Sicko

[Matthew-]

^your friend is a fool

he should have been operated in the usa
it's not a third world country you know

Personnally, I would have chosen to be operated in the USA also... But I guess it was his decision... This being said, he may have took a bad decision there, but hes not a fool. He just make one mistake, like we all do.

 

[drhladnjak]

No healthcare system is perfect, including the Canadian system. However, the results of the American system (life expectancy, infant mortality and other measures of health outcomes) are really not that great for how much we pay. Canadians or Britons may be on waiting lists for certain kinds of surgeries, but they live longer and pay less for healthcare.

 

[metta]

Personnally, I would have chosen to be operated in the USA also... But I guess it was his decision... This being said, he may have took a bad decision there, but hes not a fool. He just make one mistake, like we all do.

The problem with that is that it may have bankrupted them having care in the US while they don't have to pay anything else in their own country. There have been studies done in the US which show that millions of american go without basic care because of the costs of it. It is the most common reason to go bankrupt. People lose their life assets. The idea of retirement in the US is a joke if you ever get sick and don't have at least $5-20 million in assets, or a government health care plan. This results in people getting treated later, more serious, and more expensive than need be. The health care companies like it this way. It saves them money.

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

My grandmother had been in good health until she was 90. She developed a problem that they wouldn't do surgery on because she was 90 and the system decided 90 year olds shouldn't get that type of surgery. They said if she was 80, they would do the surgery. There were no issues with her health being a risk factor. The doctors flat out told us that if she lived in the US, she would get the surgery. The failure to treat that problem let to complications and shortened her life and her quality of life. The Canadian health care system is notorious for denying benefits to senior citizens. When that happens, the people who can afford it come to the US for treatment. There have been many investigative reports on it.

ok and thinking a ninety year old should have an operation is stupid
really stupid
shortened her life??
not being mean here but being realistic..............
how long did you expect her too live


i signed DNRs for both my parents
hardest thing i ever did
it was
but i was being realistic

now why would anybody from Atlanta complain of the canadian health care system.

it works
it works
it fucking works

 

[metta]

Civil Disobedience For Universal Healthcare!!




http://groups.myspace.com/TrueUniversalHealthCare4ALL




Keep it up Pretty! Go Pretty! Go Pretty! Go!

 

[Finn]

Yes, the American medical system has problems. But it is still a great system.

Any system that allows human beings to die because they lack the proper insurance could hardly be called great.

 

[frankfrank]

Wow, did I get lucky last night or what? SICKO is, like, the one really "big movie" that I wanted to be sure I'd see this year. Where I live, I'm sure that it wasn't screened within fifty miles of me (Galesburg would be closest), so I knew I'd have to travel to see it. I was sure it would be hard to "find" by now. I strongly preferred to see it on a public screen.

I'm passing through Minneapolis-Saint Paul on my way to places far more distant. I was having a hard time making any plans for Monday night come together, so I was cruising Lake Street looking for a copy of City Pages (the local entertainment weekly freebie), having no luck. Eventually I found a bank of about 15 newspaper boxes and STILL none were City Pages, then I noticed this place I was walking by had newspapers in the window, and I went in. I noticed this place was a theater. I look at what's playing, and one of then was SICKO. Starting right now. I got my ticket, and as I walked in, the studio logo and movie started even before I sat down.

So I finally got to watch SICKO! Certainly something that will give one pause, even if Michael Moore's presentation DOES have an "agenda" - it's certainly very much based on prevailing facts.

I caught up with a contact immediately after the movie ended, and I spent $870 with him on stock (inventory) that I can use.

I had originally hoped to again meet up with a JUB'er while here, but he's literally right in the epicenter of moving. Not good timing for that, but it's remarkable how perfectly the "replacement plans" came together.

Yeah, even the fact that I've given as much as a THOUGHT of possibly leaving the U.S., shows how serious the repurcussions of our health-care system could be. Leaving the U.S. would hurt tremendously, but who knows that I might be forced to do so as a health care refugee? Many countries, even if I pay everything out of my own pocket, a major/chronic problem could cost $10,000's OR MORE below what it would cost in the U.S. (because of all the deductibles and denials on my poor insurance).

