the leaders worn in a slide show i saw today
i'd never have thought i was good enough to run for elected office
that thought had left my mind some time just before my twelfth year
true leaders are born we are told, but heart can takes years to retrain
there is truly something on the rise, whether it be glorious or fearful
obviously we can't live under the crushing weight of our current lies
here comes the march upon each one, the place we meet our fate
i can't apologize for yesterday, because i was meant to be here now
but tomorrow will responsibility be sought for all that's yet to come
just what higher purpose may mean about grace and being reborn

reality is a hard habit to break - salamandra

Written March 11, 2008, copyright MEWilson

What's the Rush?

The Barbarian — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:21:15 EDT

Mitch keeps sending me letters asking me to donate to Organizing for America in support of Obama's healthcare plan.

First, the plan sounds draconian to me: insure your kids or you're in violation of the law. While that will make insurance companies a lot richer, it's not much of a solution and it's tone deaf to the plight of lower-income Americans. The problem isn't a shortage of treatment facilities, doctors, nurses or even health insurance, it's that healthcare costs too much. How is pushing more money into health insurance going to help?

Second, why has so much effort been put into silencing single-payer advocates? I don't know that I agree with single-payer, but it does seem odd that it's been shut out of all political and (corporate) media discourse. Is this why Mitch tells me "there's no time to lose," as in, hurry, before an idea the lobbyists hate starts gaining public support?

Third, "There's not a moment to lose." Sound familiar? Perhaps Bush's demands following 9-11 come to mind? Or Hank Paulson's bait and switch in the waning days of the Bush Administration? Slow down: there's always time, unless they're trying to push this through before someone can expose all of the holes in it.

Fourth, what if the solution to the healthcare crisis is doing nothing at all? That's right: what if instead of trying to figure out a way to keep up with the costs of medical insurance, we let the market push the cost of healthcare back to equilibrium? The government subsidizes hospitals, grants them not for profit status. Red Cross provides whole blood to the hospitals for free on an as-needed basis, though given the way hospitals charge patients for whole blood, it's hard to imagine that the only real expense incurred is in storage and handling. And then there are both private and public health insurance subsidies. Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente also have tax-exempt, not-for-profit status (one hell of a subsidy). With so much public money propping up the industry, why can't they simply charge less? Perhaps because subsidies are what's keeping the medical industry from being forced to lower their prices. Perhaps not.

All solutions need to be examined carefully and explained well in a public forum. Our Senators and Representatives need to see that any legislative attempts at correcting the healthcare dillemma are in the interests of the voting public, not the lobbies who paid for their campaigns. And our President needs to stop acting like George W. Bush: this isn't 9-11, and even if it were, we learned from it the first time.

Health Care for the Voiceless

Zeep — Sun, 03 May 2009 11:56:46 EDT

Our country has been debating universal health care for over six decades. The chambers of Congress and the halls of the Whitehouse echo with endless reasons for or against. While this has perpetuated the mega-insurance companies have steadilly taken over the control of health care. Profit is their major motive. The Hippocratic Oath has been hijacked by corporate greed. Our health care management system has run amuck just as our financial and banking system. Unabated greed has taken over from dedicated medical practicioners. The family doctor who welcomes house calls is as extinct as the polio virus. Insurance companies will not pay for such frivolity.

As management greed and prices for health care have skyroceted many millions of Americans are unable to obtain even rudimentary care when needed. The millions of Americans who are too young to benifit from Medicare and work for the minimum wage or are unemployed are ignored by a Medical insurance system that essentially fattens the pockets of multi-millionaire executives while allowing the poor sick to get sicker. The voiceless in America who are overrepresented by the millions of poor people are never heard by those who buy off the votes of our Congress to protect the status quo. The loyal members of Congress suck up the moola from the Insurance Company lobbyists by the hundreds of millions while thumbing their collective noses to the majority of American people.

President Obama has the opportunity to eliminate the profit-oriented medical management system if he listens to the people of the USA and not the powerful corporate executives who determine who is eligible for health care and at what price. The voiceless in America must now let their voices be heard above the din of self-interest that seems to control Wachington, D.C. Be heard America and let the voiceless become empowered to secure non-profit management of health care made available to all of our citizens as a fundamental right.

The "Thirty Percent Off" Health Care Discount

Angelo Caiazzo — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:52:41 EDT

Well wouldn't you know it, here we go again.

Let's put some things in perspective. One of the reasons the Prez got elected in November was because American citizens were rightfully angry at the status quo. We have been taxed progressively more ever since World War I, we have continually fought wars of some kind abroad ever since that time, we have continued to decrease civil liberties, and we have since been getting robbed by a monopolistic health care industry, fleeced by insurance---a requirement to survive---and we have stood by like idiots while the Constitution gets torn to shreds in the name of unjust wars. We have more enemies abroad than ever before because of our unjustified aggressive actions. No WMDs in Iraq, and no quick exit from Afghanistan, not with all those oil possibilities by the Caspian Sea.

I write today because I have been receiving mailings from Moveon.org frequently as of late, the latest "we need your help" being about Prez Obama's "drastic" 30% health care discount. To me, this is an insult, a trick and a ploy to get the claws of the insurance business into everyone, like good mafiosi. Furthermore, it is insuting because SINCE WHEN does MONEY make the issues change? Yes, I am realistic, I know how it works, but enough is enough already. Nobody asks for research, or a court date, or a hearing, or protests. I get letters 3 times a week from the "representatives" of the sitting administration and Barrack Obama asking me for donations and phone calls to my representatives. You've got a goddamned phone, pick it up, and call them up, or email them, yourselves, it would seem you all know each other a lot better. Stop jerking the working man, the 80% of citizens in this country around. Stop running away from the term "socialized medicine." Look at places that have it, check the lifespan of the inhabitants, and you will see, we pay top dollar for at best mediocre medical care, or as I call it, the Parrot Squad of the Averages.

Nevertheless, before I lose this fire, and so muse (because I too have been hypnotized in the past, asleep to what is really going on), let me say that we don't need conspiracy theories when the facts, common sense, and plain observation prove the perspective we should finally now, undoubtedly, begin to see. For force of effect, let's put this perspective this way, as what Bob says: Bob says the government is our enemy. This government is no longer OUR government, as the founding documents of this country say it ought be; it is not us, it is the "other."

We elect representatives and so we are a republic, but scarcely half of us bother to vote. Of the half that do not enter the polls, a good percentage would vote, but do not for varying reasons, not all bad ones, for instance, they say "there is no real choice." Blue team, or red team only get to play, and they are in fact identical; there is no difference between a liberal republican and a conservative democrat. The green, orange, or yellow teams, who want to play, have to face tremendous handicaps to get the attention and media exposure required to relay messages these days. They both, blue and red, speak the same, they both speak the words the surveys say some people want to hear, they do not lead so much as carry on with the bullshit line we've had since Wilson. Hyperbole, possibly, the point is many do not vote because they feel it is FUTILE. "This machine is a-rollin', baby, and no amount of sanity, rationaility, or reason will stop it." So, they look out for their own, pay no attention, if, it seems, they are smart.

Some of these people got up and participated last election because they had hope. Hope for real change. Hope for the poor. Hope for universal health care. Hope for human rights, for the end of silly wars of American lives sacrificed for business deals, even hope we would stop arresting people for growing pot, or smoking pot. All these folks mobilized because they saw a possible breakthrough. But no, you see, the government runs itself as a business, a racketeering loanshark arm of coersion, as of the Sicilian school after Lansky, applied to not just a city, but the entire nation. Covered with the tired robe of rhetorical "change" we quiet down a bit and take the (Merck and Pfizer, e.g.) soma...we stay sedated.

These are some of the Big Businesses that are the strongarms of, let us say, the syndicate, or, or Joint, the different "families" involved in making the American people pay up or pay the price, not for any valid reason, but for the syndicate's own easy existence and material benefit. The choices they pretend to offer the American people, as in candiate Blue, or candidate Red, Bob says, are both already approved by the mafiosi government. His examples:

1. The Congress, the Judicial System, the Executive Branch

--All of these people are making a good living on you. This is not a congress of fellow blacksmiths and bartenders. This is a bunch of lawyers and sons and daughters of rich daddies, most of whom have done little real work their entire lives. All of them suck up taxpayer money, which money also goes to those lunches, airplanes, vacations, the best wine and liquor and champagne, and an endless supply of paper, pencils, and hot secretaries, I will not speculate about hot tubs and Vegas trips. Let's not forget about that great Health Insurance Plan, remember, the one the Prez said we would be able to buy into.

2. Arms Dealers

--The real Big Business, also the related guerillas, guns-for-hire, and departments of association concerned with buying, selling, making, maintaining, designing, and distributing weapons of mas destruction. And small guns and knives and buckles and uniforms and war paint. My friend Bob says the military is our friend, forced to fight wars to expend weapons and secure strategic or lucrative (as in oil) real estate.

3. Big Banking

--Let's recap: we have been hearing for years from the Fed, from the past administrations, that we are broke, that we have no money for children's schools, or to fix roads, or achieve even an efficient bank balance. Yet, when the banks came a-callin', we not only found them the money, HUGE money (WHERE FROM??? TELL THE PEOPLE!), but we gave it to them toot sweet. Do they think we are all imbeciles?

4. Insurance

--Wouldn't you love to have a business selling a product the government says you must have? For a home loan, for a driver's license, to own a vehicle...and now, maybe, for health care too? What is a 30% discount? It is an insult, because the increased business will actually benefit the insurance coffers in the end, with the increased business and perhaps total control in health care. WHY is it so hard just to offer a health care like Canada does, or like Germany does, or like most industialized nations, even Iran. Why, because insurance and banks have a long relationship. Reseach any of this yourself, thoroughly, and you will see. Insurance is one of the powers that be, and the way it looks, soon opting out will not be an option. This smokescreen about how difficult it will be to get ithe 30% frequent flyer discount is to make their aggressive move look charitable. It will pass, and the costs will rise, and the uninsured will still continue to pay cash rather than feed the insurance machine. Which brings us to another related "field":

5. Health care Industry

--All facets, nothing is exempt. Phramaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, every single one of them is overpriced for what they do, and they know it. It's not as if they are compensated for success. Aspirin advertises 5% better results than placebo, and this is THEIR sponsored study. People die by the thousands yearly by taking only aspirin, and yet new, clearly untested pharmaceuticals hit the shelves at an amazing speed, pushing and selling pills and services with 1000% markup, with arguable success for the measures. They claim that they offer the best service, when clearly a look at your almanac, or here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

...will show that this is clearly not the case. Having been to some of those places, I have seen it with my own eyes. We must wait if we are not in emergency. Is that a problem? Only for Ph.D. pseudo-doctors who have the gall to suggest aesthetic treatment is in line with the oath of Hippocrates, or that the insurance will pay for it. 100.00 pills, 3,000 a night beds, 200.00 shots, it's ok, insurance will pay. If the doctors and beds had to take chickens, like in the old days, maybe we wouldn't value so highly someone who was lucky enough to get a good education. As is, they should be paid like bricklayers, who are much more tired after work.

There are more, many more, but I am getting tired. I am dismayed that a President who promised health care for everyone is seemingly resoritng to the bribe of a 30% discount on medical insurance. "Green jobs," to build what, again? Why not build public hospitals, schools, clinics, and let the working men really work and earn a living, in the mean time creating real infrastructure and jobs and facilities for millions in education and health care?

Aw don't worry , I am sure we can find the money.

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN - PART 2

Queen E — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:17:59 EDT

April 26, 2009

National Health Care System - Part 2

Yes, to all of you who has responded to my letter on National Health Care Plan, your points are so valid and real. Thank-you.

I still say to you all and to our President and Congress that it is not that hard to implement a National Health Care System in these United States.

Because it already exists; Its called Medicaid and Medicare.

You only need to revise the policies on membership, on salary requirements, on assets, on whatever rule is blocking others to become eligible and to include All people.

That’s it. That is so plain and simple. No exceptions to the rule.. Leave out the exceptions and grant Medicaid and Medicare across the Nation to All People.

Deduct some amount from All Worker’s salary to pay into the Medicaid and Medicare System. Small Business would only need to be concerned with implementing a payroll deduction for the National Healthcare Plan just as they withdraw Federal and State Income Tax payments.

It is not that complicated. It really is not that complicated but people seem to want to make it complicated.

No, HMOs or Private Clinics or Private Practices would have to close down. They only need to ACCEPT the new Medicaid and Medicare patients.

Yes, Blue Cross and other Insurance plans will have to scramble to create a way to become inclusive and join the National Health Care System.

I SUGGEST THAT They do this by contracting to the Federal Government to assist with Oversight and Management.

IT IS NOT THAT HARD FOLKS. Please stop adding to the deficit by creating more insurance plans, more health care systems. STOP!

Make the administrative revisions to Medicaid and Medicare and let’s get on to other issues in the community.

Insurance System Congressional Agenda - Fix it

Dale — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:07:05 EDT

Medicare Cost a mess. Definitely YES! This is one large issue which needs to be tackled. As I sat overseeing budgeting in a hospital, the staff went through a process of the effect on indigent care. Some increases and many cuts in reimbursement. The whole concept is NOT based on producing a quality of care and is horrible! What happened to the way it used to be; medical professionals getting paid fairly?

