The other time I cried about this situation, it was due to pure physical pain. If I was not in major pain during the past month, I was able to keep my spirits up pretty well. But there’s one other thing that will make me cry, and that’s the U.S. health care system….at least when I am vulnerable as I am now, after a month of living with a herniated disc, and not being able to pay to get help with it.

What set me off was the visit to the orthopedic surgeon’s office. I expected the follow up visit to be included. I had paid over $2,000 for the shot. The doc wanted to see me for a follow up to assess the shot’s effectiveness. I was shocked to hear during today’s short appointment, that it was NOT included.

I couldn’t help it, I looked right at the nurse and said: “It needs to be included. I paid over two thousand dollars for that shot.” She looked a bit freaked out and said: “It is not global.” I didn’t know what the heck that meant so I said I’d take it up with the doctor. She said: “OK you can do that but she can’t do anything. The cost of this is determined by law.”

If a law if f___ed up, do you follow it?

When I asked the doctor about it she said she could not do anything to change the fee. She said it was not in her hands. She said: “The government is involved.” I wanted to say: “F__K this government who won’t take care of its citizens.” But I didn’t, I just cried.

Honestly, I have no idea what they mean by “its the law” and “its the government.” It seems to me they could see me for a 10 minute appointment for free if they wanted to– just squeeze me in and don’t put it on the books. If you have to charge me over two thousand dollars for the freekin’ shot, wouldn’t it be fair to include in that price the follow up? You guys really truly have no power at all and some “big brother” government is going to throw you in a dungeon if you give low income patients a little slack?

I told her that due to the acute peritonitis, I had not been able to work for a whole semester and since I only earn about $10,000 a year as an adjunct, that meant that this past year I earned only $5,000. I mentioned the cost of the shot she gave me and the percent of my salary that it was.

I HATED crying in front of this skinny blond doctor in her finely tailored outfit who looked not a day older than me. Here she was, with her big salary and her attempts to not be too empathetic. And here I was, with my below-the-poverty-line-salary, my 16 months of major health traumas, my divorce, and my lack of health care.

I could sense her using her doctor’s training, to not let a patient get too far into an emotional melt down. She did this tiny little “I know its hard” type of comment and then said: “But we need to talk about your back.” Of course she told me that I would benefit from another cortisone injection. I told her flat out I could not pay for it.

I kept thinking of the phrase that so many Italians used when I was last over there, talking to them about health care: “E’ un diritto umano.” It is a human right.

When the nurse said to me “Its the law.” I wanted to say: “Isn’t there a law about human rights too?” And when the doctor seemed to be saying that it was the government who created the charges, and not her, I wanted to say: “What about the hypocratic oath? What about simply taking care of someone?”

I DID make the point that I was not smoking crack. That I was highly educated, but hadn’t been able to get full time work with health benefits and I happened to have had multiple major health issues that kept hindering me from obtaining such a job. I felt it was better to focus on me than on making remarks to her or her nurse about human rights and hypocratic oaths, because I could piss them off and then I wouldn’t achieve anything.

Not that I achieved anything anyway.

The doctor gave me the name and number of the billing person. But I’ve been through that before. They’ll put me on a payment plan but they won’t reduce the fees. I just cannot stomach another cortisone shot at the inflated cost, and have to pay $20 a month for NINE YEARS to pay it off. It just PISSES ME OFF. What am I supposed to do? Fly to Italy to get the 2nd shot?

When I left the doctor’s office, I sat in the parking lot and cried.

Montclair SocioBlog: Top of the Charts.

The actual problem with our failing health care system is that consumers have no control over it. Already, too much is paid for by middlemen like insurance companies and government. If Americans only paid 5% of their food bills, a cheeseburger would cost fifty bucks, too.

Why are people handing off control of their health care to middlemen? Because government imposes massive taxes on them, and then “rewards” them, with tax breaks, for paying needless insurance companies to cover their well-care, checkups, and minor problems while charging them triple what those will cost.

If you say “screw that, boss, I’ll take the cash instead of the health insurance”, you’re forced to pay taxes on the money, when the insurance was pre-tax.

The solution? (aside from cutting the massive tax burden)

Medical Savings Accounts.

Instead of giving the money to a middleman insurance company, you get to keep it yourself, to save for any medical needs. It is not taxed, and once you accumulate enough to cover any predictable needs, you roll the rest over into a retirement account each year. Meanwhile, you by a very cheap catastrophic insurance plan, that only covers unexpected, rare disasters like cancer and falling in a wood chipper. These can cost only a fraction of a harmful full-coverage plan.

This gives you control over your own health care, the ONLY way to cut costs. It also allows you to save for your retirement, freeing you from depending on the ridiculous, doomed social security system that will NOT be there when even Gen X retires.

Why do we not have this?

Ask your congressman.

MEDICAL COSTS UP….JOB CREATION DOWN

In case you’re confused, medical costs are suppose to decrease under the proposed legislation and job creation is supposed to increase.

“The nation’s medical costs will keep spiraling upward even faster than they are now under Democratic legislation pending in the House, a report from government economic experts concluded Wednesday.”

Does the White House have a reason for this? Of course they do, “The Obama administration immediately challenged the analysis, saying it is out of date because the House bill is being rewritten to bring costs under tighter control and will be merged eventually with other House legislation and a Senate bill.”

You be the judge. However, estimated costs of government programs are ALWAYS lower than they turn out to be. “Washington has just run a $1.4 trillion budget deficit for fiscal 2009, even as we are told a new health-care entitlement will reduce red ink by $81 billion over 10 years. To believe that fantastic claim, you have to ignore everything we know about Washington and the history of government health-care programs.”

Secondly…

“While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs.  To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table…”

Lastly, here’s a great (short) video on our increasing deficit (under Obama, not Bush).

When costs are projected by government “committees” they are rarely accurate. Remeber the “cash for clunkers” program that ran out of money in 4 weeks instead of the projected 1 year after 250,000 vehicles were sold using the program. Why should I trust these guys?

With Democrats increasingly confident that they can pass major health care legislation this year, some of the nation’s foremost experts are warning that the emerging bills do not do enough quickly to knock out soaring medical costs & costs for medical supplies — the biggest problem facing the majority of Americans, who already have insurance.

As Congress prepares for heated floor debate (the Senate Finance Committee is expected to approve its bill on Tuesday), the experts, including policy analysts, hospital executives and current and former health officials, say lawmakers must make crucial changes.

Their are always free/low cost options with public healthcare

They urge adjusting the legislation to reshape more aggressively the health system, from one that overly rewards quantity of care to one that promotes high-quality, cost-efficient treatment that will save lives and money.

