Government HELP

This entire article is taken word for word from the link at the bottom of the post. I didn't feel like add or changing one word - It's information I wanted to pass of for discussions sake. I am concerned that we are doing too much too fast and all I see is a TV show where the "boss" is signing a mountain of paper and not looking at what is being signed and someone slipped in their own agenda in the pile. I know it's a daunting task to know what we are going, but I can't give. I won't let myself give up on my rights to know what my government is doing to "HELP" me. If I want universal healthcare why does it have to be stuck in a stimulus plan? Seems fishy to me.....

Another health care note of concern is something buried deep into the House version of the stimulus bill (you can view that text here). On pages 445, 454 and 479 the economic stimulus package will create a National Coordinator of Health Information to look into your health care. Yes, the federal government will be taking over. And it’s attached to the stimulus bill. This has former Senator and one time front runner to head the Department of Health and Human Services Tom Daschle’s foot prints all over it. Wow. This is scary. Daschle wrote a book called Critical: What we Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. The Senate is trying to sneak this through without the public knowledge. It doesn’t surprise me, but it is still amazing. Daschle wrote in his book, “the issue (of health care) is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.” Thanks for the consideration Tom. Once again, it looks like the elected to serve “We The People” are screwing us.

In another part of Critical, Daschle admits his solution will create some pain. For instance, the health care system shouldn’t always pay for care for the elderly. No. I’m serious. Page 464 of the stimulus bill would change Medicare from paying for “treatments deemed safe and effective” to “apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Code.” This means health care among seniors could be rationed. Are we sure we want to rush and pass this bill? For more read this story from Bloomberg.

Taken from: http://ktar.net/blogs/dankarlo/category/on-air-log/ February 10, 2009

Potential Presidential Leaders’ Views on Health Care System

I don't know the bend of the Kaiser Family Foundation, but it's information. My problem: there is so much information to sift throught. If you find a bias let me know.

For more information and videos go here. Another site with side by side information is the Kaiser Health08 website.

Ron Paul’s Health Ideas

On health care, Paul was quoted as saying: “Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies and government bureaucrats. It is time to take back our health care. Congressman Paul is a medical doctor by profession. That alone should make him worth listening to because he has real world experience with the health care process. On a side note, his nickname in congress is Dr. No, because he votes against so many governmental programs. Paul starts by proposing to make all medical expenses tax deductible by doing away with the current 7.5 percent IRS deduction. Simply put that means that you wouldn’t have to get to some IRS number to deduct your expenses, they would be immediately and totally cut from your taxes. Next, Paul proposes eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage. He then moves onto the supply side of the problem by proposing to give doctors the right to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.Excellent! Paul goes on to propose changing the rules to make every American eligible for a Health Savings Account, or HSA, and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA. That means that we could pay ourselves (a tax deductible amount), put it into an account that we have control of and immediate access to and not have the insurance execs carving out their percentage from our money. Paul also proposes reforming licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic medical functions to increase access to care and lower costs. Excellent again! He also proposes reforms to end the lawsuits that cost us so much money, because, as with everything else, the doctors don’t pay for their malpractice insurance, we do. They just tack it onto the cost of an office visit and we end up paying the lawyers a cut every time we go to the doctor! Ron Paul has already introduced legislation on all these issues, -so we know he is for real. He has been working as a Congressman for years to provide real workable solutions to the crisis. Sadly, they have largely failed because the majority of our “representatives” in Washington, D.C., need the bucks from the drug and insurance lobbies to maintain their seats in Congress. So, no reform. Paul has been quoted as saying: “Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world has become a federally-managed disaster.” And: “The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first.” He also said: “Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion. Now, the Food and Drug Administration’s bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines.” Taken from Mountain Mail, written by Rick Coddington, SOCORRO, New Mexico

Universal Health Care Saves $$ By…

These are condensed comments from here.

There are basically four ways a single-payer system could save money. Each is related to simplification. Complexity is very expensive – in time, people, resources, and opportunity costs.

Downsizing Bureaucracy
Information Sharing
Tort Reform
Rationing (or whatever politically acceptable term you want)

Bottom line:
Universal health care funded through some form of a single payer-type system could save huge sums of money if and only if:
• The new system is uncharacteristically simple, not overlaid with complexities, extraneous issues and separate agendas;
• We are willing to give pink slips to tens of thousands of US workers;
• We implement an effective national health information sharing system;
• We scrap the present medical negligence tort system and create something that actually works;
• We accept some form of care rationing; and most important,
• We are prepared for the backlash from numerous special interests.

Are you ready to accept all the necessary consequences in order to have true universal health care?