Healthcare should be a HUMAN RIGHT. End of story.

 

[metta]

Bush Administration push for privatization may have helped create Walter Reed ’disaster’
Category: News and Politics


Bush Administration push for privatization may have helped create Walter Reed 'disaster'

03/03/2007 @ 1:23 pm

Filed by Ron Brynaert
The Bush Administration's drive for privatization may be responsible for the "deplorable" outpatient care for soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, according to a top Democratic Congressman investigating the scandal, which has already led to the resignation of the Secretary of the US Army.
A five-year, $120 million contract awarded to a firm run by a former executive from Halliburton – a multi-national corporation where Vice President Dick Cheney once served as CEO – will be probed at a Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing scheduled for Monday.
A letter sent by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Major General George W. Weightman, the former commander at Walter Reed, asks him to "address the implications of a memorandum from Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi sent through you to Colonel Daryl Spencer, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Resource Management with the U.S. Army Medical Command" in order to better prepare himself for his testimony at the hearing.
"This memorandum, which we understand was written in September 2006, describes how the Army's decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of 'highly skilled and experienced personnel,'" Waxman's letter continues. "As a result, according to the memorandum, 'WRAMC Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.'"
Waxman's letter states that "several sources have corroborated key portions of the memorandum."
"We have learned that in January 2006, Walter Reed awarded a five-year $120 million contract to a company called IAP Worldwide Services for base operations support services, including facilities management," Waxman continues. "IAP is one of the companies that experienced problems delivering ice during the response to Hurricane Katrina."
Waxman notes that IAP "is led by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official who testified before our Committee in July 2004 in defense of Halliburton's exorbitant charges for fuel delivery and troop support in Iraq."
Before the contract, over 300 federal employees provided facilities management services at Walter Reed, according to the memorandum, but that number dropped to less than 60 the day before IAP took over.
"Yet instead of hiring additional personnel, IAP apparently replaced the remaining 60 federal employees with only 50 IAP personnel," Waxman writes.
Waxman adds that "the conditions that have been described are disgraceful," and that the Oversight Committee will "investigate what led to the breakdown in services."
"It would be reprehensible if the deplorable conditions were caused or aggravated by an ideological committment to privatized government services regardless of the costs to taxpayers and the consequences for wounded soldier," Waxman writes, alluding to the Bush Administration's push for privatization.
A year ago, the Government Accountability Office "dismissed a protest filed on behalf of employees at the Army's Walter Reed Medical Center, ruling that the employee group had no standing to challenge the outcome of a public-private job competition initiated prior to January 2005," GovExec.com reported.
"The American Federation of Government Employees, which provided funding to back the protest, said the impetus to appeal came from Walter Reed managers who were disappointed to see how the competition process played out," Jenny Mandel reported in February of 2006. "While the initial employee bid was $7 million less than that of IAP Worldwide Services, a mid-stream solicitation change resulted in a recalculation of the bids by all parties and in IAP's bid coming in $7 million lower, said John Threlkeld, a lobbyist for AFGE."
The article continues, "Threlkeld said the process for recalculating the employee bid was flawed, resulting in the inflation of the estimate that rendered it uncompetitive with IAP's bid."
On Saturday, the Army Times revealed that the Garibaldi memorandum cited by Waxman states that "the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush's 'competitive sourcing' initiative, which was launched in 2002."
Excerpts from Army Times article:


The letter said the Defense Department "systemically" tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty – a process that began in 2000.
"But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush's 'competitive sourcing' initiative, which was launched in 2002," the letter states.
During the year between awarding the contract to IAP and when the company started, "skilled government workers apparently began leaving Walter Reed in droves," the letter states. "The memorandum also indicates that officials at the highest levels of Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Medical Command were informed about the dangers of privatization, but appeared to do little to prevent them."
The memo signed by Garibaldi requests more federal employees because the hospital mission had grown "significantly" during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It states that medical command did not concur with their request for more people.
"Without favorable consideration of these requests," Garibaldi wrote, "[Walter Reed Army Medical Center] Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure."