While such a shift has been a talking point for President Obama and Congressional Democrats for months, the political debate in recent weeks has focused largely on the proposals to provide health benefits to the millions of people without coverage and to regulate the insurance industry more tightly.

Provisions to overhaul the health care “delivery system” have gotten less notice, and experts say the proposals are too timid.

“The discussion has gone from health care reform to insurance and payment reform,” said Toby Cosgrove, the president and chief executive of the Cleveland Clinic, which Mr. Obama visited in July and often holds up as a model of how hospitals would operate in a revamped system. “We’re not really reforming the system,” Mr. Cosgrove said. “We are reforming how we pay for it. It’s certainly all about politics right now.”

A statement on Saturday by four former surgeons general calling the health care system “unsustainable” and urging bipartisan cooperation was the latest example that health experts overwhelmingly support swift action and generally support the main proposals in Congress. But many, like the surgeons general, stress that lawmakers must do more to lower costs.

The health debate, in many ways, is premised on the idea that Americans and the government could save hundreds of billions of dollars by eliminating wasteful spending on things like duplicative scans or laboratory tests that might be avoided by electronic records, unnecessary hospital readmissions that could be averted by better follow-up care, and patient infections that could be prevented by rigid safety protocols.

Better Care for Less possibly a pipe dream?

Can all that money really be saved without rationing care or lowering the quality of treatment? “In three letters: yes,” said Elliot G. Fisher, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at Dartmouth College, which produces an atlas showing how Medicare spending varies widely across the country with no evidence that higher expenditures achieve better outcomes for patients. In fact, the opposite is often true.

But Dr. Fisher said the bills did not include a tool to promote cost-efficient care: reducing Medicare payment rates as a penalty if costs rise too fast. “Rather than across-the-board cuts,” he said, “let’s only do the cuts in regions that are growing too fast in per-capita spending. There’s a way to guarantee savings.”

The absence of such a provision is not a result of special-interest lobbying but rather lawmakers’ basic instincts to protect their home turf: high-cost regions fear being punished by steep cuts, and low-cost regions want flexibility to let their costs rise, if necessary, and not face restrictions tied to their historic efficiency.

Dr. Fisher praised many components of the legislation but said that much of the proposed cost-savings, intended to pay for covering the uninsured, comes from across-the-board cuts without creating incentives for cost-efficient care. “We know what’s going to happen if you cut prices,” he said. “They will do something else to make the money. So we’re not thinking as clearly as we could.”

A number of strategies to transform the health care system, such as promoting research into the most effective treatments, and encouraging doctors and hospitals to form “accountable care organizations” are included in the legislation, but either in a limited way or as small demonstration projects.

Experts, including Dr. Cosgrove of the Cleveland Clinic and Denis A. Cortese, the chief executive of the Mayo Clinic, say lawmakers could be more aggressive on those fronts. They also say the bills could do far more to push Americans to take responsibility for their own health, especially by reducing obesity.

In other cases, steps to improve quality like a new Medicare payment model proposed by Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, that is included in the Senate Finance Committee’s bill, would not be fully in place until 2017.

Continuing to Rise

Lawmakers have said they do not want to force changes too quickly, but experts warn that in the meantime costs will continue to soar for the 250 million Americans who have insurance and who, faced with confusing and expensive legislation, are asking: “What’s in it for me?”

Along with reducing the ranks of uninsured, a top goal of the legislation is to slow the steep rise in medical costs. But budget experts say there is only one big initiative in the legislation aimed at that goal — a proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans. That proposal, in the Senate bill, is fiercely opposed by many Democrats in the House.

A group of experts pulled together by the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at the Brookings Institution, while praising the Senate Finance Committee bill, has issued a report urging that more steps be taken to reduce long-term spending. The Engelberg Center’s director is Mark McClellan, who led the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President George W. Bush.

A member of the group, Elizabeth A. McGlynn, associate director of RAND Health, said that her firm’s research showed that the legislation would do more to provide benefits for the uninsured than to change the overall upward trajectory in spending.

“We are not really seeing a lot of evidence that the trajectory would change very much,” Ms. McGlynn said. Of course the health care lobbyists don’t want this to go through no matter what.

Everyone wants to know how we are going to pay for health care. Paying for anything is getting more and more difficult because we are prosecuting two wars in the Middle-East and we overspent with the bailouts for Wall Street. I can understand everyones concern, but we can pay for health care if we do the right things. Let me show you how.

For instance, the two wars are costing America nearly a trillion dollars each and every year they continue. Discontinuing those wars would save us money and lives! It would also more than pay for healthcare. If the companies who were beneficiaries of the bailout last fall and again this early winter would pay back what they borrowed we could also more than pay for health care. So what’s the big deal? Everyone gives a little and we all benefit from health care!

The right is pushing for greater fiscal responsibility by not helping the democrats with the health care bill. This comes after they spent more than any other congress during the time George W. Bush was in office. How righteous of them—way after the fact to suddenly grow a conscience! They can pony up trillions of dollars to kill innocent people or create new weapons to kill more innocent people, but not one cent to save our own people—I just don’t get it!!!

Democrats have wanted to provide quality affordable health care to ALL Americans for over two decades now. The reason we do not have it is because the right continues to block or stimy our progress by spewing lies and distortions about what might happen if we had a public plan. They say it will not provide choices—-a blatant lie because this bill would provide us ALL with far more choices than we now have! They say it will place the government between people and their doctors—-another lie, it would leave things exactly as they are and provide easier avenues for ALL of us to get the types of doctors we need without the red tape of referrals. This plan would provide coverage for preventative things instead of treatments after the fact. That is a huge change from how medicine is now practiced and one that can benefit ALL people and save us all money in the long run!

I beseech you to not listen to the lies and distortion of facts coming out of camp right, but to trust in our President and the democratically led congress to do the right thing for the people of America. Press your legislators to vote in favor of the health care bill—-your life may be the one that is saved by the prevention that it practices!

The costs will be paid for from a variety of savings, but if we can stop the two wars that is the first and fastest way to see the payment of this plan to fruition! The President and congress have been pouring over the budget line by line to see where else we can recoup savings that can help put this health care plan on the front burner making it a reality for the 45 plus million of us, and I am one, without health insurance. The time to act is NOW!

October 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
 http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/09/health-care-industry-leaders-shocked-to-find-obamacare-costs/

The Washington Post reports on the oh-so-predictable disillusionment of the major players in the health-care industry over the direction of ObamaCare, especially over promises broken by a White House that has steadfastly refused to lead after suckering them into giveaways. The list of the disillusioned includes the AMA, which recently endorsed the ObamaCare concept, and hospital executives, who thought they’d end up with extra cash for caving. Suddenly, facing a massive array of new taxes on devices and new efforts to extend penalizing “fees”, these major players are shocked,shocked to find themselves dealing with class warriors (via Hugh Hewitt):

The industry heavyweights President Obama neutralized through the summer are agitating that the health-care bills in Congress violate agreements they made with the White House, leave 25 million Americans uninsured and have the potential to increase medical costs.