For one thing, it is a nightmare to administer and follow all the rules. If is was a simple pay for the fair costs of all medical care with elimination of all the inclusions and exclusions, the cost of of administering these programs would be reduced at least 15 - 20% or more.

Budget: Promises Made; Promises Watered Down

Don — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:07:49 EDT

Why does it seem that the President is watering down his budget proposal to chase votes he won’t get? Republicans proved during the stimulus bill that despite all the concessions made to them then, they would never vote in favor of anything the President wants.

With Democrats, Independents and Moderate Republicans like me on his side, the President should focus on keeping his campaign promises because John Boaner, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are opposed to fresh air, sunshine and Jesus, so long as they think President Obama is in favor of them.

Mr. President, you have helped them marginalize themselves to the maximum extent imaginable. Now it’s time to stand true to your word. Frankly, not everything you promised was what I wanted, but if you do what you told us you’d do, I will continue to support you, and I will vote against those who oppose you, regardless what party they’re in.

Tommy's National Health Care Plan (theory)

Tommy from Russellville, AR — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:27:00 EDT

P=Population BT =Business Tax GDP=Gross Domestic Product

Tommy’s Health Care Plan for the Nation: National Health Insurance Plan P+HI=P (20%GDPtax) + BC(5)

I. The Federal Tax structure will be altered. 20% of GDP taxes will be pooled into Health insurance pool. II. 15% will go into Federal HI pool. 5% will go into State HI pool III. The Federal HI pool will be available to all legal Americans.a. Every American will receive a Debit/Insurance Card.b. This will be all an American needs for any type of emergency medical services.c. Those happy with current HI plan, can apply for a tax incentive to receive an insurance rebate.

"Corporate Health Care" is an oxymoron

Terry DuBose — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:56:09 EDT

The Republicans shout “free markets,” but their words casts doubt that they have read Adam Smith’s 1776 publication, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” or what he wrote about corporations. Smith basically believed that corporations were an interference with a “free market”, limited competition, and a way to “fix prices.” Rush Limbaugh preaches free markets, but some human activities are better accomplished by society such as national defense, fire-fighting, highways, streets; and it now appears, health care.

The USA’s health care system is broken and bankrupting businesses. GM has complained about how health insurance is dragging them down for years, while Japan’s auto companies do not have to deal with this issue directly. We pay more and have the worst outcomes of any modern industrialized nation. NeoCons talk about “free markets,” while insurance corporations tell patients which “preferred provider” physicians they can see, and tell the physicians how many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures they cannot order. And everyone, patients, physicians, and hospitals alike, are begging the insurance system to pay for health care as promised. Yet, if a patient misses an insurance premium payment, the corporation will cancel the policy in a heartbeat.

There is a fundamental conflict of interest in “corporate health care” because corporations by law must put the stockholder's profit above any other consideration, including patient care and the environment. For-profit health care reduces the Hippocratic Oath of “First, do no harm” to “You money or your life.” Peace, Terry J. DuBose

Credit Default Swaps

Caroline — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:38:30 EST

Credit Default Swaps are a BIG problem.....as markets swirl down and economic activity slows, more and more swaps are triggered....which then weighs down the balance sheets of the swap sellers....and the cycle gets more and more vicious....

I can think of THREE things we might start with here -- I'll list 'em, and you tell me what you think:

1) get state insurance regulators to clarify -- or pass federal legislation if they won't -- that a credit default swap bought by a party who has an economic interest in the Default Event NOT occurring is.....an insurance policy, subject to rate reviews and reserve requirements for the seller. If swaps had been regulated as insurance right along, we would not be bailing out AIG, am I wrong?

2) get state attorneys general to clarify -- or pass federal legislation if they won't -- that a naked credit default swap, that is, one which is sold by and bought by parties who have no connection to the transaction out of which the default might arise -- is GAMBLING, and illegal. I can't see that naked swaps are any different from betting on dogs or gamecocks or any other sort of betting....

It seems to me that this ought to have been obvious from the very beginning, if you know the legal definitions of insurance and of gambling....somebody clarify for me why I am wrong?

3) GO AFTER and punish if possible or humiliate if not possible to punish, the CEOs and corporate attorneys who piled on to the credit default swap thing, AND the insurance commissioners and attorneys general who just stood by and watched. WE NEED SOME ACCOUNTABILITY HERE, or it will just keep on happening. The mess at AIG generated a lot of fancy fees and salaries.....and now we taxpayers get to EAT all those swaps.....

Supporting President Obama's Universal Health Care Plan is fiscally smart!

Barbara C. Benedict — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:19:50 EST

I sent this letter to my representatives today.

I hope you can find time to send your own letters too!

Dear Senators and Congressman,

Please know you are doing the right thing --and the fiscally smart thing -- by average Americans and Business in supporting President Obama's Universal Health Care Plan. Keep in mind that if I don't have to spend the entire --over $700. per month that I spend as a single woman, no children, on monthly health insurance (HMO) I would gladly put the difference of the money back into the American economy. I would gladly support growth in the American GDP immediately through using any savings in a "stimulating way."

Run these numbers! For example, an additional $500 - $700. per month pumped back into the economy by an average person like me, multiply me by millions... that's a lot of money! It's nearly 10x any annual tax rebate/stimulus check and it's *every month.* Hundreds of dollars per citizen put back into the American economy -- widespread across all goods and services categories. It's the difference between being able to purchase a much needed new car, making the mortgage, purchasing goods and services in our communities, paying for some college --or going back to college, donating to our local food pantries, etc. etc.

Congress please run these numbers and tell your Republican associates and anyone opposed to an affordable Universal Health Care Plan that they need to rethink! They need to see the big picture effects of how affordable health care in itself can boost the American economy immediately and dramatically. This one example is only the tip of the iceberg in measureable positive economic effects an affordable Universal Healthcare Plan will have on the United States economy.

Barbara Benedict
Escondido, California

Change is coming to Houston

Tina Marie from Houston, TX — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:46:13 EST

In cities all over America, citizens are coming together to form collectives focused on implementing the changes that we have wanted for so long. We are coming together to experience a partnering with our government in unprecidented numbers and the grass-roots growth of hope that stems from the human spirit.

Here in Houston, we have launched a group that is dedicated to the hopes, dreams and wants of our community. With increasing cooperation with community, city, county and state governemnt officials and with local community organizations, businesses and schools we are making the very changes that we set our hopes for in 2008.

Join us here in Houston to create a role-model group that leaves its impression on America now and into the future.

Notice: The Organizing for America Houston Chapter is a non-partisan group with members from all backgrounds. We welcome all participants who wish to organize and help volunteer on projects for the betterment of our country and our world.

Organizing for America -
Houston Chapter
http://my.barackobama.com
Director: Tina Marie Jones
Contact: 832-452-7242
Email: info@tinamarie.com

Website under construction: www.ofahouston.org

Current projects include:

1. A community recycling program to implement recycling in our public parks in coordination with the City of Houston, Harris County, the Mayor's Office, schools and local businesses.
Chairperson: Tina Marie Jones

Many expressed their interest to assist in this project.
Next steps include coordinating with the government offices, contacting local businesses for financial support ad sponsorship of the recycling bins, bags
Contacting NEXXUS, Waste Management, BFI and like corporations for information on recycling containers
Contacting local non-for-profit groups for adoption programs of parks

2. A research project to identify and report about socialized medical programs in foreign countries in comparison to the Obama direction for America. The intention of this research is to disseminate truth about the medical plans proposed by the Obama administration and educate the American public.
ChairPerson: Marilyn Keys

Next steps include members of the group sending information to Marilyn of people who live in the countries of interest (those with Socialized Medicine Programs)

3. Community sidewalk project to increase the amount and availability of sidewalks in our urban/suburban areas in the Houston Metroplex to increase foot traffic, increase exercise and minimize gas usage, crime and increase a sense of community.
ChairPerson: Lana Kato

Next steps include contacting the Mayor’s office and Harris County Offices that manage requests and maintenance of sidewalks

4. Organic Gardens across the City - Intention is to educate people on how to grow and maintain local gardens. The first directive is to have community service organizations host the gardens for use by food pantries to provide fresh produce to homeless and low income families. Sponsored in part by TM3 Energy.
ChairPerson: Cynthia O’Neal

Next Steps include the sharing of information, contacts of people/organizations that can help in the project.
Contacting the organizations that can sponsor the project pilot

5. Interest in alternative windmill construction and design to be more energy efficient and self perpetuating
ChairPerson: Johnathan O’Neal

Next steps include continuing research into current technology

6. Additional Discussions included:
Interest in reducing the costs of health care policies on small businesses
Increasing wellness care and the affordability of such for all Americans
Increasing education accountability at the State and School levels to allow our children to compete with at the national/ global level
Use of online technologies to increase group participation and attendance
The communication of our intentions and direction to the City. State and Federal government contacts

Last Meeting date: January 30th, 2009
Participants: Ron Jackson, Lana Kato, Cynthia O’Neal, Johnathan O’Neal, Abu Kanu, Alyssa Jones, Rick Jones, Tina Jones, Jamin Stocker, Marilyn Keys

Next Meeting Date:
Host:       Tina Marie Jones <t@tinamarie.com>
Time(s):
           Friday, February 13 from 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
Location:   ONLINE MEETING ROOM
           http://ronjacksonstudios.na3.acrobat.com/ofa/
           See Link Above or Call in to Conference Bridge
           Houston, TX 77041
Directions:
   Our next meeting is schedule as follows: Date: Friday,
   February 13th Time: 7 pm - 9 pm Location: ONLINE in Meeting
   Room designed and engineered by Ron Jackson Studios Link:
   http://ronjacksonstudios.na3.acrobat.com/ofa/ Conference
   number and pin: Dial-In Number: 712-429-0690 Participant PIN:
   289829 The group meets every other Friday evening alternating
   between an in-house meeting in West Houston and an online
   meeting room as noted above.

Health And Well-Being

Janice C. from Chicago, IL — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:48:07 EST

The Health and Well-Being committee has two ideas for projects. With a strong interest in Mental Health issues, we are involved with research and the collection of information on what other communities, police departments, and mental health organizations are doing to help people with mental health issues before they end up in jail for criminal behavior or in the hospital with a self inflicted injury. The committee is also concerned about the crisis many have with medical debt and the cancellation of insurance polices of the seriously ill. We will update the group on our findings and talk about how we might turn these into projects at the next meeting on February 22, 2009.

Maryanne Colter, Committee Chair

Maryam Stewart

Extension of Cobra Benefit Period - logical solution?

Wendy from Los Gatos, CA — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:57:50 EST

One benefit that can prove emensely helpful to the unemployed is the Cobra contniuation of health care insurance. Once unemployed, individuals can chose to pay to continue the coverage they had before their termination. Although this can be expensive, it is certainly less expensive than trying to secure coverage as an indivual family or going without coverage.

The problem as I see it now is that Cobra is available for a limited time only, namely 18 months from the date of termination of full time employment. With this recession, and high unemeployment projected to be with us for very long time, we may find that the unemployed use up the full time allotted for Cobra and then are stuck trying to find alternative insurance. The real possiblity that these individuals and families will be forced to go for periods of time with no insurance, and thus fall in to the horrible trap of being subjected to "pre-exisitng conditions" clauses even once they secure later insurance (because of thier "break" in coverage) will put a huge strain on the health services and further erode the quality and the breadth of effective coverage across the population.

Is anyone else thinking along these lines?

Wait a Minute - We're the Thinnest State, but We Pay the Most?

Stephanie Sulger RN, MS — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:51:31 EST

Colorado health care costs higher than the rest of the nation according to this Nov 2008 article in The Colorado Springs Business Journal

Colorado is going to have a more difficult time competing on both the national and global stage because its health care costs are higher than the rest of the nation. The state's health plans will raise premiums by 13.7 percent during 2009, according to Lockton Group's annual health report survey. "This is significant in that it demonstrates that the rate of increase in the cost of coverage in Colorado greatly exceeds the national average for 2009," said Bill Lindsey, president of Lockton Benefit Group in Denver. "This makes it harder for Colorado employers to compete. Moreover, the resulting plan changes place Colorado workers at a greater disadvantage in terms of higher deductibles, out-of-pocket expense and more significant premium cost sharing than their counterparts nationally."

The rapidly rising rates make cost the No. 1 concern for employers in the state. "This is going to be a problem with companies migrating to Colorado because typically they do ask about insurance rates and benefits," Lindsey said. "But it also affects our exports. Someone who is manufacturing something in Colorado Springs might have higher prices than someone in a different state with lower health care costs. The product is going to be priced higher -- and it's going to be a problem with competing." Costs are higher in Colorado for many reasons. "Colorado tends to have more small employers than the other states," Lindsey said. "And that makes for higher rates because they have less bargaining power.

Our industry is heavily concentrated in service industry and tourism, and those groups have higher rates." Some insurance plans blame recent legislation for rising costs. A law that forbids insurance companies from offering discounts based on health or past use of health insurance will take effect in January. "We haven't seen really a decrease yet," said Janice Pramik, director of small group sales for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. "But we've just started working with companies for January renewals. And I'm expecting some companies will drop out of insurance coverage because of the increases."