 

[metta]

FULL ARMY TIMES ARTICLE CAN BE READ AT THIS LINK
Army Times


Army Times
Committee subpoenas former Walter Reed chief

By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 3, 2007
Top of Form
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has subpoenaed Maj. Gen. George Weightman, who was fired as head of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, after Army officials refused to allow him to testify before the committee Monday.
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and subcommittee Chairman John Tierney asked Weightman to testify about an internal memo that showed privatization of services at Walter Reed could put "patient care services… at risk of mission failure."
But Army officials refused to allow Weightman to appear before the committee after he was relieved of command.
"The Army was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the decision to prevent General Weightman from testifying," committee members said in a statement today.
The committee wants to learn more about a letter written in September by Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi to Weightman.
The memorandum "describes how the Army's decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of 'highly skilled and experienced personnel,'" the committee's letter states. "According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed."
The letter said Walter Reed also awarded a five-year, $120-million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official.
They also found that more than 300 federal employees providing facilities management services at Walter Reed had drooped to fewer than 60 by Feb. 3, 2007, the day before IAP took over facilities management. IAP replaced the remaining 60 employees with only 50 private workers.
"The conditions that have been described at Walter Reed are disgraceful," the letter states. "Part of our mission on the Oversight Committee is to investigate what led to the breakdown in services. It would be reprehensible if the deplorable conditions were caused or aggravated by an ideological commitment to privatize government services regardless of the costs to taxpayers and the consequences for wounded soldiers."
The letter said the Defense Department "systemically" tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty – a process that began in 2000.
"But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush's 'competitive sourcing' initiative, which was launched in 2002," the letter states.
During the year between awarding the contract to IAP and when the company started, "skilled government workers apparently began leaving Walter Reed in droves," the letter states. "The memorandum also indicates that officials at the highest levels of Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Medical Command were informed about the dangers of privatization, but appeared to do little to prevent them."
The memo signed by Garibaldi requests more federal employees because the hospital mission had grown "significantly" during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It states that medical command did not concur with their request for more people.
"Without favorable consideration of these requests," Garibaldi wrote, "[Walter Reed Army Medical Center] Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure."

 

[metta]

Health Insurance Executive favors a Single-Payer system (Medicare and systems in other countries) and explains why private insurance doesn't work for healthcare.

We All Need Healthcare; Who Needs "Insurance"?
By Georganne Chapin, JD, MPhil, President and CEO, Hudson Health Plan

I am a health insurance and managed care executive so you may find
this editorial a bit strange. I believe that the way to fix our
healthcare system is to stop relying on insurance and focus instead
on healthcare.

So, what's wrong with health insurance?

Well, first, it's temporary. This may work for auto policies, but not
for human health.

Second, health insurance is mostly contingent on where you live and
whom you work for. It's easy to transfer car insurance, but not
health insurance.

Finally, insurance companies make more money by minimizing pay-outs
than by keeping people healthy. Human beings -- who need preventive
care, who have babies, who may lack living wages and job security,
and who get older--find the house rules stacked against them.

Plans in Massachusetts, California, and soon New York propose to
strew the same old red tape over even more people. Members of the
same family could end up with separate policies, with different
benefits and different expiration dates. This will make it even
harder for doctors and hospitals to figure out whom to bill, which
services are covered, and - worst of all - whether coverage will last
long enough to complete treatment for a sick patient.

Other developed nations have universal healthcare, not "insurance."
They give healthcare to everybody, they spend less, and they are
healthier for it.

But, we have an example of success in this country, too. It's called
Medicare. And while flawed, Medicare meets the most important
criteria for a universal healthcare system: it's permanent, it's
portable, and it's simple and inexpensive to administer.

The health insurance model is flawed because it depends on people
falling between the cracks after they pay their premiums and before
they collect their "benefits." Rather than insurance, providing
healthcare to everyone would cost less and deliver more in the long run.

http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/559758

 

[metta]

Uninsured Swells 2.2 Million to 47 Million - 15,000 Doctors say Single-Payer is only solution.