Other sites I found insightfull are listed below:
"Universal Health Care" Is None Of The Above from "Huffington Post"
No Patient Left behind from "Huffington Post"
Canada's Health System Draws Mixed Reviews From Psychiatrists from "pschiatryonline.org"

Health care comparison

I'm always in search of sites that compares candidates plans with as little bias as possible.

PBS's show NOW did such a comparison along with help from the Kaiser Family Foundation. It includes many related links.

Kaiser Family Foundation also posts a side-by-side summary of all the candidates.

Not that anyone would change their mind on a candidate but at least you'll know where he/she stands on the issue. Then we can have a stronger conversation on the topic.

Tithe to the Government and the Church

I think Wikipedia will have to update their page on tithing. They say, "A tithe (from Old English teogoþa "tenth") is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a (usually) voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to support a Jewish or Christian religious organization. Today, tithes (or tithing) are normally voluntary and paid in cash, cheques, or stocks, whereas historically tithes could be paid in kind, such as agricultural products." The United States has never collected a mandatory tithe on its citizens, under the principle of separation of church and state - until next year - IF Hillary Clinton is elected president!

Former President Bill Clinton recently said on the campaign trail that his wife was the only presidential candidate "helping" to get healthcare costs under control. The Clinton's claim that the Hillary Clinton's plan would cap health insurance premiums at 5 to 10 percent of Americans' income. How is that going to bring down cost? How is Hillary going to make sure I only Tithe to the health insurance company 10%? Where would 10% come from in the first place?

The healthcare reform experts note the average price of a family policy offered through the workplace is $12,000 a year. So to afford that type of coverage under Clinton, each of us would have to make a yearly wage of $120,000, on average. Would taxes would be raised to make up any shortfall or should Clinton's plan require more than 10 percent of one's income? I find it hard to believe Clinton's universal healthcare plan is the kind of healthcare reform Americans are talking about when we say we want the system to be "fixed." At least it is my choice to tithe to the church.

Are you in Favor of Universal Healthcare

Loved this article from: www.nolanchart.com/article3083.html
The article is pasted below so you don't have to leave the blog. It was worth the cut and paste.

Healthcare-an open letter to my friend, Theresa
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa believes that she is in favor of universal healthcare. But is she?
---------------------------------------------------------------
by Fred (Libertarian)
Health Care--an open letter to my friend, Theresa
O.K., so you are telling me you are going to vote for Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. You tell me that the reason that you are doing this is because you want everyone to be able to have good health care. I know that you were shocked when I told you that I, also, want everyone to be able to have good health care. You didn't believe me because you know that I (like almost all libertarians) oppose government health care.
"Why?" you asked me, "Why do you not support universal health care?"
"Forget about me," I replied, "I'll tell you why YOU don't support government health care."
Now I know that this is confusing, because you believe that you want universal health care, but you don't.
Stick with me for a few minutes and I'll show you why I believe that you are against government health care.
"Do you like our current president?" I ask.
"George Bush?" you respond (somewhat offended), "God NO! He is the worst president ever."
"So, what is it you don't like about him?" I ask
"The WAR, his terrible economic plan, his desire to drill for oil in Alaska, his connections with the oil and military supply companies, and of course FEMA's response to Katrina" You say.
"Good, how do you feel about Bill Clinton" I ask.
"I think he was pretty good," you say, "I didn't like the bombing of Kosovo, and the economy kind of tanked at the end of his 2nd term, but mostly I liked him."
"George Bush (the elder)? I asked.
"Another war president!" You asserted, "He broke his promises, cut social programs for the handicapped, mismanaged the LA riots, and also made the economy worse."
"Ronald Reagan?" I probed.
"The man wanted ketchup to be considered a vegetable for our school lunch programs!" you told me, "He took away social programs and left mentally unstable people homeless. And then there was his cabinet. James Watt, the secretary of the interior, who seemed to hate the environment..."
I know you wanted to continue, but I interrupted. "How about Jimmy Carter?"
"I liked Carter." You said, "He was a good man. He didn't get us into any wars."
"Ford?" I asked.
"I don't have much to say about him. All I remember is that he pardoned Nixon."
"What about Nixon?" I asked.
"Do I even need to tell you?" You questioned, "He was very bad."
O.K. So what did we learn about you. Over the course of your lifetime we have had seven different presidents. You have liked the president 12 out of 40 years or about 30% of the time. Let me ask you another question. "You didn't like the way FEMA handled the Katrina disaster, do you think that the Red Cross handled it better"
"Yes, they did a much better job." You replied.
"If you could have," I continued, "would you have given your tax dollars to the Red Cross instead of FEMA?"
"Of course." You replied.
"If," I asked, "You were doing business with a company and they gave you bad service would you want to be forced to keep doing business with that company or would you like to switch to a different company?"
"I would want to switch, Duh." You said.
"That is why YOU are against government sponsored healthcare." I stated.
"But I want universal healthcare!" you claimed.
"Do you?" I asked. "If you, or your child, or your mother needed an operation who do you trust to make that decision? Do you want the availability of that procedure to be in the hands of someone appointed by the president (remember you disapproved of the president 70% of the years you were alive)? Do you think a new government agency (like FEMA) could handle the situation better than a non-profit organization? Do you think you should be denied choices because the government controls all of the options?"
"No," you said, "I just want people to be able to have good health care."
So do I.