Anthem plans an 11.7 percent increase in premiums for its small group markets, but with the discount gone, some groups could see increases of 25 percent or 30 percent. "Some of the cost is just the cost of doing business," Pramik said. "About 50 percent of health care costs are attributable to individual behavior -- smoking, alcoholism, obesity. The cost of care is rising every year, and we have to respond." The number of uninsured people also leads to higher premiums, because hospitals and doctors shift the cost of caring to people with insurance, charging them higher rates. Colorado has a higher rate of uninsured than other states, Lindsey said. The cost shift includes higher employee contributions for single and dependent coverage, drug coverage, increasing deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket limits.

Colorado is going to have a more difficult time competing on both the national and global stage because its health care costs are higher than the rest of the nation. The state's health plans will raise premiums by 13.7 percent during 2009, according to Lockton "This is significant in that it demonstrates that the rate of increase in the cost of coverage in Colorado greatly exceeds the national average for 2009," said Bill Lindsey, president of Lockton Benefit Group in Denver. "This makes it harder for Colorado employers to compete. Moreover, the resulting plan changes place Colorado workers at a greater disadvantage in terms of higher deductibles, out-of-pocket expense and more significant premium cost sharing than their counterparts nationally."

Some insurance plans blame recent legislation for rising costs. A law that forbids insurance companies from offering discounts based on health or past use of health insurance will take effect in January. "We haven't seen really a decrease yet," said Janice Pramik, director of small group sales for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. "But we've just started working with companies for January renewals. And I'm expecting some companies will drop out of insurance coverage because of the increases." Anthem plans an 11.7 percent increase in premiums for its small group markets, but with the discount gone, some groups could see increases of 25 percent or 30 percent. "Some of the cost is just the cost of doing business," Pramik said. "About 50 percent of health care costs are attributable to individual behavior -- smoking, alcoholism, obesity. The cost of care is rising every year, and we have to respond."

The number of uninsured people also leads to higher premiums, because hospitals and doctors shift the cost of caring to people with insurance, charging them higher rates. Colorado has a higher rate of uninsured than other states, Lindsey said. The cost shift includes higher employee contributions for single and dependent coverage, drug coverage, increasing deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket limits. "Nearly 39 percent of employers reported that their plan deductible is $500 or greater," the survey said. "The results indicate a growth in HMO plans to 44 percent of those surveyed, up from 37 percent in 2007."

Higher deductibles are one way insurance companies are trying to keep costs down, said Jean Baker, executive director of sales for Kaiser Permanente in Colorado. "We're also going with more cost-sharing," she said. "It's part of a trend, and it means more out-of-pocket expenses when you use health care, but it also keeps premiums down. And there are protections on the upper end -- we have maximum out-of-pocket limits." Kaiser is focused on affordability, but Baker admits that prices for health insurance could rise as people's economic fortunes suffer because of the lagging economy. "There are a lot of drivers for costs, but we can't make plans unaffordable," she said. "And in most cases, we don't seem to be. We don't see people leaving small group markets in the state; it's been pretty stable this past year."

Another significant change is the number of employers offering high-deductible health plans, which increased from 3 percent to 14 percent during 2008. Employers also are switching to HMO plans. According to the survey, the number of employers in an HMO plan increased to 44 percent this year, up from 37 percent during 2007.

Most employers, however, still offer PPO plans with higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. "I'm not surprised because people tend to turn to HMO plans for the best value for their dollar," Baker said. "And when prices of other plans rise, they look at HMO plans." Anthem is trying to offer a wide variety of choices to combat higher prices, Pramik said. "We are trying to keep as many people insured as possible," she said. "New small group plans offer more affordability on the front end, with higher deductibles. New individual plans focus on providing insurance for major medical needs, but not so much the day-to-day care for people who are healthy."

Credit: Amy Gillentine

The Colorado Springs Business Journal

Date: Friday, November 7 2008

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

Investiments in Infrastructure

Tim Schram — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:28:16 EST

In Obama's press conference Monday, he once again mentioned investing in several of our infrastructures. I agree this is essential to the health of the country. I would like to discus some of the investments I want included.

1) Transportation: The biggest challenge with electric vehicles is battery life. What if we could power these vehicles wirelessly. I am talking about technology similar to that used to charge your electric tooth brush and is being used to power appliances in homes today. The technology is referred to as wireless resonant induction and can be used to effectively transmit electrical power over distances of several feet. If this technology was incorporated in to road construction, cars and large trucks, they could travel cross country without the need of batteries. T. Boone Pickens could keep his natural gas.

The power for this system could be supplied by a system of solar and wind generaters constructed along the road way and tied into the grid. In urban and suburban areas the sound walls could be resurfaced with Nanosolar's CIGSS photovoltaic film. Numerous small, high wind resistant turbines would be visually less intrusiveand capable of operating a greater percentage of the time. As more power is needed, additional units of these system could be added.

2) Energy: Invest in making each residence a net producer of electricity. This land is currently being used solely for habitation. The exterior surface already exists, but is sitting idlw. This property should be put to dual use. By switching the current roofing and siding materials to photovoltaic shingles and siding each house would be generating more electricity than it uses on average. To help on extremely overcast days and at night a system of 6 foot wind turbines should be included at up to 30 feet above the ground. All of these units are incorporated into the grid to supply electricity demanding industries and occasional calm, cloudy days and calm nights in nearby communities. All of this is tied into a smart grid.

3) Automanufacturing: Purchase controlling interest in any automaker needing financial assistance. Split the company into 3 or 4 smaller companies. Fire the current top management and boards. Replace them with new management based on their commitment to future technologies and let them compete for the best ideas.

4) Credit crisis: Add credit insurance to unemployment insurance. This does not reward poor borrowing. It protects the economy and American citizens from the unforseen loss of employment and the credit damage that results during a slow economy. It doesn't allow for more credit, but does prevent default on credit cards and home foreclosure. The causes of today's economic meltdown. Itreduces the prospect of working families becoming homeless through no fault of their own. When the person is gainfully reemployed the benefit ends. It is cheaper and more humane than what we are going through today. Ask the 56,000 former employees of Citigroup.

5) Insurance reform: Make mandated insurance "not for profit". To require people to have auto insurance, home owners insuranc, and health insurance while insurance companies goal is to make a profit from it is corporate socialism. The companies should be allowed to cover their expenses and maintain a responsible reserve. They should not be able to make exhoritant profits when the consumer is forced to purchase their product or service. Any voluntary insurance can be for profit.

6) Flood Control: The current approach to flood control should be scrapped. Commercial areas that require proximity to waterways should be controlled. Rural farm related buildings and infrastructure should be protected. Farmland itself should be allowed to flood. Residential buildings in general should be built out of the flood plain. No more houses on the river bank. This will allow the flooding of the farmlands that was responsible for their initial fertility and give the flood waters some place to go instead of up. This will protect the vital shipping infrastructue during floods and save the futile spending of billions trying to contain flooding rivers.

HEALTH-INSURANCE

Cynthia from Geneva, FL — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:40:16 EST

How-many-AMERICANS-are-living-without-Health-Insurance-Coverage?

I-am-a-LICENSED-INSURANCE-AGENT-self-employed-and-cannot-afford-to-get-covered!

or-find-coverage-for-my-pre-existing-condition,FIBROMYALGIA.

America - Together (post election)

Alex Karoub — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:44:40 EST

..... Contact: http://Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

WHO IS THAT GUY BARACK OBAMA? HE IS US.

We have made historic headway by together pointing our nation in the right directions. After decades, we have America focused on the issues of fundamental importance. Now, each of us acting in concert can together move our country to lead the world to the fruitfulness of moral goodness. I have no doubts about my abilities and the abilities of fellow Americans to work smart and hard to achieve these goals.

Barack Obama has the visions, leadership, and integrity for us to correct and redirect our country to once again lead the world for the fruitions of good. Let's closely listen, learn, and move forward based on that which we know deep inside is good and which we can validate with our hearts.

I hope that those who had but a few reasons to support Obama, look further into the other issues more deeply. I found the more I explored, studied, and listened to Obama the more I found us in agreement. The couple of issues that I did not have depth of knowledge of, quickly became obvious in need. This was unusual for me since I have always refused to be any kind of a follower, and still am not. I find Obama to be a deep thinker who is articulate and inspirational; and, of most fundamental importance, Obama makes excellent moral sense.

Hopefully, our country has learned lessons from the past of mistakenly following leadership blindly, as was done with Nixon and Bush. There are leaders who are simply in it for themselves and will cater to individuals or groups in order to grab for their own benefit. Corrupt and bad leaders hide at all levels. This is especially true in city government as well as county and state government. The corrupt deals of politicians need to be exposed, and those responsible need to be weeded out in the coming local elections. Others need to be investigated by law enforcement and be prosecuted for illegal dealings; for deals they often make for their hidden personal agendas. Let’s look at the bad experiences of the past as bitter medicines, let’s eliminate the need for such bad medicine in the future. Let us use what we know is good to go forward.

I believe we have chosen wisely, not by greed and not by misguided retaliatory anger. I believe this time our country has chosen with open eyes, with each of us listening and examining our choice of leadership closely, driven and validated by our hearts.

I hope we can continue to make our efforts even more inclusive (in many more ways than I touch on here). Far right republicans will be stubborn to change, but we will need to include them to change if we are to succeed. Sure a few more will leave our country, but that is not the American way. No, we really don't need their false fronts of power, money, insider knowledge, or other trappings that they have taught many to 'respect?'. Let's recruit as many as we can, that's the American way, evolving and changing together as one nation. Try to be understanding as we move forward; by better understanding each as individuals and people with various desires and needs we will find ways to reach out with friendship and have them join our causes of good.

Be on the lookout, and root out bad leadership in government and business. Do not be intimidated by those who use the false fronts of power and give a false sense of security in order to lead. Be extra leery of those who say or imply ‘Trust me’; those who give a sense that they somehow omnipotently know better. No longer will Americans be dazzled by phony displays of brilliance or baffled by baloney. There are government aristocrats and business leaders who still believe in the old adage of: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle em with bullshit”. We can embrace complexity by demanding true, fundamental, and understandable explanations. We can root out falsehoods by not accepting double speak. We as Americans know how to grow ourselves by first believing in ourselves. Don’t be a follower. Don’t be a follower of followers.

However, when we find leaders who are good; a leader that thinks, speaks, and acts from their heart; one that is honest, has integrity, and leads by sincere examples; then we need to in a big way, join them, support them, and promote their causes of good. From much research, investigation, and scrutiny, I believe Barack Obama is such a person. I hope we search for and find many more who are similar, who we can add to service at all levels of government. We need to add/replace leaders in business with ones that have honesty, integrity, and show quality in leadership. We need more people in leadership roles who are moral, like Barack Obama.

Remember, we are not fighting a battle, we are the artisans and sculptors of the future for ourselves and generations to come. Rarely do societies have opportunities to make such dramatic moves forward as we now have in this opportunity of today. Take pride and practice in being inclusive as we stride forward. In moving forward, create opportunity not only for yourself, but also for all. Hope is a wonderful thing to behold; but without opportunity, hope can become but a dream never achievable. We can, will, and must, create opportunity.

In the coming year I hope that we do not lose our spiritedness, but instead continue to build and make headway. I hope we all continue our campaign for change in government and business. We will succeed in moving forward once again, it will take much effort and good oversight on the part of each of us. We will make great strides in the months and years ahead in order to achieve the fruitions of good. Let's keep our enthusiasm progressing through these coming toughest of times. Let us use the light of goodness and love to motivate us with historic momentum.

I have chosen Barack Obama because he best represents my deepest beliefs in America. Please take time to read the issues that Barack Obama has published on this website. Also, give your attention to see how he leads us to move our nation forward in the time ahead. Most importantly, be part of America's great future, participate in the greatness that together we will make. Participate!

We will each and all flourish, if we think, speak, and act, by using the love in our hearts.

Your reply is welcome. Contact: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

A Change for Me

Sarah from Orem, UT — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:47:25 EST

I don't know who will come across this blog, or if anyone will for that matter...but I feel a need to share some words about how this campaign's message, Barack Obama's message, gives me hope, how it has made a difference for me, a difference in my life, and why I have decided to vote for the change I need.

I had my first heart surgery when I was 15 years old. I am 26 now and have had half a dozen more since then, and getting and KEEPING health insurance since then has been a struggle. My single mother was wonderful, and did what she could to love me and pay for the care I needed, but with what the cost of premiums were and the affect that a preexisting condition had on those premiums, I eventually had to drop insurance coverage just to be able to afford the other necessities of life (food, rent, etc.).

I have worked two full-time jobs for the last three years to pay for these medical bills. I am sitting on the edge of the seat of bankruptcy and have had to put off continuing my education because of this debt. It's an endless cycle. I'll need health care for the rest of my life, even another surgery in 1.5 years...and getting an education to atleast put myself in a better situation, financially, seems out of reach.

I struggle to see through the tears as I'm writing this... The burden is heavy and I haven't had any hope for relief until I heard Barack Obama's plan of change for health care coverage, as well as the promise of tax relief for the middle class. I can barely stay afloat, emotionally and physically, and have to maintain a 70 hour work week just to make sure I can pay my rent and keep the lights on.

I voted for the first time in my life last week. I feel like a candidate for President is finally fighting for me. I even drove 16 hours to a campaign rally, and even though I wasn't able to get in due to the amount of people, driving out was a huge statement to my circle of friends and family since I've never been passionate about politics, or passionate about much in the last several years.

I know the days have been long and the road rocky, but thank you, Barack, for the difference you've made. Thank you for the chance at hope that I haven't had in a very long time. Remember us, the little people with big hearts, who believe the most in you.