Category: News and Politics


Today, the Census Bureau released the latest data on the number of Americans without health insurance: in 2006, the number of uninsured rose to 47 million. The ranks of the uninsured have grown 8.6 million since 2000--an increase of 22 percent.

The number of uninsured children rose to 8.7 million. If not for coverage through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), even more children would be without coverage. Nearly all uninsured adults are employed, and are increasingly likely to be in middle-class families.


Middle-Class Americans Join Ranks of Uninsured in 2006 as Private Coverage Shrinks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 28, 2007
Contacts:
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. (617) 312-2766
Quentin Young, MD (312) 782-6006
Don McCanne, M.D. (949) 493-3714
Number of Uninsured Swells 2.2 Million to 47 Million

15,000 Doctors: "Single Payer National Health Insurance is the Only Solution"

CHICAGO — The U.S. Census Bureau released data today showing that the number of uninsured Americans jumped by 2.2 million in 2006 to 47.0 million people, with nearly all the increase (2.03 million) concentrated among middle-class Americans earning over $50,000 per year, according to an analysis by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). Strikingly, 1.4 million of the newly uninsured were in families making over $75,000 per year. An additional 600,000 were in families earning $50,000 to $75,000 per year. (The median household income in 2006 was $48,200).
"Middle income Americans are now experiencing the human suffering that comes with being uninsured. It makes any illness a potential economic and social catastrophe," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Physicians for a National Health Program also noted the following:

1- The 2.18 million rise in the number of uninsured is the biggest jump reported by the Census Bureau since 1992.

2 - There are now more uninsured in the U.S. — 47.0 million — than at any time since passage of Medicare/Medicaid in the mid-1960's.

3 - 93% of the increase is among middle and high income families:

Of the 2.18 million increase:

• 1.398 million (64% of the increase) was in >$75k family income
• An additional 633,000 (29% of the increase) was among $50-$75k group
  
  Among full time workers, the number of uninsured increased by 1.230 million (56.4% of the increase).

4 - In Massachusetts, often cited as a model for health reform, the number of uninsured increased from 583,000 in 2005 (9.2 percent) to 657,000 in 2006 (10.4 percent of the population).

5 - The divergence between poverty and uninsurance is relatively new and striking. Until recently, as poverty went down uninsurance fell. That has changed.
6 - The number of uninsured children has fallen only 17 percent since SCHIP was enacted in 1997 from 10.74 million (adjusted to be comparable to current figures) to 8.66 million. The number of uninsured children rose by 611,000 between 2005 and 2006.
The doctors' group said that the only solution to the rising number of uninsured and underinsured is a single-payer national health insurance program, publicly financed but delivered by private doctors and hospitals. Such a program could save more than $400 billion annually in administrative waste, enough to provide high-quality coverage to all and halt the erosion of the current private system.
"We can no longer afford the waste and inefficiency, the high overhead and outrageous executive salaries of the private insurance industry" said Dr. Don McCanne, senior health policy fellow for PNHP. "Only reforms that end our reliance on defective private coverage and assure guaranteed coverage for all will work."
"The experience of other industrialized nations teaches us that high-quality, comprehensive care can be provided to all our citizens," said Dr. Quentin Young, National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. "A single-payer national health insurance system has emerged as only solution to the nation's health system debacle."


http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0828-06.htm

 

[frankfrank]

 

[jdb2001]

My family is finding out just how inhumane and cold the health care system is. My aunt has been in and out of the hospital for the last six months because she needs a liver transplant. She had appointments with the Cleveland Clinic to start testing and other misc things that they do to prepare for a transplant. Her insurance company found out about this, called the Cleveland Clinic, and canceled ALL her appointments. They called her husband at his job and told him that they do not cover ANYTHING related to organ transplants. So she's been in and out of the hospital with infections due to her liver not functioning, and this last time I thought she was going to die. They admit her and keep her for a week or two, get the infections cleared up, and send her home and a week or two later shes right back in the hospital. The insurance company also told them that once they spend $250,000 on her, she will be dropped from the insurance. My mom called the Cleveland Clinic to see if there was any help or assistance out there that they could recommend, and they lady on the phone told her that "if the insurance company doesn't cover it, tell her to go get on welfare" and hung up on her. She has applied for social security disability to get the health coverage, but was denied. We are at our wit's end. She has basically been told that they don't care, just suffer and die. It's really sad to see a family member suffer and not be able to do anything about it. I guess all we can do it take it one day at a time and hope and pray for a miracle.

