Providing healthcare for all children, in the "Greatest Nation on Earth"...
isn't really an 'option', it's a moral imperative...Texas lost federal money for healthcare under GW Bush due to an 'administrative failure' regarding paperwork due at the Federal level. A system that takes the taxes, awards them back to states tagged for healthcare, then recinds them is capricious of benefit to no one. While administrative 'red tape' is blamed, real people, children are effected in serious ways. Click the main title for the complete article. (rw)
Chipping Away At Health Care
It would be one thing to cut child health insurance funding if the money wasn't there. But the Bush administration just allowed $1 billion in federal funds already allocated to pay for health care for uninsured children return to the treasury. And on the campaign trail, the president has been using concern for uninsured families as a talking point when playing up his "health savings accounts"—though they'd be virtually useless for poor families. Rachel Klein of Families USA says the actions and the words just don't match up.
Rachel Klein is deputy director of health policy for Families USA, a national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Uninsured Americans are a popular political football this fall. In the limelight of the Republican National Convention this summer, President Bush made lofty promises about expanding health insurance coverage for uninsured children. But, despite the president’s rhetoric about his concern for uninsured children, he stands in the way of efforts to help them. With much less fanfare than his statements at the Convention, the Bush administration recently withdrew more than $1 billion that were earmarked for children
Friday, October 22, 2004
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
a riot
...and when i see them
blooming so, i'm reminded
of what beauty there can be
in diversity.
of nature and life.
(rw)
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Rationed Healthcare? You Don't Say....
A critique regarding my Blog, sent in an e-mail. I really look forward to these kinds of comments directly to my blog. I feel "storming" can help form trusting workable relationships for problem-solving. We can't expect to solve problems if we only look at one perspective, or have everyone with whom we share ideas, agree with us totally. There are several models we can look at to deliver healthcare more equitably, they all have problems... that's a plus for us when it comes to looking at that model, we can see , hopefully what went wrong, and how to fix it when applied to our working model.
From "Gil" and my response follows....(rw)
that is the biggest s h ! I have seen, I live down here in south florida where many many canadians spend their winters, and about 101% of them hate the health delivery system they are forced to use to get their medical attention, so many of them who have a little money come to not only south florida, but the fine clinics in Ohio and Minnesota for real tough illnesses...
I really don't know what "gil" is talking about. Problems with Rationed Healthcare?
Healthcare is Rationed in the US already. It's merely rationed differently.
In the US
healthcare is rationed based on "ability to pay" which is ok if we're talking the difference between a sirloin at dinner or chicken, but not in healthcare. In Canada healthcare is rationed on need and productive life years, a much more efficient system.
In the US, a bed ridden, senile (doesn't know up from down) 93 yr old will get bilateral knee replacement surgery, because medicare will pay for it. This person will never be able to begin, much less progress in, the rigorous rehab it takes to make those knees work ( a valid test of efficacy of the expense). Meanwhile, a vital, working 40 yr old, cant afford it even with insurance. In economics you learn about scarcity. You learn, demand is infinite but resources are scarce. How best to meet demand is the challenge. Rationing ? you bet, in everything from who wears Gucci and who doesn't, to who drives a Ferrari and who drives a second-hand Dodge, to who gets healthcare and who doesn't. The former are merely inconvenient.
With the latter, dire consequences follow. For the individual and our society.
People wait to see a doctor in Canada? here people go forever without the visit, until they are so sick they end up in the Emergency Room, utilizing resources in the most inefficient manner for our society, and our taxes end up picking up that tab of several thousands when we could have just covered these same people with a national health plan, for far fewer dollars and more efficient use of our resources.
SO they wait in canada? but they do get treatment. Not so here.
From "Gil" and my response follows....(rw)
that is the biggest s h ! I have seen, I live down here in south florida where many many canadians spend their winters, and about 101% of them hate the health delivery system they are forced to use to get their medical attention, so many of them who have a little money come to not only south florida, but the fine clinics in Ohio and Minnesota for real tough illnesses...