One day after Democrats celebrated the news that a bill drafted in the Senate Finance Committee would not increase the deficit, the prospects for speedy enactment of landmark reform grew murkier. Industry leaders, who have held their tongues for months, spoke in increasingly dire tones Thursday about the impact of the Democratic proposals, raising the specter of an eleventh-hour lobbying campaign to defeat Obama’s centerpiece domestic policy goal.

Many lobbyists and independent analysts underlined what they called major flaws in the Finance Committee’s bill, saying it probably would draw the sickest, most expensive patients into the health coverage system without balancing the insurance risk with more young, healthy people. The result, they predicted, would be ever-rising premiums for the people, businesses and governments that pay for medical care. …

The American Medical Association is concerned because the 10-year $829 billion cost of the Senate bill does not include $200 billion in promised higher Medicare payments.

Hospital executives, meanwhile, complained that the legislation would leave 25 million people without coverage in 2019. The uninsured place a high burden on hospitals, which are required by law to treat everyone who arrives at an emergency department, regardless of citizenship or ability to pay. Those costs result in debt for hospitals and higher fees for people with insurance.

Not only have the higher Medicare rates disappeared — sacrificed to keep the Baucus plan from hammering the deficit — these providers face massively higher costs, thanks to the device tax Baucus plans to impose.  They can’t recover all of the new costs if Medicare payments remain at their current level, and pegging the public option payment schedule to Medicare will make this worse, once the Senate adds that option back into the proposal.  Suddenly, all of that cash that encouraged these industry leaders to back the reform effort has dissipated, and Congress wants more concessions from an already-strapped industry.

It has never been clear why they trusted Democrats in the first place.  The Obama administration has yet to engage at all in building the legislation for its own policies, including the stimulus and the cap-and-trade system that also topped Obama’s list of priorities.  These organizations cut deals with the wrong people.  Obama has exercised no leadership on health care, and Democrats in the Senate and House feel no particular reason to honor Obama’s commitments.

They have spent the summer, Obama included, demonizing everyone in the system in order to build popular support for their program, and not just insurers.  Anyone remember Tonsil Vultures and Foot Rustlers?  Doctors getting rich off of unnecessary surgery?  Why would anyone with a financial stake in the system trust Democrats after their mindless class warfare of the past several months on this issue?

Maybe they have awakened to the threat, although I’m not entirely convinced.  If they have, they deserve the Captain Louis Renault Award for extraordinary, and at least somewhat dishonest, obtuseness.

<object width=”425″ height=”349″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/T1DEG6BWgp0&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1“></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/T1DEG6BWgp0&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” width=”425″ height=”349″></embed></object>

Just in! Unbelievable….

According to the Republican leadership, they want to kill seniors.. they want senior citizens to die.. They want to do away with Medicare….

Senior Citizens worked hard all their life. They deserve dignity. Republicans disagree. They believe insurance companies deserve high profits. To achieve those profits, they must keep all their prices high, remove sick people from their roles, and not pay out claims.

This is what every Republican Senator is supporting. If you are a Senior, you need to worry. If the public option does not pass, YOU WILL BE DROPPED FROM YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY AS SOON AS YOU STOP WORKING…

If they succeed in taking away Medicare like they have proposed ever since 1994, with no private insurance companies supporting the remainder, Senior citizens must sell their houses if they wish health care. If they rent, they must depend on their children and grand children to support them during their golden years.

Only Obama can save seniors.. He and the Democrats. If no public option is in the health care bill that becomes law this year, senior citizens will be killed by the death panels brought about by Republicans…not Democrats.

If you follow through on the logic of every single Republican argument, it leads to this startling conclusion…..

REPUBLICANS WANT TO KILL SENIORS… EVEN IF THEY SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Now as a disclaimer, this piece may sound over the top… But is it? Do private insurance companies decide every day, who will live… and who will die, based solely on their bottom line?

That is why no Republican who does not support the public option, can be taken seriously.. They want to kill seniors.

(please copy and email to every senior citizen you know)

It’s a no brainer.

We have a recession with many people not working. We have a health care industry that is cutting back because their rooms are empty simply because fewer Americans have health insurance.

The more people who get health insurance, the more who will show up to be treated….

The Public Option drops the cost of health insurance lower than any other option…. More people will then afford health insurance, especially if the mandates of uniform coverage take place… More people will go in for medical care…

We will need to hire more health care workers… The Public Option creates jobs… Today everyone needs a job.

But wait.

What about manufacturing plants. If the public option becomes law, those manufacturing plants have their benefit costs drop due to competition among insurance companies. As a result, manufacturers are able to drop their product’s prices to equal or undersell foreign competitors. Orders flow in, and more people are needed on the assembly line to achieve the numbers required to meet the new influx. The Public Option creates jobs…. Today everyone needs a job.

Whether in the manufacturing of power towers, cars, trucks, green energy, windmills, turbines, the public option creates jobs in the manufacturing sector. Today… everyone needs a job….

The private option, such as the state co-op plan, kills jobs.. it allows insurance costs to stay at their high rate forever…

Take a look at this coincidence….

Check the years underlying the insurance companies profits…..

graph courtesy EzraKlein Archive

What is the fallout of these high insurance prices that coincidently started in 2001?

Economic drag on American manufacturers… They need to make up for the extra cost somewhere…..

graph courtesy of Kruse Kronicle

So as insurance rates soared as private insurance companies made excessive profits, American jobs became hard to find.

Just having the private option kills jobs. We cannot afford to continue supplying health care. Either we eliminate health care entirely, or… we must charge high prices dictated by insurance companies and slap those prices into everything we make…

On the other hand, anything lowering the cost of health care will lower the cost of our products. The public option WILL lower the cost of health care…

Therefore those such as Tom Carper who do not wish to follow through with the public option, are costing us jobs during this Great Recession…

We need to pass the public option in order to put America back to work……….

Amazing article from IBD. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

But perhaps the worst — and closest — example of why a federal takeover of health care won’t work comes from Maine.

[...]Maine’s universal coverage plan is most similar to the plans circulating on Capitol Hill. It was proposed in May 2003 by Democrat Gov. John Baldacci and passed a scant four weeks later. Much like the $787 billion federal “stimulus” plan that passed Congress in February of this year, nobody read the Dirigo plan either.

While greasing the pipeline for quick passage of Dirigo Health, the governor assured that all of Maine’s 128,000 uninsured would be covered by 2009, the bureaucracy would be streamlined and health costs lowered, and the plan would fund itself based on system savings with no tax increases — a similar claim to what President Obama has said about a new federal plan.