 

[metta]

Private health plans work for people who do not and never will need health care. But what if medical needs arise? How well do they work?

Are you really covered?

Why 4 in 10 Americans can't depend on their health insurance

Consumer Reports
September 2007
You might think that you don't have to worry about paying for medical care if you have health insurance. But you would be wrong.
From escalating medical debt to postponed retirement, our exclusive national survey of working-age adults shows the depth of jitters even for those lucky enough to have insurance through their jobs or families:

• 29 percent of people who had health insurance were "underinsured," with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.

• 49 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with insurance, said they were "somewhat" to "completely" unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.

• 20 percent of people said they were so disappointed with their HMO or PPO that they wanted to switch plans.

• 16 percent had no health plan at all, including many working respondents whose jobs didn't offer insurance, or who couldn't afford the premiums or deductibles of the available plan.

Insured but not covered
Our survey found evidence of the increasing frailty of our system of health insurance almost everywhere we looked.

Between 2001 and 2005, the percentage of middle-income families - those who earn between $40,000 and $80,000 for a family of four - who had job-based health coverage dropped by 4 percentage points. Half lost benefits because their employers dropped health insurance altogether or quit offering dependent coverage. But 15 percent gave up their employer-based insurance because they could no longer afford the premiums.
But even those who have managed to hang on to insurance have found it more difficult to pay their medical bills.

In our survey, the median household income of respondents who were underinsured was $58,950, well above the U.S. median; 22 percent lived in households making more than $100,000 per year.

An explanation isn't difficult to find: Health plans are offloading more and more expenses onto consumers. Co-pays and deductibles have risen steadily in the past several years.

This combination of deductibles and co-pays can quickly add up to serious bills in the case of a major illness. A 2006 study found that 10 percent of insured patients with cancer had out-of-pocket expenses of more than $18,500.

How to pay?
Consumers faced with higher health costs have to find the money somewhere, and many in our survey found that tough to do. Overall, 37 percent said their health insurance and checking accounts together weren't enough to pay for their medical expenses over the previous year. But 59 percent of underinsured respondents fell in that category. They had to raid their retirement accounts, run up credit-card balances, and borrow from friends and family to pay their medical bills. Twenty-seven percent said they were still in debt to doctors and hospitals, and 3 percent said medical bills had forced them to declare bankruptcy.

Almost 4 in 10 underinsured respondents deferred needed auto or home repairs. Almost 3 in 10 said they made decisions such as changing jobs, postponing retirement, or changing their marital status mainly to preserve access to health insurance.

But the most worrisome result of underinsurance is reduced access the health care itself. Forty-three percent of underinsured respondents said they had postponed going to the doctor because they couldn't afford it, and 28 percent had put off filling prescriptions.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm (subscription required)
Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD
Private health plans work for people who do not and never will need health care. But what if medical needs arise? How well do they work?
Thirty-seven percent of privately-insured consumers with higher health costs found that their insurance plus their checking accounts were not enough to pay for their medical expenses over the previous year. And for the underinsured, that rose to fifty-nine percent.
Yet most of our politicians want to build on private insurance plans to provide coverage for everyone, but they do recognize that premiums are no longer affordable for average-income individuals. So what do they recommend? Let's make premiums affordable by reducing further the coverage provided by the private plans.
What will happen then? Health care will remain affordable for those with insurance plus very large balances in their checking accounts. The rest of us with insurance will have to "raid our retirement accounts, run up credit-card balances, and borrow from friends and family."