Thank you...for fighting for me.

Reforming the Welfare System

LaToya from Nesbit, MS — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:41:19 EDT

What you are about to read may be upsetting, but it's the life that I saw others live, and it upsets me. To date, Mr. Obama has not said much about this, but I'm sure he'll get around to it.

I am a graduate student getting my Ph.D. in English. People usually don't have a clue about how hard it is to work, support yourself, pay your own bills, go to school full time, read about five books per week, teach class, and attend class. In addition to that, I have had a little boy and gotten married.

Now, I'm not complaining about my plight. I chose to go back to school, walking away from a pretty good job. I chose English, which means a life of penury! I chose it because I love people. And I love reading about the relationships of people with one another. I also love teaching! I love teaching at the community college level because I see so many nontraditional students making the same choice that I made, and they are simply trying to improve their employment prospects. They are trying to be examples for their children, and teach the benefits of receiving an education. I also chose English for a selfish reason: one day, if I'm blessed, I'll be half as good a writer as Toni Morrison.

What I am upset about is all of my peers who chose to do nothing. These, young, healthy women and men don't even work. That's because they don't have to pay rent. That's because they receive Section 8. That's because they grew up on Section 8 and food stamps. That's because every time the benefits ran low, their mothers just had another baby!

I'm so sick and tired of this. I see people who abuse the welfare/Section 8/Medicaid benefits in Mississippi every day. And I'm not just talking about Black people...whites, too. It breaks my hear to see a whole generation being raised on these things fraudulently. Under the Bush administration, these people have been allowed to slip beneath the radar, and have received even more benefits. I once had a student from Chicago tell me that her folks drive to Indiana to receive Section 8 vouchers because they are easier to get there. I know people who make their children behave badly in schools so that they can get $375/mo in mental health benefits. I know people who claim to homeschool their children so that they can receive more funding, and they don't teach these children a damn thing. I know people who pretend to have eating disorders for money. I know people who doctor shop and get very expensive prescription medicines, only to flush them down the toilet because they are not really sick. I know workers in small towns who tell their friends how to behave to get a "crazy check," when nothing is wrong with them. I know people who get over $500 in food stamps and buy mostly processed food and junk for their children, and complain that that amount of money just won't feed them. I know a young lady (30 years old) with five children by five different men, who simply refuses to get married or to help herself to some birth control because it would lessen her benefits. To enhance the pain of this slap in the face, Mississippi has birth control medicaid. They can give you what you want for free!

It hurts me because somebody like Ms. Lena, a 91-year-old-woman in my neighborhood, really needs these benefits, and cannot receive them. They constantly tell her that she owns her own home, and that puts her over the guidelines for ownership allotment. Meanwhile, this lady has diverticulitis, and arthritis. She takes about six medicines per day. She does not receive full benefits from the federal government because she worked as a maid. At the time, maids did not receive pensions and other benefits that we expect today, neither did construction workers. So, there are many people, from our Greatest Generation, out there struggling while young and healthy people continue to sit on their butts and do nothing. Many college students that really need to use public healthcare (because their parents' insurance may have dropped them, or if they are nontraditional students they may be too old), and cannot get it because they may own a car. Maybe they need supplemental insurance, because many schools offer only a discounted plan to graduate students. That is not enough for students with families. Some of my students who could really use food stamps, often do not receive them because maybe the case worker has a chip on her shoulder.

In short, the very old and the very young are being victimized by this system, or they are being denied access to it.

And when you try to turn abusers in, either by letter or phone call, nothing gets done about it. Nothing. Under the Bush administration, it has become very easy to skirt the system. Nobody seems to care about it, but it costs us tremendous money in taxes. The Republicans talk much about this, but do nothing. The only president that attempted to rectify the situation was Bill Clinton, a democrat! I know that Mr. Obama, having seen his mother, a hard-working single mother, try to tough it out with private insurance companies, can understand how I feel. She had to tough it out with a job and fuss with insurance companies while somebody else, who is fraudently receiving benefits, can afford to flush prescriptions down the toilet. His mother encouraged him to be all that he can be, while somebody else's mother encourages him to be a social deviant. His mother ensured him a bright future, while somebody else's mother sold her child's future out for $375/month. That is a crying shame.

So, I propose that, barring the very old and the very young (babies), everybody gets three years. Three years. Three years of government housing, food stamps, child care, and other benefits, unless you are gravely, gravely ill. Think of what you can do in three years. Finish a degree. Get several trade certificates, get a graduate degree, find a better job. The possibilities are limitless. We now live with a system that does not put a time-constraint on these people. And it is hurting those of us who are trying to go to school, or trying to raise our children to value a dollar. It is hurting people like Ms. Lena, who really need these benefits, but cannot get them the way this system is set up.

Three years. It does not matter if you decide to have another baby at the end of those three years to renew your benefits. Three years.

Does anybody else experience what I experience?

Abortions at 9 months???, shame, shame :-)

Rabab from Waldorf, MD — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:05:06 EDT

Some of those committed may need to be Committed: A fairly Funny Story

I am waiting at the doctor's office and McCain shows up on Fox News and I watch the 10 or so faces in the room. Mostly, I see poker faces, though the eyes sometimes look committed or express endearment, something no one wants to do in a waiting room. But all bets were off when I started this conversation.

Me: I turned to the lady sitting next to me and asked: "I am new to MD, (12 years is new to some) is it usually a Blue or Red state?"

Lady to my right (R): "Blue I think, right?" she says hoping to sound confident but looking at others in the room for confirmation.

Lady to my left (L): "Unfortunately, MD votes Democrat. It's a sin."

Me: Innocently sneaking the question: "But why a sin?"

Lady (L): "Because he (Obama) promised women everywhere that they can have abortions," (stressing these next 2 words,) "anytime, anywhere," repeating them again and again, nodding seriously, "anytime, anywhere..." as if by doing so they would go away.

Me: (Acting puzzled) Before she said it a sixth time, I cut in: "Why is that bad?"

Lady (l): Her face took on a different color and shape, she was mad...really mad. I decided to change chairs but that would have been too obvious, so I moved my stuff and cleared the way for a quick shift just in case.

She scolded with a significant rise in pitch: "What about women who are 9-months pregnant? Fine, not 9 months, say 6 months. That's just outlandish! It is sinful! It is wrong! He will never make president, not if I can help it."

Me: (Acting stupid) "Wait, aren't these procedures medically impossible?" A doctor couldn't just abort a fetus at 9 months or 6 months? I don't believe they do this unless the mother's life is in immediate danger, right?"

Lady (L): "Not acording to Obama!!!"

I had to bury a loud burst of laughter -- I can see it spread across the front page of the Washington Post, no, the New York Times, 'Obama, new president, gains power over medical reality.'

Me: I looked around the room and saw the same poker faces from earlier but now their eyes were betraying them in agreement. This abortion thing is no joke. "Oh man," I thought, "we just lost all these voters."

I had to think fast and save the moment

Me - again: "I think that providing health care to all is very important. I was without healthcare for a while and had to come up with $1500 for prescriptions alone. My family and I didn't do much that month, including eat healthy food....true story."

Lady (L): Now revealing how clueless she was, she said,: "In our family, we always had insurance. Even my young children have insurance, I made them get it. They try to get out of it thinking they are young and healthy and don't need it, but no, no, not in my book."

Me: Trying to captiure listeners in the room I get up pretending to get Kleenex from the mantle and say: "Was it 40 million Americans who can't afford health insurance?"

Lady (L): "My husband always provided...."

That answer did it. I tuned her out-- yeah, yeah, I have heard it all before. It is a matter of providing not a matter of having the money to provide. These 40 million Americans are just a bunch of people who don't know that it's important to have health insurance for their families... And if they don't have the money for this, then whose fault is it? Who hasn't heard that story about America's poor before? I think we are the only nation in the world whose poor are poor by choice.

My mind drifted -- How can one have a real discussion with anyone who is so committed to a point-of-view that any scope of thought outside their opinion will remain virgn territory to their death?

I left the clinic before her, waived, and wished her well, but only received a calculated nod back. Obama and his permissiveness regarding 9-month abortions has come between me and a potential soul mate.

Should I vote for him?

Rabab F. Saab

Instructor and Mom

College of Southern Maryland

La Plata, MD

Rababsaab@gmail.com

Mccain Want's to Cut Medicaid and Medicare

Nia "Hussein" J. — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:42:36 EDT

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html

OCTOBER 6, 2008

McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts Medicare, Medicaid Spending Would Be Reduced to Offset Proposed Tax CreditBy LAURA MECKLER

Article
Comments

Why I think Obama's health care plan (and more!) is needed now.

Carol Werner — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:44:00 EDT

In 1999 and 2000, I spent about 18 months responding to collections calls on behalf of medical providers, gathering, sorting and re-sorting bills and receipts, and communicating by telephone, mail and email with my doctor's office, my law firm's administrator and the group insurance provider (United Healthcare or Blue Cross/Blue Shield--they blend together in my mind) over the denial of coverage on infertility treatments that were expressly covered and pre-cleared with the insurance company for up to a $35,000 lifetime benefit (my husband, my children and I will be forever grateful to the women who convinced the firm to provide that coverage!).

I couldn't just pay the bills and fight with the insurance company later because (i) I was broke after the birth of my twins (thanks again!); and (ii) I knew that if I paid the bills in the amount charged by the providers, without the reduction that the insurance company had negotiated, I would at most eventually be reimbursed only the discounted amount, which was a fraction of the provider's charges. After wasting countless hours of otherwise billable time (including hours during sleepless nights) that would have benefited the law firm that provided this important coverage, the insurance company finally sent a note of apology and paid the providers. Of course my credit rating had suffered, and I'll spare the details of consequential damages that I have written off to experience.
When I began practicing as a self-employed attorney, I first paid excessive premiums to partially replicate the health coverage I had when I was employed by a firm, then dropped insurance for several years because the premium was far greater than my family's medical expenses, and finally settled on a $5,000 deductible policy realizing that with three children it might be imprudent not to have coverage in case of a major medical problem arising.

Recently, I read an article that convinced me that I pay close to full price at the pharmacy even with the card provided by my insurance company not because the insurance company is too incompetent to figure out that I will reach my deductible faster by paying the inflated amount for prescriptions, but because they actually receive a kickback from the drug companies when I pay that excessive rate, and that when and if I reach my deductible and they start paying it will be at the negotiated rate for the prescribed drugs. Do I have time to try to follow this through to figure out whether my suspicion is correct and then to try to take action to end this abusive practice? No, as the insurance companies are aware, no one has that kind of time until they are already receiving Medicare coverage.

Why is it not obvious to everyone that single-payer health care is the only way to rationalize the cost of health care? It is clear to me that medical providers could be paid more than the insurance companies are willing to pay and that the overall cost of health care in the US would be lower if the money that should go to paying our doctors and other providers generously and encouraging well-conceived preventive health care measures by both the medical providers and the public would cost less and benefit everyone.

As long as the abusive, monopolized industries (insurance, pharmaceutical, big agriculture, oil, service companies with connections to the administration, and now, banking and finance) continue to collaborate with government to fool the public with fear tactics and false rhetoric (socialized medicine; problems just like in Canada; caving in to our enemies; etc.) we will be puppets on strings, keeping our heads down and working hard to pay off our credit cards and make our mortgage payments while receiving the same or lower pay than we received ten to twenty years ago when we, briefly, enjoyed living closer to those earning in the top 5% annual incomes.

We have allowed ourselves to be corralled into a situation where we are duped into supporting the oppressors as they carefully tighten the web of control over our minds and our government. Maybe if I get the word out that I know what's happening they'll cut me in on the deal? It worked for Sarah Palin!

We need change

Eric — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:41:22 EDT

When I was in the Army I lived in Germany for 5 years. Europeans had a lot of things that just made sense. They had:

Free Healthcare for everyone
Free or nearly free Education
Better transportation and infrastructure
More recycling and a cleaner environment
More freedoms in general

When I was in Germany I had a surgery in a German hospital and it was one of the best hospital stays I ever had. They never once asked for insurance or money, and they didn't send me home immediately after the surgery. They honestly cared about my well being and kept me for a few days to make sure I was ok.

I could go on and on about all the things Europeans enjoyed that we don't have. So much so that after I got out of the Army I looked into moving back there because things in the states didn't seem to make much sense and it pissed me off that the American people were not getting a fair deal. Most Americans have never travelled Europe and don't realize that there are a lot of things other countries do that makes more sense than what we do here in the US. We're a great country, but we do not do everything better. In fact we've fallen way behind a lot of other developed countries.

I'm still patriotic, I love my country and its people. I just think the people in this country deserve a lot better than they get. I think the people in this country could live better, happier, and less stressful lives if our politicians weren't owned by the super-wealthy. Unfortunately, some of the people in this country don't understand the things that depend on their vote and that big business pays the republican machine to disinform people. Thats why I'm voting Democrat across the board, and I'm voting for Barack Obama. Change is long overdue.

McCain's frightening plan to TAX YOUR BENEFITS

Laura from Manassas, VA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:55:37 EDT

That's right, McCain wants to tax your hard-earned, but FEW employee benefits - mainly your health insurance.

Anyone out there with employer-provided health insurance knows that that benefit is an essential component of fiscal and physical survival in the US today. If you don't have it, you run the risk of financial ruin...let alone physical illness/injury from which you CANNOT PAY your way out of.