Six years after it was passed, it has insured only 3% — roughly 3,400 — of the 128,000 promised.

By 2007, the system was so broke that it closed to new enrollees. It still has not reopened and has also cut and capped benefits. The “streamlined” bureaucracy has cost the state’s taxpayers $17 million in administrative costs to cover 9,600 people, leading one to wonder if there are more bureaucrats in the system than enrollees.

Systemwide insurance costs have increased 74% since Dirigo was passed, and the governor and legislature have tried — unsuccessfully — to raise taxes to fund the system.

The short article analyzes the numbers FIVE current public-option health care plans in Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Maine.

BusinessWeek ran a very interesting article on malpractice lawsuits yesterday. Below as an excerpt:

President Barack Obama tapped into a large vein of public support when he suggested recently that he is open to reforming medical malpractice laws. It’s common currency in the U.S. that litigation drives medical inflation by forcing doctors and hospitals to resort to “defensive medicine,” overtreating patients to avoid lawsuits.

The evidence suggests a much smaller effect. Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation’s $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total.

A comprehensive new report from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, using a database of employer-sponsored health plans covering 10 million Americans, looked at the impact of tort reform measures already enacted in more than 30 states. The authors concluded that comprehensive, nationwide reforms would lower overall health-care costs by 2.3% at most. “That’s significant, of course, but still fairly small,” says Kellogg professor Leemore S. Dafny, a co-author of the study. As President Obama told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9: “I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet.”

A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated even lower figures:

The CBO estimated that malpractice premiums and awards to patients represent less than 2% of overall health-care spending. The CBO also concluded that any reductions in medical overtreatment from tort reform would be negligible. “So-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians,” the government economists concluded.

Times are hard for people. And there are two genetic strains of personalities reacting to those hard times.

The first is dominated by the selfish gene. They are the ones who say “hey, look at me! I’m doing just fine. If I could do it, you can too. I’m blessed. And don’t take anything of mine, unless you’re willing to pay me back a very high rate of return!”

The second is dominated by the selfless gene. They are the ones who say, “look, that could be me. Hey, I have something here I’m not using. Take this. Maybe you can find some use for it. And don’t worry about paying me back… When you get on your feet, return the favor to someone else who is down on their luck..”

We both know individuals and groups of individuals who follow these two pursuits…. To those of us who study history. a parallel can be drawn between the two camps. The selfish first stems from Old World philosophy. The selfless second originated in the New World.

The European nations were at that time founded upon the principals of mercantilism. Each nation used militaristic methods to acquire capital in the form of gold bullion. Stealing gold from South Americans was the principal cause of wealth formation throughout Europe during the colonial age. Those nations without territory in South America, stole their gold from those who had territory and were stealing South America blind. And then of course, you could trade some of your products for their gold if they were inclined to buy. That in a nutshell, was the European economic system existing at the time of this continent’s discovery.

You did not aid and abet your enemy. You charged, kept records, and used your military to collect, if those owing you money failed to meet their obligations. Needless to say, this mentality flowed downhill throughout each nation’s respective economies. If someone defaulted, you threw that person into prison where they could never acquire the means to pay you back.. You were vindictive, demanding, and cruel…. You had to be, so they feared you. Many of our early settlers were these poor locked up souls, filling up debtor’s prisons, only to be shipped over here, dumped and left to die..

Instead they prospered and from them, came the other line of treating those less fortunate: helping them get back on their feet by making them productive enough to earn money. The money then earned, was subsequently returned to those generous souls who gave them a break, by being spent in their stores on their own goods or services.

As the frontier expanded Westward, this philosophy spread with it. If a neighbor’s house burnt, you and your neighbors had a house raising party. If Indians stole their horses, you gave up some of yours. If your neighbor needed a plow, you lent him yours. The benefit was obvious. Should you befall poor circumstances, they would do the same for you, without asking. People were a rare asset as America’s frontier expanded; natural resources were abundant. So naturally, people gave up what they had, to help other’s if that meant they all had a better chance of surviving… After all, natural resources couldn’t come to your aid or load your weapon, should your family be attacked by a scalping party out on a raid.

This concept of banding together to help others is a very American trait. It would be one not so well widespread today, if it hadn’t been the greatest generation of Americans who brought it to the forefront. WWII drove home this idea to the rest of the world, It showed all that America was very different. Over here, people stood for something and because of that, they were willing to invest valuable resources to help right injustice, and even better, once winning? They packed up and went home. And one even better? They used their own precious resources to help their former enemies get back on their feet again… Gee what a great country..

Today we hear that same philosophy about helping others, being used across our health care debate This great debate of this decade is, at the core, a debate between helping people survive, or… helping people get rich off of helping people survive… All National Health Care arguments boil down to that one sentence… Whatever side you are on, whatever plank you hide behind, whatever argument you make, at its core is either the belief that we should be selfless, or selfish.

There is no way around it. If as a nation we should be selfless in our treatment to our unfortunate, our own citizens, then we need some form of governmental input. If as a nation we should be selfish in our treatment to our unfortunate, our own citizens, then we need to maintain the current status quo system of for profit private health care…

History has a funny way of playing tricks. We think of Socialism as a European tradition. However it was from America that socialism derived its inspiration during our nation’s growth over the 19th Century. Socialism was a contrived as a method calculated to achieve those values visible on the American frontier, by redirecting the wealth that for so long, had been locked down by a very few. Socialism was the way to pry open the coffers of one or two rich guys, thereby allowing help to flow outward to areas where it needed to go.. One should note, that the rise in Socialism was most prominent after WWII when the populations of broken nations looked to America as a model, and said we want to be like them… Combining the resources of government and business was their quickest avenue to achieve that goal.

It’s time we pool our resources over on this side of the ocean. Our financial system was stripped bare, and we need to grow our way back to prosperity. We also need to bring along the global economy with us..

One could argue that capitalism, free markets with no regulation, is exactly what collapsed our global financial system. AIG taking insurance payments and spending them, simply because they weren’t regulated, is exactly what capitalism calls for…

Americanism, on the other hand does just the opposite. Americanism is simply the pooling of resources for a short time only, to help a neighbor in need. It comes with no attachments, save the deep understanding that should the shoe be on the other foot, we would be the beneficiaries of their good fortune. We need Americanism if we are to continue our role as the greatest nation on earth. Our experimentation with the old world order these past eight years, led us to disaster… just like it has led European nations to disaster every twenty years, up until Americanism took over after 1945.