 

[metta]

As predicted - this is a classic example of why, it if it's not Single Payer, it's not true universal health coverage. Private insurance and their profit motive must be removed. There is simply no place at the table for private insurance in any REAL reform. Single Payer is simple common sense.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-35.htm
Published on Thursday, April 6, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

Massachusetts Health Reform Bill: A False Promise of Universal Coverage

by Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H. and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.
It's a stirring scene. The Governor, legislative leaders and leaders of Health Care For All standing in the State House Rotunda declaring victory in the fight for universal health coverage. Unfortunately, this week's tableau merely repeats one from 20 years ago when Governor Dukakis was celebrating passage of his universal healthcare bill. That plan imploded within two years, and today about 250,000 more people are uninsured in Massachusetts than the day it was signed. Unfortunately, Massachusetts' new health reform legislation looks set to repeat that disaster.

What's in the New Bill?
The new bill includes three key provisions meant to expand coverage. First, it would modestly expand Medicaid eligibility. Second, it would offer subsidies for the purchase of private coverage to low-income individuals and families, though the size of the subsidies has yet to be determined. Finally, those making more than three times the poverty income (about $30,000 for a single person) would have to buy their own coverage or pay a fine.
To help make coverage more affordable, a new state agency will connect people with the private insurance plans that sell the coverage, and allow people to use pre-tax dollars to purchase coverage (a tax break that mostly helps affluent tax payers who are in high tax brackets). This new agency is also supposed to help design affordable plans.
Businesses that employ more than 10 people and fail to provide health insurance will be assessed a fee (not more than $295) to help subsidize care. Additionally, hospitals won a rate hike assuring them better payments from state programs, and several provisions were included that are meant to attract additional Federal funding to help pay for the Medicaid expansion.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
First, the politicians assumed that only about 500,000 people in Massachusetts are uninsured. The Census Bureau says that 748,000 are uninsured. Why the difference? The 500,000 figure comes from a phone survey conducted in English and Spanish. Anyone without a phone or who speaks another language is counted as insured. The 748,000 figure comes from a door-to-door survey carried out in many languages (including Portuguese and Haitian Creole, common languages in Massachusetts). In sum, the reform plan wishes away 248,000 uninsured people who don't have phones or don't speak English or Spanish. It provides no funding or means to get them coverage.
Second, the linchpin of the plan is the false assumption that uninsured people will be able to find affordable health plans. A typical group policy in Massachusetts costs about $4500 annually for an individual and more than $11,000 for family coverage. A wealthy uninsured person could afford that – but few of the uninsured are wealthy. A 25 year old fitness instructor can find a cheaper plan. But few of the uninsured are young and healthy. According to Census Bureau figures, only 12.4% of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts are both young enough to qualify for low-premium plans (under age 35) and affluent enough (incomes greater than 499% of poverty) to readily afford them. Yet even this 12.4% figure may be too high if insurers are allowed to charge higher premiums for persons with health problems; only half of uninsured persons in those age and income categories report that they are in "excellent health".
The legislation promises that the uninsured will be offered comprehensive, affordable private health plans. But that's like promising chocolate chip cookies with no fat, sugar or calories. The only way to get cheaper plans is to strip down the coverage – boost copayments, deductibles, uncovered services etc.
Hence, the requirement that most of the uninsured purchase coverage will either require them to pay money they don't have, or buy nearly worthless stripped down policies that represent coverage in name only.
Third, the legislation will do nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs of care in Massachusetts – already the highest in the world. Indeed, it gives new infusions of cash to hospitals and private insurers. Predictably, rising costs will force more and more employers to drop coverage, while state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost increases in Medicaid. Moreover, when the next recession hits, tax revenues will fall just as a flood of newly unemployed people join the Medicaid program or apply for the insurance subsidies promised in the reform legislation. The program is simply not sustainable over the long – or even medium – term.
What Are the Alternatives?
The legislation offers empty promises and ignores real – and popular - solutions.
A single payer universal coverage plan could cut costs by streamlining health care paperwork, making health care affordable. Massachusetts Blue Cross spends only 86% of premiums paying for care. It spends the rest - more than $700 million last year - on billing, marketing and other administrative costs. Harvard Pilgrim and Tufts Health Plan – our other big insurers - are little better; each took in about $300 million more than it paid out. That's ten times as much overhead per enrollee as Canada's national health insurance program. And our hospitals and doctors spent billions more fighting with insurers over payments for each bandaid and aspirin tablet.
Overall, Massachusetts residents will spend $13.3 billion on health care bureaucracy this year – nearly one third of our total health bill. If we cut bureaucracy to Canada's levels we could save $9.4 billion annually, enough to cover all of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts and to improve coverage for the rest of us.
Study after study – by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office and even the Massachusetts Medical Society - have confirmed that single payer is the only route to affordable universal coverage.
And single payer is popular. The Massachusetts Nurses Association supports it along with dozens of other labor, seniors and consumer groups; so do 62% of Massachusetts physicians according to a recent survey. National polls find that almost two-thirds of Americans favor a tax-funded plan like Medicare that would cover all Americans.
But single payer national health insurance threatens the multi-million dollar paychecks of insurance executives, and the outrageous profits of drug companies and medical entrepreneurs.
It's time for politicians to stand up to the insurance and drug industries and pass health reform that can work. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein are primary care physicians at Cambridge Hospital and Associate Professors at Harvard Medical School. They co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program. They can be reached via info@pnhp.org