I could be a Libertarian?

Poligraphy on Healthcare reform

Ever wanted to see on a graph what the presidential candidates thought about the issues.

Click here to find out. Are there any other issues?

Maybe. A poll came out at the end of the 2007 that listed important issues in the following order of importance.

IRAQ - 35%

HEATHCARE - 30%

ECONOMY - 21%

IMMIGRATION - 17%

This Poll came from a Health Care Organization. Want to see poll, look here.

Heathcare Cost.... mandates and regulations

Here are two opinions that are worth the cut-and-paste.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gary Andres, Washington Times: Improvement of the U.S. health care system "requires several significant steps -- maybe not taken all at once -- and it demands more citizen education, consumer transparency, cost containment and personal responsibility, not just bigger government programs," Andres, vice chair of research and policy for Dutko Worldwide and a former White House senior lobbyist, writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Andres, presidential candidates "need to debate a broader menu of health care reforms beyond just how to cover the uninsured." He adds, "The real problem is health care costs -- a dimension of the issue" that likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) "emphasizes a lot more than do Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton." However, the "media's preoccupation with the universal coverage fight limits the dialogue," Andres writes (Andres, Washington Times, 2/28).

Deroy Murdock, Washington Times: "Before American voters embrace" health care proposals by Clinton or Obama, "they should consider the avoidable deaths that plague the mother of all state-run medical programs: Great Britain's big-government National Health Service," Murdock, a Scripps Howard columnist and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution, writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Murdock, the number of preventable deaths that occur in Britain "rebuff the notion that America's imperfect health care industry needs a booster shot of mandates and regulations." He concludes that "McCain's ideas -- among them, expanded health savings accounts; individually owned, portable health insurance policies available across state lines; and medical lawsuit reform -- are the antidote to the 'health care with a British accent' that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would import, unless American voters stop them" (Murdock, Washington Times, 2/28).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I love it when anyone bring us the words "media preoccupation", bacause they decide what is more important for us to know. I don't know anything about Great Britian's National Health Service - but it doesn't sound good so far. Any new thoughts?

Healthcare Reform . . Reform What?

I like opinions. But it you want to argue about issues please have some facts to support them. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, not a fact. Opinions cannot be argued and true facts can't be argued either. Opinions are touchy feely, play to your heart string stuff. Facts are cold, hard, difficult to change - unless your running for political office. ;)

Here are the healthcare plans for 3 of the presidential candidates. They are in order of length. Shortest to longest.

Sen. John McCain

Sen. Barack Obama Click here for a summary of the 15 page plan.

Sen. Hillary Clinton Click here or here for a summary of the 16 page plan.

Do these plans seem to be missing something?

I don't know if I want Government in my healthcare. If you have any doubts, go down to DES (department of economic security) and grab a number - OH, be sure to have all day planned for this. There is no customer service - no reason to get to the next person (I dare not call you a customer) - If they didn't get to you, come back tomorrow, 'cause you need them more than they need you - they work for the government not for us.

Evere been there? Had a different experience?

Premiums would start low...... just like the Gov't Budget

Let's say there would be a minimum benefits package for Mandated Health Insurance. What would be excluded - Not Covered - under this new Universal Healthcare?

Would it include Dental benefits? Chiropractic? Holistic? Hair Restoration? Restless Leg Syndrome? Erectile Dysfunction? If it didn't cover what you wanted would you still have to have purchase insurance if it was mandated? What about my choice? Could I lobby the Government to get my condition or medical specialty added to the minimum benefit package? Probably not.... I don't have enough money to lobby for myself or to pay for a professional lobbyist.

BUT drug companies and each medical specialty, from acupuncture to urology, will pressure the legislature to include their services in the minimum package. Now as the benefits package grows, so will the premiums. I've got to change careers!!