I worked in the HR department of a factory in Buffalo, NY back in 2000. I remember open enrollment and those who opted out of any health coverage because making just above minimum wage was not enough cash to pay rent, heat and food. I remember one gentleman was advised by myself and my HR director to NOT OPT OUT. The cost of coverage was minimal compared to the cost of hospital bills without insurance. But he opted out anyways. Well, you can guess where this is going. A week after open enrollment was over he was involved in an automobile accident and was sent to the hospital. About 3 weeks after that, we received a letter from the Sheriffs department instructing us to garnish his wages to pay for the $17,000 hospital bill. That was MORE THAN HE MADE IN A YEAR, and the garnishments, from what I can recall, were MORE than what he would have ahd to pay for the coverage, had the opted into the plan.

Now I read about McCain's plan and I am truly frightened - for if elected, my family and millions more could wind up without coverage...having to purchase it independently on the market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

"A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.....
According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”
The net effect of the plan, the study said, “almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.”
The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)"

I don't know about you, but that frightens me. I am a married mother of two working SOLELY for the health insurance because my paycheck goes to daycare. But my husband's plan costs more and covers less. Under McCain's plan, we would be forced to find independent private insurance. Sure thing - except for the fact he has high blood pressure and our son has a developmental delay.

I cannot emphasize enough how frightening MCCain's plan is and how devastating it would be for people who cherish the one benefit of health insurance. For many of us, that one benefit is non-negotiable. And I for one don't appreciate anyone trying to take it away from me, when as a worker there are few benefits I do receive.

Peace-out and vote Obama.

What Was The Glass-Steagall Act? (THIS IS A MUST READ!!!!!)

B Lilly — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:20:49 EDT

What Was The Glass-Steagall Act?
by Reem Heakal

In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great Depression, two members of Congress put their names on what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). This act separated investment and commercial banking activities. At the time, "improper banking activity", or what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement in stock market investment, was deemed the main culprit of the financial crash. According to that reasoning, commercial banks took on too much risk with depositors' money. Additional and sometimes non-related explanations for the Great Depression evolved over the years, and many questioned whether the GSA hindered the establishment of financial services firms that can equally compete against each other. We will take a look at why the GSA was established and what led to its final repeal in 1999.

McCain changes stance on regulation - San Jose Mercury News

B Lilly — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:35:51 EDT

McCain changes stance on regulation - San Jose Mercury News

Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_10482638

NOTE: RESEARCH THE 1933 ACT - GLASS-STEAGALL THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE WE ARE EXPERIENCING TODAY.

McCain changes stance on regulation
REPUBLICAN NOW SAYS GOVERNMENT HAS RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT IN PUBLIC'S INTEREST

Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/16/2008 09:43:43 PM PDT

WASHINGTON — A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

Ideas to regulate banks, securities and insurance cos.

Joseph from San Jose, CA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:43:04 EDT

What I want Mr. Obama to say re the regulating of banks, brokerage houses and insurance cos.

I have a new idea, let's pass a law to regulate and safeguard banks, securities industry and insurance companies. The new law will compel banks to restrict their business to banking, taking deposits and making loans, securities companies, brokerage houses will be restricted to selling securities only; insurance companies are restricted only to selling insurance in all its forms. The three industries would be forbidden to enter the other two businesses. This was the law under a salutary act passed in 1933 called the Glass-Steagall Act and Bank Holding Companies Act of 1956, both of which were repealed in 1998, passed under a Republican controlled Congress and which was signed into law by President Clinton under the threat of overriding his veto. It took the banks, securities and insurance companies about 8 years to create this crisis. This can be stated in a soundbite by Mr. Obama for effect. It will resonate with the voters, they will be able to understand banks engaging in banking activities, securities companies selling securities and insurance only selling insurance. Makes sense to me.

What do others think? I want Mr. Obama to prevail, the thought of another 8 years of the same makes the future seem bleak. I have contributed and will do so again.

Vote for Healthcare Reform in November! Vote for Change!

Bullekat — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:35:42 EDT

Hello friends.

As many of you know, in July 2007 I sustained a serious and financially cumbersome hand injury. While packing to move, I slipped in my kitchen and lacerated 4 tendons and the carpal tunnel nerve in my left hand. Because I was naive, like so many young people who think themselves invincible, I did not have insurance at the time of my injury. There’s no excuse for my lack of planning and I feel ridiculous for it. Even today, I am embarrassed to admit my faulty judgment.

That said; I’m also embarrassed that I live in a country where a hospital will turn away a needy patient. I’m embarrassed that one year later, after paying thousands of dollars out of pocket, I still don’t have full motion in my thumb and have only partial feeling throughout my hand. Even after obtaining coverage though my employer, which (luckily) didn’t discriminate based on preexisting conditions, I paid $20 per doctor’s visit for 10 - 12 visits per month, that’s $200 - $240 per month, more than my car payment. The minimal amount of care my doctor felt was required was often more than my insurance company’s allowable amount – or beyond what was “reasonable and customary”. As a well educated, productive member of society, who pays their taxes in full and on time, I would think that my country would want me to get the care I needed so that I could once again embody (literally) the ingenuity of the American workforce. After all, I worked summers throughout my teenage years, full-time throughout most of college and as a young professional for two-and-a-half years prior to my injury. My parents raised me well, with a strong work ethic. The period of my life where I was uninsured was a brief 3 months, a drop in the bucket when you think of all the premiums I have and will pay in my life. Americans can and should do a better job of caring for one another when they’re sick and scared and want, quite simply, to get better.

Because I was uninsured, I spent 6 months of my life one-handed. Poor and delayed care resulted in adhesions, excessive scarring that bound together normally separate anatomical structures. Unable to move my tendons, I jokingly referred to my hand as, “the claw.” I struggled with zippers and buttons. I found it difficult to fold laundry, type on a keyboard, put my hair up in a ponytail and open metal cans with a can opener. I spent months in physical therapy, struggling to keep up with my hours at work, while attending 2-3 doctors’ appointments a week. Because I couldn’t find a doctor who would repair my hand within the customary timeframe (though I was willing to pay out of pocket), and because I did not receive any post-op care, I was forced to bear an additional surgery, a tenolysis to remove the additional scar tissue, and months of additional and costly physical therapy.

I feel extremely lucky that I am now able to type this message to you using all ten fingers. I worry, however, for the millions of Americans without proper healthcare coverage or who have healthcare that doesn’t meet their needs. This is why in November I’m voting for Barack Obama. I can’t wait to use my left hand to pull the lever in the voting booth. Obama has been candid in discussing his mother’s death from cancer at age 53, stating that, “In those last painful months, she was more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.” He understands that Americans should not spend the last days of their lives fighting with health Insurance companies.

I feel strongly about my decision to support Barack Obama. "But,” in the words of Levar Burton, host of public television’s best child-literacy program, “you don't have to take my word for it." Choose your own candidate! Make up your own mind about healthcare! I am telling my story so that you understand how important this issue is and how easily it can turn your life upside down. Choose your own candidate, but make an educated decision!

In December of 2007, just a month after my final surgery, I felt compelled to travel to the Iowa caucuses to volunteer for Obama. While there, I stayed with a wonderful host family, Bill and Lindra, who showed me a video from 60 Minutes – “Under the Influence: How Lobbyists Wrote and Bought the Rx Drug Bill.” This report is must-see viewing if you have ever wondered why the cost of prescription drugs in the United States is the highest in the world. This video details the pharmaceutical lobby’s influence in Washington, D.C. CBS has now made video of this segment available for free on their website (you can stream the content just as you would on YouTube):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml

Please vote and please vote for healthcare reform! Vote for change in Washington!

Feel free to forward this message to other friends.

Many thanks!

Kathryn

PS: If you know a young person – a college student or young person – without insurance, please urge them to obtain coverage. Also, I am much obliged to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and Bloomington Bone & Joint for the care and financial support they offered!

Sarah Palin as Special Needs Advocate

Andrew Dzeguze — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:07:58 EDT

I wrote what I think is a compelling post earlier, but I labeled it more than slightly intemperately. I used the "pimping out" phrase as a conscious homage to the mini - storm when an MSNBC host used it to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaigning. I'm not going to change the title - it is what I wanted to say then, and I do think that calling out a slepping infant for political points pretty much meets the connotation of pimping someone in the sense of shamelessly using them for your own gain. Anyways, it would be dishonest to retreat now. But I do want to take another look at Gov. Palin's assertion she would be an "advocate" for people with special needs - or at least some of them.

Initially, I'm not sure anyone is well served by high profile advocates whose only known qualification is the biological fact of having a child with special needs. I know that some parents are falling all over themselves at the idea of having "someone like them" in office. Personally, though, I have seen zero indication that Gov. Palin actually knows what the issues she will face as a parent of a DS child are, much less any grasp of the needs of people accross the special needs spectrum. Without that knowledge, power can often become a way of multiplying ignorance rather than enlightenment.

In fact, her own words show a pretty low level of knowledge about the people with special needs she claims to want to help:

"To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

There are at least three problems with that statement. First, many people with special needs object to the phrasing she uses. These aren't special-needs kids, or Down Syndrom kids, or autistic kids - they are kids with special needs, kids with Down Syndrome or kids with autism. That might seem like a little thing, but people centered language is one of the key issues to advocates in this area, as it grants people with developmental disabilities the same sort of basic dignity you would confer on any one else. They are, after all, kids first, and any condition they've been diagnosed with comes second.

Second, its technically the people with special needs, regardless of age, who need an advocate, not the parents. Parents are tremendous fighters for their kids, but they aren't looking for something for themselves. Rather, what they want is a better present and future for their kids. At the end of the day, it is the child or adult with special needs who should be the focus of any government attention, rather than making them supporting players in their own struggles. Again, putting the family over the child or adult suggests that they are somehow not people first.

Third, children with special needs do eventually become adults with special needs. They don't stop having needs or needing advocates, though. To the extent they can, they often advocate for themselves, but they need assistance at 22 (and 33, and 44) every bit as much as they do at 2. Arguably, even more so, since by that age many of them will no longer have parents around to help them in their struggles and the world tends to be far less generous to adults with behavioral or developmental problems than it is to children.

I really don't know what to think about the narrow nature of this statement. Is it a reflection of ignorance, or does she really think children are the only people at issue here? Maybe her speech writer Mike Scully just doesn't have a clue how to discuss the issue? No matter the reason, the implications of this cramped understanding of the issue bothers me.

Assuming for the moment that her whole focus is children with special needs, that doesn't suggest she'll be a good advocate for that community, either. I don't doubt her commitment as a mother. I'm sure she will fight for her kid tenaciously, as virtually all parents do, and parents of kids with special needs almost universally have to in order to get a fair shake in a world that still doesn't like to acknowledge that a person with special needs is a person first. I also don't doubt, given her willingness to be so open about his condition (unlike so many other issues she has been questioned on) she will raise the profile of Down Syndrome. However, I doubt the ability of anyone in a McCain administration to effectively advocate for the needs of special needs children, much less the special needs community as a whole. Doing so would require a wholesale reversal of fundamental tenets of the GOP, central policy goals of the McCain campaign and McCain's own words.

Initially, the GOP is known as the party of "small government" and "states rights." Ignoring the areas in which this isn't true (defense, social restrictions, etc.), a typical GOP approach will make advocacy for folks with special needs at a federal level pretty pointless. Right now, states are the primary aid deliverers for special needs people, not the Federal Government. The states get matching funds under Medicaid, but they have to commit to the initial funding levels. As a result, whether you get services at all, how quickly and at what level, is a local issue, not a national one. Some states can and do offer 40 hours a week of therapy for most kids with autism in their state, but may have nothing for kids with other developmental disabilities. Indiana has a 8+ year long waiting list for core services for children with autism, despite having dedicated funds for that category of person. Moreover, once people hit 18 ("age out" in the parlance of the system) the availability of the services they had as children is subjected to a different set of factors and calculations, oftentimes resulting in significant alterations in the level of care provided. Barring a complete reversal of the core Republican belief system, I can't see how a McCain adminsitration could ensure a level playing field for all people with special needs.

Owing to the lack of any universal provision of services, one of the things people in the special needs community, especially parents, are constantly fighting against are threats to their insurance coverage. Insurance companies consider most developmental disabilities "pre-existing conditions" and unless there's a state mandate in place, won't cover people with conditions like autism or Down syndrome at all. They are in business to get more from you in premiums than they pay out in care, after all, and that just doesn't happen when you are dealing with people with special needs. When companies do cover these conditions - typically because they are forced to by state law - the key therapies that help children and young people with these conditions often aren't covered, or only at a level that isn't effective according to prevailing research. The one way I know of right now to get decent coverage is if you are lucky enough to work for a company with good benefits, where the cost drain of your kid averages out with everyone else.