 

[metta]

Presidential & Congressional candidates health care watchdogs
Category: News and Politics


Does your favorite presidential candidate REALLY support Universal Healthcare? Probably not and here's why.

NOTE: This post will stay in topics until after the elections for those of you who want to continue to get updates - hopefully with news that your favorite candidate has come out in favor of Single-Payer and is finally ready to stand up to the insurance industry. Please comment and let's keep this blog active so more will find it.

Report to us the information you find about Congressional candidates health care positions.

Informed citizens are crucial for any real health care reform when taking on an industry as powerful as private insurance and the millions they are spending to stop Single-Payer reform. Some say we can never defeat the insurance companies. They said the same ting about the tobacco companies. We won that, plus things like Civil Rights and votes for women against huge odds.

Insurance companies are behind the phony reform plans which keep them in the mix so they can continue to make billions in profit while 47 million Americans go without health insurance and many who have insurance are not really covered when they need it. They give millions in campaign contributions to presidential candidates to keep them "at the table" in any "reform" they offer. So, thus far, NONE of the presidential candidate is offering REAL reform except the one who has not taken contributions from the insurance lobby – Dennis Kucinich. That's right folks and it is imperative that you know this and tell others so we can change it!


The term "Universal Healthcare" has lost its meaning. Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Gravel, Biden, Dodd and all the Republican candidates claim to support "Universal Healthcare" but continue to appease the insurance companies. These candidates all fail to support the best solution (Single-Payer) because they don't want to ruffle the insurance industry's feathers. YOU can change that by demanding that they do if they want your vote. Spread the word!

Don't let candidates offer incremental or piecemeal "reforms" that all retain the private insurance industry and keeps them in control of our healthcare and standing between you and your doctor. These plans always fail because it is impossible to control costs when you retain the very problem (private insurance and their 30-40% administrative costs that do NOT go to healthcare but into the pockets of middlemen) that has led us to where we are today. (read here about Massachusetts' failed plan) For-profit health insurance retains the profit incentive that must reduce or deny care for profit. Private insurance must always answer to shareholder's profit before care and that won't change because it is the law. Using tax dollars to subsidize private insurance plans for the poor and/or forcing everyone to to buy insurance only feeds the beast the kills us in the end. John Edwards' plan pits private insurance companies against a public plan which could never hope to be properly funded and will surely be undermined by the private insurance industry as we have already seen with the partial privatization of Medicare. (please read this and read this to find out more.)

Demand your candidates support a publicly funded and administered national INSURANCE system that will operate far more efficiently to cover everyone to choose any PRIVATE doctor or hospital. Let them know that you know this can be done by removing the fat middleman (their friend who writes them those big campaign checks) and redirecting the billions saved into funding a single, "not for profit" risk pool which can further save by negotiating lower drug prices. (In case you wonder why the pharmaceutical industry is so against Single-Payer and also pouring millions into PR campaigns to stop it, this is why.)