The wave of the future is not a free for all, money grabbing fiasco; it is an evolution. And evolution is at its most successful when the gene pool available is maximised. As for the healthcare debate, the more players allowed at the table, the better chance we have at evolving our healthcare system into the best option. That best option, will be determined not by plan or directive, but by individual purchases across every state of this nation…

Even if you have great distaste for a government entity entering itself into the health care insurance field, you can have no fear of letting it compete in the free market of health coverage… It is after all, a free market. If it can’t compete effectively, it will become extinct. On the other hand, if it is the better option and receives a much better reception than its private competitors do, it would be wrong to deny this nation’s citizens something that benefits them so greatly… It would be flat out wrong..

So the American thing to do, is to allow this governmental insurance entity to compete on the free market with private competitors. Americans helping Americans. It’s the only American thing we can possible do..

And as an aside, the next time you hear the word socialism patsied about, set them straight. It is Americanism they’re against.. Socialism died with fall of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. Now, its Americanism. Helping ones neighbor who can’t help themselves..

But then again… there are those with the selfish gene.

(Getty Images)

From routine physicals to prescription drugs, medical expenses add up faster than you can say “Ahhh.” In fact, more than half of women surveyed by the nonprofit research foundation the Commonwealth Fund said the rising costs of health care were keeping them from getting the procedures and medications they need.

Receiving quality care costs quite the pretty penny, whether you’re insured or not. And while doctors may know what’s best for your health, they may not be as concerned with your wallet. So before you swipe that credit card, make sure you’re following these money-saving rules to cut back on medical expenses.

1. Choose lifestyle changes over new medication.
Don’t feel like adding to costs by filling a new prescription? Before your doctor signs the script, ask if there are any lifestyle changes that might have the same effect.

For example, losing weight can sometimes make diabetes or cholesterol drugs unnecessary, relaxation techniques often work better than sleeping pills, and keeping your home free of dust and mold might just liberate you from allergy meds.

2. Reevaluate your vitamins.
Taking a daily multivitamin may not be worth it in the long run—if your diet covers all the recommended daily nutritional bases. (This requires a diverse mix of fruit and veggies, lean meats, legumes, and whole grains, so if you’re a picky eater, a vegetarian, or have a food allergy, you may need a daily pill.)

Don’t bother with extra supplements, such as calcium, vitamin C, or vitamin D, unless your doctor recommends them for a specific reason. And you can ditch the vitamin-infused waters and beverages: They’re usually high in calories and chemicals, and can do more harm than good.

3. Ask your doctor: Do I really need that test?
A 2006 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that 43% of patients underwent unnecessary tests at simple, routine checkups. If your doctor orders an MRI, CT scan, or other medical exam, speak up: Besides the medical concerns of unnecessary testing, like additional exposure to harmful radiation, you could be billed for these extra procedures. Ask why it’s being ordered, whether it will cost you extra money, and what will be done afterward if the results are positive (or negative). If the answer is simply “routine screening,” the test may be unnecessary.

4. Get your regular meds on the cheap.
Continuously shelling out for a regular prescription (we’re lookin’ at you, birth control) can be a real drag. Find out if there are cheaper options, like ordering from legitimate, safe online vendors, or thriftier pharmacies with low-price plans. You can also try money-saving strategies such as buying the generic version of the medication, buying pills in bulk, and splitting higher-dose pills.

Next page: Don’t procrastinate

5. Don’t procrastinate.
If you plan to get the Gardasil vaccine to protect yourself against cervical cancer and HPV, make sure you have time to get all three doses of the vaccine before you turn 27. Administered over an eight-month span, the vaccine has only been approved by the FDA for women up to 26 years of age, so insurance will not cover any shots needed once you’re past the cutoff (even if you start the process before your birthday). Out-of-pocket, these jabs can cost up to $200 each, not counting administration fees tacked on by your doctor’s office.

6. Feel free to bargain.
Unlike the price tag on those fabulous (and completely out of your budget) new fall boots, medical costs aren’t always set in stone. If you’re uninsured and paying out-of-pocket for hospital or doctor services, don’t be afraid to try these proven ways to negotiate medical bills. Disclosing your income may knock off a chunk of the bill, as will offering to pay with cash on the spot—you could get as much as a 20% discount. If your doc wants you to try a new medication, ask if he or she has samples for you to try first, or check the drug’s website for coupons to use at the pharmacy.

7. Take a trip.
Consider planning your next vacation around your next medical procedure. Medical tourism could save you anywhere from 40% to 85% on health-care costs, although it does have its risks. If you’re fully insured, staying at home will be your best bet. But for things that aren’t covered (such as cosmetic surgery or dental procedures), or for patients without insurance, a trip to Mexico, Costa Rica, or even Thailand or India could add up to huge savings.

Just be sure to research the doctor, facility, and country extensively beforehand to avoid insurance and malpractice issues; check out the nonprofit Joint Commission International’s list of accredited hospitals and labs.

8. Get back to basics.
The best way to keep your medical costs down? Don’t get sick. Easier said than done, we know, but if money is tight, focus on the little things within your control—exercise more, drink less alcohol, wear sunscreen, floss your teeth, and wash your hands. Covering these basics will keep you out of the doctor’s office, plain and simple. Oh, and now is a perfect time to stop smoking too: Kicking that habit alone could save you thousands of dollars a year.

The poverty rate among older Americans could be nearly twice as high as the traditional 10 percent level, according to a revision of a half-century-old formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations in the cost of living.

The National Academy of Science’s formula, which is gaining credibility with public officials including some in the Obama administration, would put the poverty rate for Americans 65 and over at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn’t take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors.

“It’s a hidden problem,” said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. “There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don’t have what they need to get by.”

Go to Article

One of the readers posted this question to me, and I thought I’ll share my perspective as someone who is closely involved with the earliest phase of medical research and drug discovery

It is due to the very expensive process of drug/treatment discovery.

Over the last few thousands of years, humans have been doing science by observing our surroundings and our own bodies using our 5 senses — our eyes, noise, ears, mouth, skin to touch. Over this long period of time, we have discovered almost everything that can be discovered using this 5 senses.

In the last century, because of electricity and other fundamental inventions, we have been able to invent machines that have in turn allowed us to make greater quantum leaps in science. Machines like the telescope, the microscope, the x-ray machine etc.

Today, drug/treatment discovery in the field of medicine is made primarily with through the use of all these sophisticated equipment. These equipment costs a bomb — many of them the price of a HDB flat easily. So you can imagine to cost of research for one single drug.

Because these discoveries and inventions are not easy to make (there are no model answers at the back of life’s books) , the success rate (drugs making it from the start of the reseach process, to passing the safety tests etc and going on sale) of drug inventions is 1 in 10,000.

So when companies sell these drugs, they have to cover the cost of the 9,999 failures, by selling that 1 remaining drugs.