John McCain's central healthcare reform would make this harder, not easier. He wants to tax company insurance benefits to encourage people to seek individual plans. By comparison there is a tax credit if you give up your employer credit and buy your own, a blanket number that is about half the current cost for a "typical" person. The stated rationale for this plan is that it will eventually lower costs for people by increasing competition in the private market. If all people were equally attractive to insure, true competition might occur. However, there will be no incentive for companies to compete to cover people who are less than desirable to insurance companies as clients, at least not without charging them much more. While Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out the general problems with this model for people with pre-existing conditions, the problems for people with special needs are arguably more acute. I have yet to meet anyone from an insurance company that wants to cover, much less compete to cover, children or adults with special needs. There is no mandate in McCain's plan to force companies to cover everyone or some kind of Federal alternative. Instead, he wants states to create last gasp coverage plans like they have for high risk drivers. There doesn't seem to be any good model for these systems, or any one blueprint that states would be expected to follow. At best, a lot of people with special needs who don't get Medicaid funded services right now would wind up confronting a system just as crazy-quilted and inconsistent as the people who do have such services. At worst, people will die from inadequate care and lack of access to services. It really is that simple and horrifying.

McCain's educational policy is also troubling for people with special needs. While he does claim to support fully funding IDEA (the statute that is supposed to fund special ed in America) that hasn't happened in the entire time the law's been on the books. Republicans seem to always find a way to cut, rather than enhance, special ed funding at a Federal level. Because IDEA isn't fully funded, the services public schools legally have to provide for students with special needs often come out of general funds. Given this fact and the budgetary pressures schools are currently under, schools will push to limit special ed costs whenever to they can - which is just about any time a parent doesn't insist on the services legally required. Coupling that with his advocacy for vouchers and "school choice" creates a truly scary scenario. While he hasn't actually proposed to fund vouchers anywhere but in DC (because after all that would be "fiscally irresponsbile"), if such a plan were to become widespread it would likely mean that special education funding would be crippled further. That's because private schools typically won't take kids with behavioral problems or who need special assistance in accessing the curriculum - i.e., children with special needs. While there are schools geared towards these kids, most parents just can't afford them with or without vouchers. So in most cases there would be a higher concentration of kids with special needs in public schools with fewer funds to pay for them. Vouchers are an idealogical tenet of the GOP, and again I see no reason Gov. Palin would or could change that.

While John McCain just lambasted the failures of Washington, there's no indication the way No Child Left Behind treats kids with special needs is one of those failiures in his book. Because the system is geared towards rewarding school mandatory test scores and not looking at progress generally, schools are under pressure to boost their averages. Right now, they can and do try to excuse children with special needs from taking the tests, typically under a claim the child can't fully access the curriculum. However, if a child is thus excluded from a mandatory test, in many states the child cannot graduate from high school (they get a certificate of attendance, not a diploma), even if they otherwise have passed required subjects. That, in turn, bars the child from most higher education programs, including both college and vocational schools. Limiting the career options of people with special needs to protect a test average is hardly in keeping with the core belief underlying NCLB that we need to enhance educational opportunities. Again, though, the GOP has resisted calls to move away from the all or nothing test model, and I have no confidence in McCain to suddenly change the one thing Republicans have succeeded as selling to many people as a domestic success in the last decade.

Finally, there is one critical area of advocacy for people with special needs, primarily adults, where proposed Federal assistance would really help. Unfortunately, John McCain is personally and unequivocally on record as opposing that assistance. For a long time, getting state services with the highest level of care meant a person with special needs had to be placed in what are called State Operated Developmental Centers. For example, children would become wards of the state, taken from their families and placed in these centers where they would stay for the rest of their lives unless the family or the adult person with special needs chose to forego the care. I can only imagine the gut wrenching choice it had to be for parents to put minor children in these settings, and for adults to have to stay there.

SODCs were the state of the art in their time, based on prevailing understanding of the capacities of people with special needs. However, their time has generally passed, as our society has become much more aware of the potential of such people to be vibrant, full members of the communities they live in. SODCs are not the type of setting most people would ever want to live if they had another choice. Residents typically live in dormitory type settings, with severe restictions on their privacy and the personal goods they can have. Since Medicaid limits the income they can have, this only enhances the limitations on creature comforts. They eat in mess hall/cafeteria settings with limited input into their dietary intake. They have lockdown at night for security reasons and the grounds are typically fenced and patrolled. While family can certainly visit, they are not typically allowed to stay overnight. Residents also typically don't have individual caregivers, but rather are collectively assisted by a rotating staff. That, in turn, limits the ability of any person to individually go anywhere off grounds, because the institution can't spare staff to make sure they get back. Imagine, for example, being an adult who just wants to go across the street to a convenience store and buy a snack for yourself, and being told you can't because you can only run errands when a group goes on an outing. For that matter, imagine being someone with an average or above average intelligence, as many people with special needs are, and being told you can't walk to the end of your street, much less take a bus to a job or meet a friend for lunch. If this sounds a little like prison to you, imagine how it feels for the residents.

There is supposed to be a training element to SODCs, too, but it typically isn't focused on life skills that would help someone live in a community setting or have what most of us would consider a "real job." Rather, in many cases the institution will run what is known as a "sheltered workshop," where menial tasks are done day after day. These are things like stuffing envelopes for mass mailings, or putting together piecework under private contracts. While it is work, and something to do, it hardly expands the minds of the residents or challenges them. The residents do get paid, by the way - but not even the minimum wage. Again, not exactly what most people would choose. But the states argued for years that the residents had no choice - they either had to accept residential services or get nothing at all.

This practice of a one sized fits all model with no provision for choice by the individual was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Olmstead case several years ago. As a result, in theory states are supposed to have to place a person in a setting of their choice, so long as it costs the same or less than placing them in the facility would. Some states create a pool of money and let the person use it as they and their case manager feel best fits the person's needs. Others have contracted to provide enough group homes that they have managed to shut all their SODCs. Still others, though, are just beginning the process of creating transition plans and beginning to create a full spectrum of choices. Sadly, many states lacking the political will to do anything have had to be harried along by lawsuits to even make partial progress.

Just as sad has been the lack of assistance to states by the Federal government in carrying out this transition. While the ADA mandates that people with disabilities and special needs be given reasonable accomadations and treated in the manner that creates the least intrusive environment, there has been no funding to back this up and really give states a push in the right direction. Tom Harkin, the primary author of the ADA, has sought to rectify this. In a bill called the Community Choice Act, he, joined by Sens. Obama, Spector, and about 20 others, lay out provisions to enhance Medicaid funding for community based settings (to get for folks out of both SODCs and Medicaid funded nursing homes), create funding for state pilot programs and otherwise provide the foundation so that maybe, just maybe, the life a person with special needs can live and the basic dignity they can have won't be tied to their state of residence.

John McCain, who did help pass the ADA 18 years ago, is on record as opposing this bill. He was asked about it by a self advocate in one of his town halls and was less than pleasant in rejecting it. He offered no reason for his opposition at the time. On July 26 of this year, despite suggestions from staff that he had come around on this issue of basic dignity, he took the opportunity on the 18th anniversary of the ADA to again reject the bill.

The reason? Cost.

Never mind the savings in shutting down out of date institutions. Never mind the cost in lost productivity and wages people with special needs could help generate for our economy. Without any meaningful analysis of the full ramifications of the situation, he simply rejected the idea of federal money being spent in this manner as too costly.

This is an amazingly callous view, given McCain's oft repeated story of his own confinement. He has movingly described how the loss of his freedom drove him to the very brink of despair and thoughts of suicide. Yet he apparently has no compassion for the toll similar restrictions and confinements impose on people with special needs every day. It is said a society is judged by how it treats the least powerful of its members. In John McCain's view of America, the cost of treating people with special needs with basic dignity and respect costs too much. Given that view, and the fact that he has repeated his position in the face of fervant advocacy by people with special needs, I don't see how the mere fact that Gov. Palin is the parent of a child with special needs can make her or a McCain Administration the sort of advocate people with special needs deserve.

All American's are Insured under the "ER" Plan...

Mandie from Kirkland, WA — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:59:01 EDT

Well, I have been shocked once again. This whole political world continues to amaze me. I was talking about different view points today and heard about an editorial that talked about both Bush and McCain saying that all Americans had healthcare because anyone can go to an emergency room.

To be fair I decided to do a little research and this is what I found. According to John McCain's Healthcare Architect, John Goodman, "anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort." (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)“So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime,” Mr. Goodman said. “The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. “So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved.” http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/mccain-health-care-emergency-room/

Physician Crisis #2 - Catastrophic Number of Uninsured and Underinsured Americans

Dr. Craig Marshall, MD — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:36:00 EDT

Hardly anyone thinks that the United States is the world leader in health care anymore, in spite of the fact that we spend more money per capita than any other nation in the world. In almost every World Health Organization (WHO) indicator, the U.S. is lagging behind many other nations in the world. The main reasons for this is the disproportionate lack of access to affordable care is the lack of insurance coverage, and inadequate insurance coverage (which is called "underinsurance") for millions of Americans. One of the common "defenses" of the Republican government is that the lack of insurance for about 1 in 4 Americans is caused by "the market". This recent article shows the sheerly incomprehensible degree of the uninsured/underinsured crisis: MedScape article. It's important to note that although the U.S. Census Bureau reported a slight improvement for the first time in years, the numbers are deceiving - likely more "smoke and mirrors" in an election year.

Physician Crisis #1 - insurance companies forcing patients to be discharged

Dr. Craig Marshall, MD — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:10:25 EDT

As a practicing physician for a large "non-profit" Northeast Ohio Hospital System, I frequently participated in an increasingly tragic situation: Social Workers employed by my hospital would call me and tell me that I had to discharge patients from the hospital because their insurance company decided that they would no longer pay for their hospitalization.

And I was forced to do it!

On occasion the Chief Medical Officer for the hospital or the Social Work Department Supervisor would call me into their office to "discuss" the financial repercussions of not complying with the insurance companies' demands. One of our hospitals would not even accept Medicaid patients to specific units because they knew that the hospital would not be reimbursed for the patient's bill. Everyone that I have discussed this crisis with has agreed that it is has been worsening over the past eight years. So this is my first professional crisis, and my reason #1 that Eight is Enough!

The People That John McCain Owes Allegiance To

Vera Kwaayesnama from Sedona, AZ — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:13:56 EDT

Have you ever asked yourself who the people are that John McCain owes allegiance to?

Is John McCain in the pocket of oil companies?

Is John McCain in the pocket of insurance companies?

Is john McCain in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies?

Is McCain in the pocket of the mortgage companies? I

s McCain in the pocket of the banking industry?

This is the link to a list of lobbyists and employees of major companies working in major positions in the McCain campaign. It will answer any questions you might have about the people who are advising and influencing him.

http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0006

The Real Cost of McCain's "Emergency Rooms=Insurance" Plan

Cissy — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:28:12 EDT

I don't think enough can be said about the sheer boneheadedness, arrogance, and, yes, elitism of this statement from McCain advisor, John Goodman.

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort.

What Mr. Goodman (and every other person who decries universal health care as socialized or government-sponsored medicine that the U.S. cannot afford) fails to recognize is that we already have government sponsored "health care" in the form of Emergency Rooms across the country. The problem is that this government sponsored health care happening in the most expensive, least effective way possible.

Health Care that we can achieve

Aaron Baker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:45:07 EDT

The last health care plan failed, in my opinion, because of the financial muscle of the "harry and louise," folks. The only way we are going to achieve a real change is if we don't have to fight those people (and their billions of dollars). To do this, we need to look at what they are willing to pay to fight, and what we can get more easily. Once we have a foothold, we can push for further improvements until we have a systems like every other industrialized nation in the world.

The health insurance folks are definatly going to fight any single payer system or anything that involves a federal agency competing with them. What they would accept, I believe, is preventative care (to cut their costs), normal doctor visits (they lose money on those anyway), and coverage of the "uninsurable." If we don't touch the catastrophic coverage that is the bread and butter of the insurance companies, they won't spend billions to fight it.

I split the plan into three parts so that we can fight each part seperatly.

Part one is to provide universal preventative care and doctors visits. Everyone will have one free (paid by medicaid) annual checkup during the month of their birthday (if they want it) when the doctor will talk about medical issues for the year, including preventative care. Adults will have 4 doctors visits per year paid for by medicaid, to get anything worrisome checked out. This means when you have a cold you can see the doctor without worrying about how to pay for it. Children would get 8 visits per year. These limits are just in place to prevent excessive drain on the system from hypocondriacs. This would be paid for by increasing the medicaid/medicare tax from 1.45% to 2%. The tax would also be indexed in the future to rise or fall as needed to cover medical costs, allowing it to pay for whatever health care system the people want without having the current "shortfall," problem facing social security and medicare.

Part two is the "uninsurable coverage." Anyone who has attempted to get medical insurance, and been quoted a price above $500 per month, will be eligable for medicaid coverage in exchange for 5% of their income. This way instead of forcing people into poverty to qualify for medicaid, they can pay a reasonable cost and get medicaid care without destroying their lives.

Part three is the tricky one. If your regular doctor recommends a procedure that your insurance policy would have to pay, and they don't immediatly agree, you would be able to go to a federally certified doctor for an immediate second opinion. If that doctor agreed that you needed the procedure, the insurance company could no longer argue that you did not need it. Also, if they still denied coverage and you suffered injury or death, you or your heirs would be allowed to sue the insurance company in court for damages plus pain and suffering, bypassing any binding arbitration agreements-even those made after this law was passed. This is the "teeth," in the certified second opinion plan. This is the one that would be difficult to pass, so we would save it for after the other two parts, but even if we lose this one I wouldn't worry. Part two is the trojan horse of the trio, as inflation increases the cost of coverage, more and more people will be eligable for the medicaid single payer plan. It is a gradual phase out of health insurance companies.