Wage garnishment - automatic enrollment

Have you heard how they are going to MAKE US have healthcare. What happened to my choice!! I am in America right? I can't drive without a seatbelt, without a driver’s license or proof of car insurance and registration, my kids loose in the back of my pickup with a six-pack on the seat next to me. Now, I can't go without health insurance!!! Let's have the government take care of us, how they want us to live. Hell, I'd move to Korea if I wanted that. Too strong - probably.

Below: By CHARLES BABINGTON - ASSOCIATED PRESS on Feb 3, 2008

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."

Why go without? (2)

Here is an article I fould with a different demographic swing.....

According to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, 59% of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are uninsured, compared with 25% of documented immigrants and 14% of U.S. citizens. Undocumented immigrants account for about 15% of the nation's uninsured population, as well as for about 30% of the increase since 1980, USA Today reports. According to USA Today, proposals by leading Democratic presidential candidates likely would "mean little change in undocumented immigrants' health care status" because the proposals would not provide coverage for them (Wolf, USA Today, 1/22)..

WOW...

Why go without?

I was in Florida last week and ran across an USA TODAY Shapshot.

The percentage of people without health insurance by age group:

Under 18 = 9%

18 to 24 = 28%

25 to 34 = 26%

35 to 44 = 19%

45 to 64 = 13%

With these kind of numbers what does it mean?

As you get older you need insurance?

As you get older you have more money and can buy insurance?

One thing for sure - a lot of people under 18 have insurance!!

Who has a new idea?

I was wander in space and ran across this link. It may be biased, it may not be, all I know is that it is an opinion of NPR and it got me thinking. NPR AUDIO Click here for Transcript.

I'm still for fixing a system that does not fit everyone, but I don't want to go down the path of the "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" education model. No child left behind only helps the slowest kids in the class. The brightest are left wondering when the next lesson will start but are left waiting for the least common demoinator to catch up. I've had many conversations with many school district personnel about this and most agree - the bright kids are suffering so the others can catch up. I don't want healthcare that will punish (lower quality service, less choice in coverage options) the ones with coverage in order to get everyone covered. There has to be a solution to get the lagging population within the covered circle.

I enjoy going to my chiropractor and paying him out of pocket because my insurace won't cover his services. Really I do, no sarcasm. It's my choice and I like him - he treats me and I feel better that before the treatment. I know a MD would take an X-ray or give me Pain Pills for the soreness I feel after a good run. I little manipulation and muscle stimulation and I am good to go. I have gotten recipes from him for soup, stretching exercises, saturday walk-ins, etc. If you live in Phoenix and are looking for an honest Chiropractor click here.

Universal Healthcare at what cost?

Have you heard all the noise from the "Presidential Hopefuls" on healthcare? Who has the best plan? Who will cover more people? Who will make it affordable? Who is asking all these questions? Are you?

These are not my questions. I have only one question. Maybe two.

I understand that not having health insurance is worse than not have choice. But why should we lower that standard of care by removing choice in order to accommodate everyone.

From information I have been gathering about Universal Healthcare I hear a lot about a "one payer" system. If you have never heard of this please look it up. In a nutshell, everyone pays into this system and the system pays the healthcare providers. This also assume there is one healthcare agency and one pot that all the money goes into and one place for the healthcare industry to request money for services performed. Canada, Norway, and Sweden have this style of healthcare.

Healthcare companies exist to make a profit. Why else are they there? I doubt it is for the feelgood they get at the end of the day. For example: If the service of a company is below the standard of service we go elsewhere. If your favorite restaurant has "new management" and the service goes down below your standards we eat elsewhere. If enough people leave the restaurant they have a few choices to make; lower prices, increase service, or go out of business. If they can't lover prices and refuse to increase service they will not make money and will go out of business. Business exist to make money. If they can't pay the bills to keep the business open, who will? Our society is supply and demand.

Most of us work for profit. I love my job but if they didn't pay me I'd have to look elsewhere. I volunteer to give back. I volunteer a lot, for many of different reasons, none of them involve making money.

What are the monetary downsides of Universal Healthcare? How much am I going to have to pay to have this coverage. Do I have to wait in even longer lines to see my doctor, nurse, social worker. Will I be seen in a reasonable time frame? I'd rather not have to wait in an ER for 6 to 8 hours if I don't have to. I have heard some people have to wait months for an appointment. THAT IS NOT SERVICE TO ME. We already have a shortage of Doctors, what will Universal Healthcare do to this problem? Doctors are leaving practice because they can't make enough money to pay their own bills.

Mal-practice insurance is a whole topic I won't go into here, but it's still a question I might dip into later.

I'm not sold on Universal Healthcare. I have other questions!!!!! I know the current system is flawed. I don't want to do something else that doesn't work just because what we currently have doesn't work either.