Also, there needs to be a sufficient profit margin so that investors would be willing to take on such huge risks (1 in 10,000 and no one knows when this 1 will pop out) in investing in the drug research process.

I’m sure many of you have heard about generic or low cost medicines. Such medicines are cheaper usually because the company’s patent has expired, or is willing to allow generic versions to be made. In this case, the cost of the drug is used to cover the cost of the manufacture —- it usually doesn’t cover the cost of the 9,999 failures, or the risk that the investors need to take.

So why don’t we go the way of producing low cost generic drugs from the start, for everything? Why do we use intellectual property and anti-piracy laws to protect rich pharmaceuticals? Because without this financial incentive, many investors would no want to take on such huge risks of failed drugs — they’ll channel their money into more profitable investments. Without this financial investment, research will slow and consequentially medical advancement will slow. While some argue that the State should take on these investments, others argue that it is irresponsible to use taxpayer money for such high risk ventures, and this should be left up to high-risk venture capitalists.

At the end of the day, all these makes new drugs/treatments very expensive, and the aged need more repairing than the young , and so we need to decide who and how to pay for them.

There are plenty of policy papers out there on both sides of the health care reform issue, as well as plenty of nutjobs talking about death panels. But here is an anecdote from the front lines: I recently had a test done at California Pacific Medical Center, which is purportedly a non-profit hospital affiliated with Sutter Health, a collection of non-profit hospitals. CPMC is the only hospital in the northern half of San Francisco, and essentially has a monopoly on health care for a big chunk of the city. What do they do with their monopoly power? My breath test, which was run not by a doctor but by a young technician, and which took 90 minutes, was billed at $3,000. That’s right: $2,000 per hour was what they charged for their technician’s time and use of the machine. To compare, a top partner at a major corporate law firm I have used billed me at $650 per hour. This is why the current system is unsustainable. Insured individuals never see these bills, because their insurance pays it, so hospitals keep charging obscene rates. But for those of us who have to pay our own medical bills, we have no choice but to protest and fight back. Reforming the system is part of our fight.

My hunch is that the tort reform movement started with some kind of garden variety antisemitism, and then blossomed into the scapegoat it is today. It is doubtless that many look at massive malpractice awards with envy and say to themselves, “Shit, my right arm is worth a lot less than $1.3 million!” or “I’d give my daughter to heaven for $1.5 million!” This is the subject of tort reform.

Then there is the object of tort reform: no, it is not frivolous lawsuits or excessive court awards. Rather, it is the trial lawyer. Somehow, somewhere, trial lawyers were branded as sleazy ambulance chasers all too willing to exploit the victims of bad circumstances. Such attorneys usurped the system through their wily conniving of the Law through the powers of legalism and esoteric exegesis.

Enter the tall, honest and plain speaking country lawyer campaigning against the forces of big-city Jew lawyers (relevant video clip begins at 1:23):

In Adam Liptak’s enlightening series of articles on America’s legal system, “The American Exception,” he wrote on how punitive damages are a peculiarly American convention:

These days, driven by the structure of the American civil justice system, entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ lawyers and the populism they embrace, punitive damages are used to send messages to large corporations, to fill gaps in regulation and to reward successful plaintiffs with multiples of what they have lost. Distinctive features of the American legal system — civil juries, class actions, contingency fees and the requirement that each side bear its own lawyers’ fees — all play a role in amplifying punitive damages.

Tort Reformists advocate for abandoning the conservative linchpin of federalism for the sake of a federal cap on medical malpractice suits. They believe this is necessary because they claim that medical malpractice expenditures (litigation costs and malpractice insurance) constitute 15% of all medical costs. This is a “wild exaggeration” by one decimal place.

Regardless, healthcare in America is a game of wildly high stakes. Even if tort expenditures counted for 15% of all medical costs, that would seem to be a most natural outcome for our Las Vegas-styled healthcare system. If my medical care will bankrupt myself and send my family to the poor house (as in the case of most American bankruptcies, according to Kaiser), then I would most certainly want to sue the pants off any doctor that gives me anything less than flawless, immaculate medical treatment.

If the Vegas house known as America’s Medical Industrial Complex always wins anyways, why can’t I at least shoot the craps in the hopes of winning it big due to medical negligence?

Why Choose A Nurse Practitioner as your Healthcare Provider?

What are Nurse Practitioners (NPs)?

NPs are advanced practice nurses who provide high-quality healthcare services similar
to those of a doctor.  NPs diagnose and treat a wide range of health problems. They
have a unique approach and stress both care and cure.  Besides clinical care, NPs focus
on health promotion, disease prevention, health education and counseling.  They help
patients make wise health and lifestyle choices.  They are truly your Partners in Health.

How long have NPs been providing health care?

NPs have provided excellent health care for more than 43 years.  The first NPs were
educated at the University of Colorado in 1965. Programs soon spread across the U.S.
As of 2007, there are about 120,000 practicing NPs.  Close to 6,000 new NPs are
prepared each year at over 325 colleges and universities.

How are NPs educated?

NPs have graduate, advanced education and clinical training beyond their registered
nurse preparation. Most have master’s degrees and many have doctorates.

Where are NPs licensed to practice and how are they licensed?

NPs are licensed in all states and the District of Columbia.  They practice under the rules
and regulations of the state in which they are licensed.  Most NPs are nationally certified
in their specialty area and are recognized as expert healthcare providers.  The faith that
patients have in NPs is shown by the almost 600 million visits made to NPs each year.

Where do NPs practice?

NPs practice in rural, urban, and suburban communities.  They practice in many types
of settings.  These include clinics, hospitals, emergency rooms, urgent care sites, private
physician or NP practices, nursing homes, schools, colleges, and public health
departments, to name a few.

What services do NPs provide?

From treating illness to advising patients on maintaining a healthy lifestyle, NPs provide
a full range of services. Patients who see NPs report an extremely high level of
satisfaction with the care they receive.

Among the many services that NPs provide, they:

• Order, perform and interpret diagnostic tests such as lab work and x-rays• Diagnose and treat acute and chronic conditions such  as diabetes, high blood pressure, infections and injuries
• Prescribe medications and other treatments
• Manage patients’ overall care
• Spend time counseling patients
• Help patients learn how their actions affect their health and well-being

NPs specialize in many areas, including:

• Acute Care
• Adult Health
• Family Health
• Gerontology Health
• Neonatal Health
• Oncology
• Pediatric/Child Health
• Psychiatric/Mental Health
• Women’s Health

NPs also often practice in sub-specialty areas such as:

• Allergy & Immunology
• Cardiovascular
• Dermatology
• Emergency
• Endocrinology
• Gastroenterology
• Hematology & Oncology
• Neurology
• Occupational Health
• Orthopedics
• Pulmonology & Respiratory
• Sports Medicine
• Urology

How can I locate an NP?