Health care is a family value

John Mouracade — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:54:58 EDT

Family values. That phrase has become one of the most overused political buzz words of the last decade. Yet, no one ever talks about what it means. Is it simply code for pro-life and anti-gay, a euphemistic way of describing a simple-minded conservative social morality? Or is there something more to it, something of substance?

It would be foolish to let the religious right co-opt the family. We do better to articulate family values and pursue, where appropriate, political ends that align with them. Some moral positions that dress up as family values clearly aren't. For instance, the opposition to homosexuality is not a family value. No family is built on or functions because the family agrees to be homophobic. What is really going on here isn't tied to family values, but to thinking that all families must fit a certain mold-- that only certain types of families are valuable.

But what are some family values? What kind of values are distinctly familial? Perhaps these are the values that keep families together and help the individuals in the family to thrive. So, the issue is not what values does a family hold, but what helps families flourish. While there are many factors that come in to play, health care deserves special consideration. For families to have access to affordable health care is one of the most important aspects of family life. Every parent knows the worry over a sick child. It is unfortunate when this is coupled with the burden of not being able to afford a doctor's visit or treatment. As medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy and financial pressures are a trigger for divorce, lack of affordable health care devastates American families. Can someone truly value the American family and not be concerned that so many are uninsured or underinsured? Whatever else may be included in family values, basic security against hunger, weather, and illness are central to family life. It is unfortunate that in a nation as wealthy as ours, so many people do not have these basic securities while many that do are afraid of losing them. Perhaps we need a new slogan, 'Health care is a family value.'

16 Million Americans with Chronic Conditions Don't Have Health Insurance

Steven from Norman, OK — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:38:45 EDT

From a NY Times article on the number of uninsured people who have chronic conditions:

The most recent government estimate of the number of people in this country without health insurance is 47 million, which means that if the proportions found in the study have remained constant, there might be nearly 16 million people in this country with a chronic condition but no insurance to pay for medical care.

The unfortunate thing about this article is that it emphasizes the 16 million people with a pre-existing condition without insurance, but does not delve into the number of people with health insurance that doesn't cover their conditions. I'm sure the fact that insurance companies don't like to pay claims for diseases you, you know, actually live with plays a huge part in these 16 million individual's lack of health insurance.

McCain Speech

Barbara Rademacher — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 08:23:03 EDT

It is 7:15 a.m. and I am watching CNN which is showing a McCain speech in which he says he will give people tax credits to buy health insurance and "relieve" businesses of the burden of offering health insurance to their employees. My God. That will mean the end of health insurance to even more people. Health insurance is so expensive, the mass of people will not be able to afford it, even with a tax credit. And forget people with pre-existing conditions. Supposedly McCain will open up a more-expensive "pool" for those people. No, they will die in droves.

Electing Obama is the only hope for most people in the U.S. to get medical care.

I spent years and years of my life working part-time and therefore not having health insurance. I could not see a doctor; in fact, I used to cry because I knew that if I got cancer or any other very serious condition, I would have to just die. I am not ready to return to that level of hopelessness.

$60,000 a Second

Robin Lee — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:45:43 EDT

I ran across this post on MyDD today. According to J Ro, the United States spends $217 million an hour on healthcare, more than any country on Earth. Awhile back I did some calculations and came up with what I thought was an equally astonishing number, the United States spends $20,000 a second on defense. We spend that despite the fact that we face no peer competitor in the world. American defense spending this year will exceed the amount the rest of the world spends on defense.

Sending more than the rest of the world combined on our military seems bad. $20,000 a second is an almost inconceivable number. Try $60,000 a second. That's what we spend in America on healthcare. Despite that I don't think that many people would say that we have the best healthcare in the world. According to J Ro, the World Health Organization places America 37th in the world for healthcare.

One of the main problems that dogs America's healthcare system is that it is run by insurance companies. According to George Lakoff's latest book The Political Mind Insurance companies spend most of their time and effort figuring out how to deny coverage to their clients. As a result our healthcare system is more interested in keeping your condition from being treated that it is about healing you. So as long as we talk about a Healthcare crisis rather than an Insurance crisis we are unlikely to fix the root problem.

Health Care for America Now

Aloha Obama - Lisa Rey — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:41:45 EDT

Dear Lisa,

Earlier this month we launched our historic Health Care for America Now campaign. We ran television ads across the country, got covered by Reuters and MSNBC and held kickoff rallies in dozens of states.

We've got the health insurance industry running scared, so they've launched a counter campaign to bamboozle the American people. Can you imagine anything more absurd than these insurance company execs leading a 'protest' about the fact that people can't get insurance? Talk about chutzpah. But then, the insurance industry is used to making up its own rules about what's ok.

Check out this video which everyone on the Internet is watching -- it shows 'em in their full glory:

http://www.TrueMajority.org/HealthCareRules

Please forward this email to your friends, family, and colleagues.

Thanks!

-Matt

Matt Holland
TrueMajority.org Online Director

Global Predatory Chaos

Social Entrepreneur - Supporter Indigenous People — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:19:35 EDT

I am a 57 year old, 100% permanent service-connected disabled American Veteran, that is committed to bringing forth a conversation of becoming with my fellow citizens regarding the political, economic and social Predatory Chaos happening in the American culture. I also consider this a defining moment in the history of the world and "hope" is not enough in our current circumstances; we must demand accountability, ethical integrity and militant responses to un-ethical behaviors of an elite class and status that has turned our social relations into a den of lying cheating criminals. George Bush was the last straw in a history of elite tyrants who have abused the good will and ethical virtue of the American people. I assess the Global Peak Oil Crisis is the 'trigger tipping point' for a global convergence where humanity decides between two worlds! One world view is human beings are aggressive and arrogant, and 'only the strong survive.' This way of being and living is based on a patriarchal/paternal pattern in human history where exclusion and appropriation of elite power's control the fundamental organizing generative principle of our world! The Second and emerging worldview is human beings are social loving animals, and have the wisdom throughout all the units and pathways of humanity's journey to embrace social relationship in an understanding one human family, one blood and one earth - home! I have two topics I offer to explore in this blog with interested citizens: 1st Global Predatory Chaos - a grounded discussion concerning the patriarchal design of modernity based in a cultural distinctions of exclusion and appropriation as the fundaments for current global economic standard practices and the possibility of creating a sustainable capitalism through 'individuated personal responsibility and empowerment' and 'solidarity in global human concerns.' If the American Spirit is to thrive we must face our shadows and disowned voices within our community in legitimacy-in-coexistence. Personally, I am an advocate for American Natives and First Nations People in the world. Politically it is time to address 'broken promises' and the aggressive oppression and incarceration of American Natives on reservations. I am outraged and indignant with the standard practices of the American/Paternal/Imperialistic aggressiveness with these respectful, generous, knowing, courageous and wise people. I intend to share my personal experience of predatory chaos in this American culture as a veteran of the Viet Nam era conflict and as an entrepreneur who sued American Family Insurance Company and the law firm of Harris, Karsteadt, Jamison & Powers in Denver Colorado. I personally want to confront the right-wing pundits who are paid $500 million for eight years to maintain denial, cynicism and hypocrisy in the conversation of American culture on behalf of the elite corporate and political powers! Please join this exploratory in bringing forth solidarity and political will to sculpt a new vision of who we are as Americans!Thanks Patric

NO Vice President Hillary!

Ronald from Tampa, FL — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:24:01 EDT

While I think it is Great that Hillary has requested that her supporters now back Mr. Obama for President, I don't think Mr. Obama should be concerned with money spent by Hillary in her efforts to attain the seat of power.

Nor should her support in any way effect President Obama's consideration for her as a running mate. Hillary has already spent 8 years in the White House!

During this Presidential Campaign, I once wrote to Hillary's web site concerned with the rising cost of Healthcare, specifically the fact that many pharmacies are charging high prices, yet a search reveals those who can supply the same generic drugs for much less and that I thought drug prices should be regulated. The response I received was that I should contact my own senator because Hillary was busy fulfilling the needs of her own state.

We hope President Obama will choose a running mate more in tune with his own views. Someone who will help him bring about drastically needed changes.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. Blaeske

Shortage of Psychiatrists

Sadiqah — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:23:29 EDT

In my hometown, there was a report of the closing of an inpatient mental ward for a weekend because the psychiatrist went on vacation. This is not a small town, this is a town with over 80, 000 people. A man with bipolar disorder that was in a suicidal state could not get admitted because there was no room for him at the local hospital and at the hospitals in a 60 mile radius. This type of situation would never be tolerated in another health specialty. What if all the cardiologists went on vacation and the people who were having heart attacks were told: sorry, we are closed this weekend please go find another hospital to help you. This is the essence of mental health discrimination. People in dire need being turned away or not given the help that they need whether it be financial or on a fundamental human level. Something must be done so the 20% of the entire population of the USA who suffer from mental illness can be legitamately recognized and helped.

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200806080422/APC0101/806080532

Health Care and the disenfanchised

Irv Buchbinder — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:34:08 EDT

Who are the disenfranchised? They are the patients who come through the doors of our FQHC every day. They are patients without funding or funding of such poor quality that physicians in the community cannot afford to see them.

Protect Your Privacy!!!

Christie — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:24:55 EDT

Check out this website!!!

http://www.patientprivacyrights.org

Is Privacy Protected in Your State?

In our latest update to the Patient Privacy Toolkit we have added an extensive database of state privacy laws. Did you know -- when a state law provides stronger privacy protections than the federal law (HIPAA) the state law should prevail?

Assert your rights. Take a look at the laws your state has to protect your privacy.

PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY

NEW Information:

State Health Privacy Laws

NEW on the PPR site:

Our privacy policy

Explore this tool to find out if your state:

Respects the doctor - patient privilege.
Has special protections for Cancer, Genetic Tests, STDs, and other sensitive information.
Addresses privacy breaches. Will you be notified? Are there penalties?

Founder and Chairman Deborah MD

Vote for PRIVACY among Modern Healthcare's Most Powerful. Polls close June 27th!

Why is HealthCare so broken?

Russell Parker — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:00:31 EDT

It strikes me that the biggest reason behind how screwed up our Healthcare system is would be that we have seriously tangled up the normal market forces that would keep it in balance. We need to get rid of Employee Health benefits. A Health stipend that allows an Employee to seek their own care could work, but the system as it is puts too many steps between consumption and cost.

Free Market 101 (my sincere apologies to any economists out there): A supplier has something that a consumer wants. If the perceived value to the consumer is greater than the perceived cost to the supplier, an exchange can occur. As time passes both the consumer and the supplier develop a better understanding of the value exchanged and the price approaches an equilibrium based on the overall supply vs. the overall demand.

Break that direct relationship between Supplier and Consumer and you are in trouble. The cost of HealthCare comes back to us. However, it is extremely loosely coupled. It is a bit like going to a restaurant with 30 people for dinner and the bill is going to be divided evenly at the end. All on your own you might just choose a salad to keep the price down, but if the person next to you is going to get a steak and a couple of glasses of wine, then why shouldn't you at least enjoy the meal since you are going to be paying for it? Even if everyone at the table would rather be cheap, an extravagant meal is likely to be had.

So, does this exist with Healthcare? Not really. Or rather it sort of does, but in a highly convoluted way. Rather than a two part exchange, typical Healthcare that is provided as a benefit involves four agents: The Employer, The Employee, The Insurance Company, and The Healthcare Provider.

There are market relationships between several of these. Please bear with me:

Employer <=> Employee: Benefits are used by Employers and judged by Employees as part of their compensation package. (I believe this began during WWII when price controls on labor prevented employers from following the traditional path of offering of more money when labor is scarce)

Employer <=> Insurance Company: Employers want to be able to provide a Health Benefit that is perceived by their Employees to be valuable. They want to pay as little as possible for that ability and contract (except for the self-insurers) with an Insurance Company for the actual provision.

Insurance Company <=> HealthCare Provider: The IC needs to be able to satisfy the letter of its obligations, but wants to do so for the least cost. The HealthCare provider wants to sell its particular services and provide all reasonable care. (OK that last was a bit idealistic...)

HealthCare Provider <=> Patient (Employee or Family): Patient wants care. HCP provides care, however the cost of that care is often obscured or hidden. In CA it is actually illegal for an ER Doc to tell a patient what a procedure cost... even if they have no insurance and are out of pocket.

Insurance Company <=> Employee: When there is a gap between the Provision of Service and the Perception of Expectation of service, the Employee can complain to the IC.

****

So, what we have is a recipe for disaster. The Consumers of Healthcare (the patients) are largely divorced from the cost of it. Of course, as a group they will consume for. The ones who do cover the costs (the IC) are obligated to do so, but the ones who pay them are not the patients either. So they pass the cost to the Employer, who is stuck with the expectations of the Employees.

Patients do not get a realistic picture of the cost, HCP raise cost where they can to make up for the places they cannot, Insurance companies fight the HCP to keep payments down while at the same time raising the price to Employers, who it turn get squeezed and reduce the benefit they provide.

Why Healthcare Matters - The Looming Autism Care Crisis

Andrew Dzeguze — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:42:14 EDT

My son, Brendan, is 10 years old. He loves TV, videogames, computers, his sister, and magic tricks. He's charming, manipulative, loving, frustrating, demanding and one of the best things that has ever happened to me. He also happens to have autism, albeit not as severely as many children.