Single-Payer Insurance will give us better coverage for everyone, for life, and for LESS than what we pay today. And it will stimulate competition where it belongs - between private doctors and hospitals for quality of care instead of between the fat middlemen for market share - and even help address the shortage of primary care doctors (see interview with doctor) and other problems that are the direct result of the inefficient, fragmented and profit driven system we have today.

 

[PreTTy PeTe]

a new link
for the movie

http://freemoviemania.blogspot.com/2007/06/sicko-2007.html

 

[metta]

Clinton, Obama, Edwards on "the same page" on health-care reform: "the Wrong Page," says Kucinich

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On the issue of health care, the three leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are all on the same page: the wrong page, the Democratic candidate and Ohio Congressman said today.

“There isn’t one iota’s difference between the plans put forward by Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards, because they all keep the for-profit health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies in control of the health-care system,” Kucinich said. “The only thing ‘universal’ about their plans is that they universally fail to address the real reason 47 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are under-insured: For-profit insurance companies get rich by gouging people and by not paying for health care.”

Kucinich is the co-author and co-sponsor of a bill (HR 676) that would establish a national, not-for-profit health-insurance system that would guarantee coverage to all Americans, including medical, dental, vision, mental health, long-term care, early child care, and preventative health services. Under the Kucinich plan, there would be no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, and no denials of services. The legislation has been endorsed by the 14,000-member Physicians for a National Health Program, the California Nurses Association, labor union locals, and award-winning film-maker Michael Moore, whose “SiCKO” documentary is a scathing indictment of the for-profit health-care industry in the U.S.

“If you don’t have the courage to take on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries,” Kucinich said of the other Democratic candidates, “don’t try to fool the American people by pretending to offer real reform. The Clinton, Obama, and Edwards plans will ensure that for-profit companies remain in control, and they will be rewarded and enriched with federal subsidies to reduce the prices they charge. Instead of gouging the consumers, they’ll be gouging the taxpayers.”

Kucinich also objected to the “mandates” proposed in the three plans. “These candidates want to force individual citizens and employers to buy health insurance, using the promise of tax credits to make the coercion more palatable. We shouldn’t be mandating that people buy private coverage, we should be guaranteeing coverage for our citizens like other enlightened industrialized nations do.”

Kucinich noted that Americans spend more than $2 trillion a year on health care, and upwards of $600 billion covers costs that have nothing to do with care: profits, dividends, exorbitant salaries, executive compensation, stock options, advertising, paperwork, and coordination and duplication of services among the many private companies.

“Take that money out of the pockets of the for-profit companies and put it into providing a national health-care plan that covers everyone for everything,” Kucinich said. Comparing and contrasting the differences among the Clinton, Obama, and Edwards plans “is a phony debate,” he charged. “If they’re afraid of offending their campaign contributors from the for-profit health-care industry, or they’re concerned about whatever personal investments they have in that industry, they should be honest about it and just say so.”

He continued, “I can’t be bought, and I can’t be bossed, and that’s why I’m the only candidate willing and eager to challenge the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. The sooner we get the profit out of the system, the sooner every American can have access to comprehensive health care. It’s a right, and this nation has a moral and social responsibility to provide it.”

 

[seven_sins]

I am fortunate to have full coverage. But I believe that basic health care should be a right and not a privilege. However, everyone should pay equally into the system.

 

[metta]

Michael Moore on Oprah Today

Thursday, September 27th, 2007

Michael Moore will be appearing again on Oprah today, Thursday, September 27th. Oprah has received thousands of letters from viewers since Mike's appearance in June -- viewers who wanted to share their own health care horror stories. So she invited a number of them to come on today's show, which will feature not only Mike but the head of the health insurance lobby in D.C.

The theme of the show is, 'It Can Happen to You.' And, unfortunately, it can. Joining Oprah and Michael on the show will be Steve Skvara, the steelworker who famously popped the health care question at the Democratic presidential debate in August, and Civia Katz, a Pennsylvania woman who saw 'SiCKO' and decided to send her health care story to MichaelMoore.com.

Tune in today (Thursday) or set your TiVo. Check local listings for show times.