AANP is pleased to provide consumers with a quick and easy way to locate an NP.  Go  to www.npfinder.com and follow the simple steps to locate an NP in your area.  If you have questions or need additional information, contact npfinder@aanp.org or call (512) 442-4262, ext. 5211.

Summary:

More and more people are choosing NPs as their primary, acute and/or specialty healthcare provider. In addition to being top-notch healthcare providers, NPs deliver a unique blend of nursing and medical care. They provide comprehensive, personalized health education and counseling.  NPs assist patients in making better lifestyle and health decisions.

NPs have distinguished themselves from other healthcare providers by focusing on the whole person when treating specific health problems and educating their patients on the effects those problems will have on them, their loved ones and their communities.

By providing high-quality care and counseling, NPs can lower the cost of health care for patients. For example, patients who see NPs as their primary care provider often have fewer emergency room visits, shorter hospital stays and lower medication costs.

An NP is your best partner in care.

Istockphoto

More insurers are covering alternative therapies like acupuncture.

Although it may seem obvious that acupuncture helps relieve, say, your chronic back pain, insurance companies often consider such therapies—from massage to herbal supplements—outside the medical mainstream. They are, after all, still referred to as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, many insurers do cover selected therapies on a case-by-case basis, depending on the way you request reimbursement.

“If you talk to insurance people, they quote you by the book and say massage is not covered. Yet, I would say one-third of our Blue Cross Blue Shield patients are getting some reimbursement,” says Paul Rubin, a chiropractic physician at WholeHealth Chicago, a medical center that integrates traditional and alternative medicine. And even if your insurance company refuses to cover alternative treatments, there are ways you can reduce your out-of-pocket expenses.

Insurance coverage
The best way to get reluctant insurers to cover alternative therapies is by making a good case that your treatment is medically necessary. The simplest way to do this is to get a prescription. Ask your primary care doctor to write one that includes the diagnosis and the frequency and length of treatment. Although they may not advertise the fact, some insurers will rubber-stamp CAM treatments if they are prescribed by a physician. Some of the most frequently covered therapies include chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, homeopathy, and mind-body stress management.

One of Rubin’s patients, a woman in her mid-50s, came to his office with fibromyalgia; she had chronic pain and fatigue. She was treated by an internist, who prescribed the pain medication Lyrica, and she also saw an energy healer, an acupuncturist, and a massage therapist on staff. WholeHealth Chicago submitted a detailed claim to the insurer that included a prescription for the CAM treatments and receipts that used standard diagnostic and treatment codes. Her insurance paid for the internist and therapeutic massage, says Rubin, although the acupuncture and energy work were denied.

Another strategy is to convince the insurance company that covering alternative treatments may save them money in the long run. Some conventional treatments for chronic back pain, for instance, cost far more (and in some cases may be less effective) than alternative options such as acupuncture and biofeedback. “To a certain extent, it’s playing the insurance game,” says Rubin. “I would never ask anyone to not tell the truth, but if you can make the case clearly that what is being done is clinically necessary as an alternative to pharmaceuticals or surgical procedures, the insurance company can see, ‘Gee, this treatment is $200, while medication would be $600 and surgery would be $10,000.’”

Next page: Get a receipt

Get a receipt
Even if you can’t get a prescription from a physician, you should get a detailed receipt whenever you pay out-of-pocket for an alternative treatment. This will increase your chances of being reimbursed. “The receipt should include more than ‘XYZ Acupuncturist, $65,’” Rubin advises. “You need to put it in the insurance company’s language, which is ICD and CPT codes.” The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is an internationally standardized system of codes for medical diagnoses, while Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are five-digit numbers assigned to specific treatments by the American Medical Association (AMA) in order to facilitate communication between (and among) medical specialists and insurers. CPT codes exist for alternative treatments such as acupuncture, therapeutic massage, and biofeedback, and you can search for other codes by keyword on the AMA’s website.

In addition to the official diagnosis and CPT codes, ask the practitioner to outline the treatment plan (the duration and frequency of visits, for example). If you do have a prescription, make sure the treatment on the receipt falls within the plan that was prescribed. Indeed, when you are choosing a practitioner, it’s always a good idea to ask if they have experience submitting insurance claims for alternative therapies.

If your insurance claim for an alternative treatment is denied, try appealing the decision. Sometimes the insurer can be convinced with additional documentation, such as medical notes from the CAM practitioner. “The carriers don’t want to spend their money unless it’s helping,” says Jennifer Gibbons, the office manager at Wall Street Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, a New York City facility that offers acupuncture and therapeutic massage, among other treatments. “They want to see improvement. They want medical notes that show that pain has gotten better, or that impediments to acts of daily living—such as not being able to put on your shirt because you have a frozen shoulder—are improving.”

Limiting out-of-pocket expenses
If you have to pay your own way for all or part of your treatment, you should explain your circumstances to the CAM practitioner. “It is always beneficial if the patient discusses the financial issues with the practitioner prior to the first appointment,” says Janet Borges, a licensed acupuncturist and spokesperson for the American Association of Acupuncture Oriental Medicine. “Often they will negotiate a fee for service that may be even more beneficial for both parties than insurance coverage, such as a sliding-scale fee structure.”

You may also be able to save on CAM treatments by using pretax money from a health savings account (HSA) or flexible spending arrangement (FSA). If you have a high deductible health plan ($1,100 or more), sometimes known as a “catastrophic” insurance plan, you are probably eligible to open a tax-free health savings account (HSA). As with an IRA, contributions to HSAs are tax-deductible and the money is tax-exempt upon withdrawal if used for a qualified health expense. Offered by many employers, FSAs allow you to set aside an annual amount of pretax dollars for health care that must be used by year’s end. Depending on your tax bracket, the tax savings from these vehicles can add up to a substantial discount on treatments. Eligible expenses may include therapeutic massage, acupuncture, and more (check your plan’s language for details). Even travel expenses—such as bus, taxi, and train fare—that are used primarily to get to essential medical care are eligible.

Next page: Discount treatments

Discount treatments
If all else fails, you may be able to find affordable treatment in your area. Alternative medicine colleges often offer treatment from students or interns at reduced rates. The Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, for example, has clinics in Chicago, New York, and San Diego, where you can receive acupuncture treatment or herbal medicine consultations for a fee ranging from $10 to $60. Similarly, the National College for Natural Medicine in Portland, Ore., which offers graduate professional degrees in naturopathic medicine, oriental medicine, and acupuncture, has 11 community clinics offering free or low-cost medical care by naturopathic physicians in and around the Portland area.