I can't remember when I finally accepted that Brendan had autism. I know it was sometime after his second birthday and before his third, because before two he didn't speak at all and by three he was in intensive speech and physical therapy. I remember all the details of when my wife first suspected something, when she made a half joking, half fearful comment to his first speech therapist (back when we thought he just hadn't developed speech because of chronic ear infections) and had her worst suspicions made all too real. I remember the details of the day the diagnosis was confirmed to my wife by Dr. Naomi Sweezy at Riley Children's Hospital in Indianapolis, because of how angry I got at my wife afterwards. I vividly remember the phrase "you just know with some kids" being used, and a terrifying brochure that insisted that this diagnosis meant my son was almost certainly retarded (in the clinical sense of a below average IQ), had no imagination, could not hope to make close emotional connections, would likely never live independently, and was in many ways condemned to what seemed like a horrible, unfair life.

I am happy to report that the worst aspects of that brochure turned out to be unfounded (and have since been revised in light of the greater understanding of Autism Spectrum Disorders). My son is quite bright, and can read at grade level. His IQ is hard to measure but appears to be in the normal range. He can carry on quite a conversation so long as its on something he really cares about. Although he struggles to make emotional connections, I have no doubt that he truly loves his mother, sister and me (and the grandparents and uncles and aunt that shower him with presents and love). He will face a lifelong struggle, though, unless this country's healthcare policies change. And it would have been much more of a struggle if his mother and I had been forced to rely on the public healthcare system as it exists today.

Healthcare malfunction

Michael from Casselberry, FL — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:50:41 EDT

Unfortunately, when politicians talk about healthcare costs they really only give lip service to who PAYS. Whether it is insurance companies or the consumer who pays the bill has zero to do with the COSTS. For some reason, there is a disconnect that is not adequately addressed.

To address costs, one must look at the components of the costs which obviously include variable and fixed costs. Whether one discusses insurance, physician, hospital, pharmaceutical, or any outpatient services, each entity has both unique costs that are applicable to them and, what I refer to as common costs that they all tend to have.

The most obvious common cost is administration. However, these costs provide zero benefit at the bedside to the patient. They do however provide jobs, as non-productive as they might be. These costs are associated with the processes of billing and collections, banking, investing, accounting, payroll, commissions, executive salaries and bonuses and stockholder dividends, among perhaps others.

Insurance companies provide the largest example. If there are 1,500 health insurance companies in the USA, then there are 1,500 administrations. Ignoring, for the moment, the issue of rationing (based on cost to or reduced profits to the insurance company) there remain accounting departments that must keep track of premiums invoiced and premiums paid, accounts receivable and account payable, payroll, sales commissions, banking, investing, executive compensation (including bonuses), stockholder dividends. BOD stipends, advertising and public relations, lear jets, travel and entertainment, fixed asset costs, taxes, investments (and the process of investing) along with the concommitant gains and losses, legal fees, general liability insurance (and other types as well, of course) and and a myriad of other expense accounts. All of these costs have zero to do with actually providing care. If one wished to address costs, these would be likely candidates to review. What if we could eliminate them all? How could we eliminate them all?

Add in the "benefits" that are provided to the patient (or not) and the processes used to make those "decisions", costs increase even more.

So, we pay our premium. Are we finished yet? No.

Add in the fact that any business that provides health coverage to their employees must necessarily recover those costs by increasing the prices of whatever goods and/or services they sell, then it becomes evident that almost any purchase we make as consumers helps to pay someone else's health insurance costs.

Add payroll taxes for Medicare, plus insurance deductibles, plus 20% (for simplicity of discussion) of UCR (usual, customary and reasonable), plus amounts over UCR charges NOT covered by insurance.

Wow. Not only do we pay for our own, we pay for others. If we all pay more than our own costs, how can the system be so broke? Inefficiency. Built in. On purpose.

Next, physician offices. They must duplicate most of the administrative functions mentioned above because they must generate invoices to send to 1,500 insurance companies plus Medicare plus Medicaid.

Hospitals, outpatients facilities, nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, etc. Ditto.

Why? If the act of paying COSTS so much, how much could be saved by not charging? How much administrative waste could be saved by not selling, billing, collecting, disbursing?

A single payer "system" to replace our current non-"system" eliminates a vast majority of these administrative costs. IRS collects "tax" (instead of premiums), funds what I call regional or state "healthcare authorities" which provides oversight and budgetary control for integrated health systems. One administration, with several layers, and more responsibility and authority.

One must realize that our current non-system is dysfunctional and broken. It is a non-system because there are too many separate, non-integrated parts. It is broken, in part because of that fact, and it is ineffecient, wasteful, and we have 47,000,000 people who pay nothing toward there own benefit (no insurance).

The current mess is largely reliant on businesses to provide what is a poor alternative - insurance - which is a poor substitute for legitimate pooling of risks because of the inherent profit motive, cherry picking, and inefficient cost structure. We are all Americans - one big pool of risks. We don't need an insurance company to skim the cream off the top. We can do better. Yes we can.

(I could go on and on, inefficient medical school education system - hence we rely on Pakistani, Mexican, Cuban, etc. doctors...; how supply-demand supposedly doesn't work in healthcare because the phycician controls both supply and demand; how you cannot find out what UCR is in your neighborhood hence you can't "shop" intelligently - because insurance companies will NOT tell you! (There are "too many procedures" yet Winn-Dixie can keep track of thousands of prices daily); we should have nurses as entry points into the "system" not physicians - they don't know what other services are available to you in your area and it's an inefficient use of their time to ask them to..., etc.)

What do you think?

JFK commissioned Iron Mountain study in the 60's on "The Possibility and Desirability of Peace". Fascinating work. The defined peace as (I paraphrase) "the inability to go to war" and had to understand the functions of war and provide appropriate alternatives. What if we consider something similar, "the inability to charge for healthcare" other than by a line on Form 1040 (or other means to be identified)? What legitimate functions need to be served and what alternatives could we devise and/or create to serve them?

Regards,

mchesser@hotmail.com

The Falsehood of "keeping what you like"

AlanRockville — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:44:55 EDT

The text below is from hillaryclinton.com, under the issue of Health Care:

URL is : http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/

"If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums."

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been stressing the first line in many of their speeches. It is, in my opinion, a very powerful line.

But consider this scenario: A young, very healthy single person (male or female) with no children with a pretty good income has decided, up to now, to not get health insurance. So far, so good - he "likes" what he "has". She's been healthy her whole life. He wants to take personal responsibility for his health care, is willing to pay out of pocket if need be. Will take the amount that would have gone into premiums and save or invest it. So she wants to "keep" this arrangement.

Will this person, under the Clinton Plan, be able to keep what he/she likes?

I'm not going to make any kind of moral (or practical) judgments in this writing about whether we as a people should or should not contribute to a "pool" of money that is used to treat all Americans with health issues. Personally, I don't have a problem with paying towards a pool. My situation is, for the most part, one I might like to keep - I have insurance via my employer where I pay part of the premium with a high deductable (FSA). There are some problems in this arrangement but I don't want to discuss them now.

I only want to point out the possible inaccuracy of the line "If you have a plan you like, you can keep it". Has the above scenario been debated with the Clinton camp?

If yes, what has been their response? Do they somehow try to claim their statement is still accurate?

If not, do you think this should be brought up? How many people do you think would fit this scenario?

In the debates when healthcare was discussed, there was some back-and-forth about "penalties" for those who do not sign up. It's another valid point, but it's a bit different than my issue. My scenario looks at the possibility that someone COULD choose to stay away from insurance and actually succeed at it. What does Senator Clinton say to this person?

Finally, if it was Clinton-McCain in the general election, do you think McCain would use this argument? Would it be effective?

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for reading.

Alan

Mental Health Reimbursement

Patricia — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:08:13 EDT

OK, first try at a blog: Anyone else angry that an alcoholic or Drug addict can get better treatment and/or insurance benefits than the mentally ill. An Mentally ill person usually can only expect a 50% benefit coverage but alcoholic or drug addict can receive 100% of their benefits and better treatment options.

Now the insurance companys are saying they want to raise the co-payments for the chronically ill, what a crock. Not making enough profits for the shareholder and officers, i guess.

Interesting Reuters Article: Doctors and Single Payer Insurance: Open Debate

EMK — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:01:54 EDT

From Reuters:

----BEGIN ARTICLE----

US doctors support universal health care - survey

Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:00pm EDT

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

PATCHWORK

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors. (Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and Xavier Briand)

----END ARTICLE----

Here is the survey and an editorial about the survey: survey and editorial. See also the summary if the article is a bit confusing and this response, which is on page 2 of the link. Based on the orginal article, it should be more interpreted as a plurality instead of a majority. What do you think? Questions? Comments? Suggestions?

EMK

Autism Insurance: Mom wins!

EMK — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:48:39 EDT

From CNN:

----BEGIN ARTICLE----

Mom wins fight for autism insurance

By Justine Redman
CNN

LEXINGTON, South Carolina (CNN) -- Ryan Unumb just turned 7 years old. He has about 100 words in his vocabulary, even if they are difficult to understand. He's potty trained. He loves playing with water. He follows instructions, he asks for food when he's hungry, and he gives lots of kisses.

The law named for Lorri Unumb's son, Ryan, doesn't apply to him. Their family is self-insured.

He's not where a 7-year-old should be developmentally, but for a child with severe autism, his parents are thrilled with his progress.

Lorri and Dan Unumb attribute these achievements to the 40 hours of intensive therapy Ryan gets every week. Tears streaming down her face, Lorri says they know they're lucky they can afford the team of private therapists who spend all day at their house outside Columbia, South Carolina.

"I've met so many other moms who were doing the best they could, and I just wanted to say to them, 'You know, an hour a week of speech therapy for your child is never going to make him better,' " the mother of three says.

"But I didn't want to tell them what they needed is 40 hours a week of therapy, because there's nothing they can do to buy that."

Nothing they can do because most medical insurance policies generally don't cover autism treatment, and it's too expensive for many parents to afford out of pocket. Ryan's therapy costs between $70,000 and $80,000 a year. That's Lorri Unumb's entire salary.

She and her husband are both lawyers; after Ryan's autism was diagnosed five years ago they sold their house, downsized and sacrificed to cover costs.

"It's not like you read your insurance policy and you can see a specific exclusion," Lorri Unumb says of the early days after Ryan's diagnosis. "We submitted bills, and we'd get denials back that said 'experimental... denied,' or 'provided by a non-licensed provider... denied.' Or sometimes the insurance companies would say 'this therapy is educational in nature, not medical... denied.'"

As a lawyer and a law professor, Unumb decided to do something about it, to force insurance companies in South Carolina to cover autism.

She wrote a bill, recruited other parents to help her lobby state legislators, and two years later, got the bill passed. Known as Ryan's Bill, it will go into effect as Ryan's Law in July.

Ryan's Law mandates that insurance companies provide up to $50,000 a year for behavioral therapy up to the age of 16. It also prohibits insurers from refusing other medical care to children because of their autism. It doesn't, however, apply to people or companies who are self-insured, such as the Unumbs.

Similar laws have already been passed in Texas and Indiana, and campaigns to do the same in other states have the support of the advocacy group Autism Speaks.

The health insurance industry argues that so-called "mandates" like this ultimately do more harm than good.

"It's not that we oppose a particular mandate," says Susan Pisano of America's Health Insurance Plans, a Washington-based association that represents health insurers. "We oppose the idea of mandates in general because we think in the end what happens is that health care is less affordable and less accessible when mandates are imposed."

But as for why autism isn't covered in the first place, the industry insists that behavioral therapy is an educational measure, not a medical one, and therefore not its bailiwick.

"I think that it's perfectly understandable that if you are diagnosed with a condition, or a family member is diagnosed with a condition, you want to get services," Pisano says. "Traditionally those services have been provided through early intervention programs for children in the 0-3 age group, and by schools for children who are older."

Pisano says the real issue is one of public policy. "We're seeing around the country, as the number of children along the autism spectrum is increasing and as budgets are being cut back, we see a move to transfer responsibility for some of the services [from the government] to the health care system."

For the Unumbs and many other parents though, the bottom line is that their child's autism was diagnosed by a doctor, not a teacher, and they want the coverage they feel entitled to after years of paying insurance premiums.

Lorri Unumb was so inundated by phone calls from parents of children with autism around the country wanting advice on how they, too, could go up against one of the most powerful industries in the nation and win, that she and her collaborators started holding open workshops to explain how they'd done it.

While admitting that she might not have done it if she'd known how hard it would be, Unumb regularly gives impassioned talks on how to garner grass-roots support, how to lobby state legislators and get signatures on bills.

"If you have a child with autism, you're exhausted all the time. And the last thing in the world that you have time to do is to take on the insurance industry. That's why it's just persisted this way for so long, it's that the very people who have the motivation to get the coverage just can't do it," says Unumb.

But even with Ryan's Bill passed, she cautions, it's not over yet. "I've been contacted by a number of people from around the country who have told me that they're planning to move to South Carolina because of Ryan's Law. That's both gratifying and scary. ... It's gratifying because I love to see as many children as possible take advantage of the new law. It's scary because it hasn't been implemented yet, and it's an insurance policy so there are going to be all kinds of issues with implementation."

Justine Redman is a CNN producer in Washington.

----END ARTICLE----

There may be hope for the rest of us...

EMK