For affordable acupuncture, try what is known as a community acupuncture center, where treatments are usually offered on a sliding scale ranging from $15 to $40. Patients often receive treatment while sitting in recliners in a shared room. “The community acupuncture model is an option offered primarily to low-income or underserved populations,” says Borges.

Act now! Spa Week (with massage and other treatment discounts nationwide) is October 12 through 18.

Following up on my last post on morality in America I will focus today on the heated national Healthcare reform debate. I just read an article by Jim Wallis, Author of “Gods Politics” . In all his publications he maintains that many Americans have drifted away from the fundamental morality espoused in the Judeo-Christian tradition. With respect to the current healthcare debate he observes:
‘We have a democracy crisis, with right-wing forces trying to prevent and destroy a civil debate with their “mob rule” campaigns. Fueled by right-wing conservative talk-show hosts and funded by special interests in the health-care industry who are afraid they will lose money if the system is fixed, a vicious campaign to defeat health-care reform has begun. The “storm troopers” of political demagoguery, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, have mobilized their followers to disrupt town meetings and defeat comprehensive reform by yelling louder than anybody else. The campaign tactics include lies, intimidation, character assassination, verbal abuse, and even mob behavior against members of Congress trying to conduct town hall meetings on the issues. In some places violence has broken out, and it has been threatened in other instances. Their approach seems to be to confuse and scare people, shout down the reformers, and disrupt the town meetings — to prevent a serious, honest, and civil public discussion about the best way to fix a broken system.”

Last night I attended a Town Hall meeting in Austin, Texas on Healthcare issues. It was sponsored by the Texas Medical Association. There were at least 275 people in the standing room only hall, mostly doctors and healthcare professionals. In contrast to other recent town hall meetings the discussions were intense but notably polite and respectful as the moderator solicited comments on healthcare reform proposals. I was surprised to find that a majority of the medical professionals who spontaneously spoke were angry and frustrated with the health insurance industry. Many called for a single payer, government administered system. It was clear that almost everyone was concerned about two fundamental issues, eliminating the “pre-existing conditions” in healthcare policies and assuring healthcare for all. Only a few railed against the “socialist” medical system proposed by President Obama.

Several small healthcare business owners commented on their frustration with the burden of dealing with insurance companies, noting that they “dictate everything from payment rates to medications and services” that should be delivered to their policy holders. Many doctors stressed that they just want to be able to focus on healing the sick without the current interference of insurance companies. There were also numerous comments about the high cost of dealing with insurance companies and the exorbitant executive salaries and bonuses. Insurance companies spend about 30 percent of their revenue on marketing and overhead costs.

A few non-healthcare business owners commented about the frustration of providing healthcare for their employees under the current system and expressed support for the proposed modifications. A New York Times article on August 13 concluded that provisions in the proposed Healthcare Reform Bill would significantly reduce the cost of insurance for small businesses, adding “proprietors would be wise to ignore the rhetoric and take a closer look. A vast majority of small businesses and their workers are likely to benefit greatly. They should be supporting, not opposing, reform.”

Healthcare lobbyists, like the US Chamber of Commerce and insurance companies have scared small businessmen into opposing the proposed healthcare reform, arguing that many would have to pay an onerous penalty if they do not provide healthcare insurance for their employees. According to a recent government estimate that is not true. Only about 39,000 small business companies, out of 6 million, are likely to be penalized.

For those who are interested, a recent New York Times Op-ed article suggests 10 steps to better healthcare. 

The character of the debate, as well as the issues involved, should be seen as a reflection of contemporary American moral values.

Kelly M. Harrison, PhD
Political Economist

The health care industry is one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing industries. Consuming over 10 percent of gross domestic product of most developed nations, health care can form an enormous part of a country’s economy. For United States, the health share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to reach 19.6 percent of GDP by 2016.

At today’s under inflated GNP, if this expectation holds true, 19.6% of 2008’s 14.2 Trillion GDP, equals a whopping industry of $2.78 Trillion each year… We are looking at just seven years away…. Seven years? Let’s see.. hmm.. how fast does that time fly by?

It was only 7 years ago we were being fed this:

“Iraq has made several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. And we also know this: within the past few years, Iraq has resumed efforts to obtain large quantities of a type of uranium oxide known as yellowcake, which is an essential ingredient of this process.”

In such a short time, a person making $50,000 a year, can be expected to pay close to 20% or $10,000 each year for health-care.

Here is what the hoopla is all about.

$2.78 Trillion for an industry vrs. 20% out of pocket costs for every man, woman, and child alive in this nation…

It’s that simple….

Now those of us who constantly deal with conflict resolution in whatever capacity, know the consensus will probably be very close to the middle…

In this case, we are looking at this scenario:

$1.34 Trillion for an industry vrs. 10% out of pocket costs for every man, woman, and child alive in this nation…

That would cost each person $5000. The average spending at the peak of the golden years, 2000, was roughly $4000 dollars. Our costs would realign close to then. If you remember back that far, (seems like another century, doesn’t it) families, individuals, businesses, and insurance companies were all doing well.)

Since then, the medical profession, insurance companies, and hospital conglomerates, have swelled their heads with unreasonable expectations. It’s no wonder; the Bush administration allowed them too.

Despite media attempts to confuse the issue, it’s all about money. Who should have it? Should the medical interests be allowed to siphon off more of our Dollars from out of our pockets? Or should we, the citizens of this nation, be allowed to keep our own money? …

The industry groups have invested heavily to make sure only their views get taken into account. The health care sector gave $167 million in campaign contributions to congressional candidates in the 2008 election cycle, according to the watchdog group OpenSecrets.org. Health care companies poured $484 million into lobbying efforts in 2008, and are on pace to exceed that this year.

Separately, the drug companies have offered up $80 billion over 10 years to reduce prescription costs of seniors if a deal goes through, while major hospital groups agreed to a $155-billion reduction in Medicare and Medicaid payments to free up funds that would help subsidize coverage for the uninsured.

The political infighting on Capitol Hill has strengthened the hand of the health care groups, since liberals have been thwarted so far in their attempts to win speedy passage of the legislation through the House and Senate.

“It’s not surprising,” said Harold Pollack, the chairman of the Center for Health Administration Studies at the University of Chicago. “If you were an industry that was one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and the government was already your biggest customer, and the government was undertaking a major overhaul of your business, you’d be spending a million bucks a day, too.”

For an argument to have merit, it takes two sides. So far, we have heard only the one side with all the money. The other side, those of us that have the money, need to speak up… after all, we are the ones with the money they are after… Our silence, will cause less to be spent on anything but healthcare… Our exclamations, will allow more money to stay in our pockets…

“Today, sound bytes, not sound policy, determine our country’s course…” Paris Hilton.

We can change that, and it starts with our own Senator Tom Carper.