I really don't know what "gil" is talking about. Problems with Rationed Healthcare?
Healthcare is Rationed in the US already. It's merely rationed differently.
In the US
healthcare is rationed based on "ability to pay" which is ok if we're talking the difference between a sirloin at dinner or chicken, but not in healthcare. In Canada healthcare is rationed on need and productive life years, a much more efficient system.
In the US, a bed ridden, senile (doesn't know up from down) 93 yr old will get bilateral knee replacement surgery, because medicare will pay for it. This person will never be able to begin, much less progress in, the rigorous rehab it takes to make those knees work ( a valid test of efficacy of the expense). Meanwhile, a vital, working 40 yr old, cant afford it even with insurance. In economics you learn about scarcity. You learn, demand is infinite but resources are scarce. How best to meet demand is the challenge. Rationing ? you bet, in everything from who wears Gucci and who doesn't, to who drives a Ferrari and who drives a second-hand Dodge, to who gets healthcare and who doesn't. The former are merely inconvenient.
With the latter, dire consequences follow. For the individual and our society.
People wait to see a doctor in Canada? here people go forever without the visit, until they are so sick they end up in the Emergency Room, utilizing resources in the most inefficient manner for our society, and our taxes end up picking up that tab of several thousands when we could have just covered these same people with a national health plan, for far fewer dollars and more efficient use of our resources.
SO they wait in canada? but they do get treatment. Not so here.
Monday, October 18, 2004
The MalPractice Myth
I feel it's neccessary to post something to counter the rhetoric of those who believe/perpetuate the hyperbole concerning the supposed link between a patients right to sue and the rising cost of healthcare.
Des Moines Register
The malpractice myth
By Register Editorial Board
07/11/2003
President Bush said in his State of the Union address this year that the threat of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals was one of the "prime causes" of rising health-care costs. Bush's words suggest a correlation between health-care costs and the premiums physicians and hospitals pay to protect themselves in lawsuits.
Yet between 1988 and 1998, U.S. health-care costs increased 74.4 percent while malpractice premiums increased 5.7 percent. The total premiums paid in 2000 added up to 0.56 of the nation's total health-care bill.
Bush asked Congress to "pass medical-liability reform" that would limit malpractice awards. The House passed it. Senate Democrats thwarted the bill this week. Bush wants Americans to believe that if insurance companies have to pay smaller damages to injured patients, physicians will have lower premiums and health-care costs could actually be held down.
Wrong again.
New information in a national database that collects reports of every judgment and settlement paid in malpractice demonstrates just the opposite. An analysis of that data by a consumer-advocacy group reveals malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002. Meanwhile, doctors" premiums didn't go down.
Damage awards greater than $1 million decreased more than 10 percent between those years. Doctors" premiums weren't affected.
There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money.
Granted, the way doctors practice medicine could be affected by the threat of lawsuits. They order tests as "defensive medicine" for fear that not doing so could land them in a heap of trouble. Limiting damage awards wouldn't assuage that fear. It would, however, unfairly hurt patients who deserve compensation.
Limiting damages to wronged Americans would have no impact on health-care costs. The president should stop perpetuating the myth that it would.
For More fact-filled Links try these:
http://www.abota.org/education/archive/mythsandfacts.asp
http://www.texmed.org/pmt/lel/cln/pa_myth_reality.asp
Des Moines Register
The malpractice myth
By Register Editorial Board
07/11/2003
President Bush said in his State of the Union address this year that the threat of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals was one of the "prime causes" of rising health-care costs. Bush's words suggest a correlation between health-care costs and the premiums physicians and hospitals pay to protect themselves in lawsuits.
Yet between 1988 and 1998, U.S. health-care costs increased 74.4 percent while malpractice premiums increased 5.7 percent. The total premiums paid in 2000 added up to 0.56 of the nation's total health-care bill.
Bush asked Congress to "pass medical-liability reform" that would limit malpractice awards. The House passed it. Senate Democrats thwarted the bill this week. Bush wants Americans to believe that if insurance companies have to pay smaller damages to injured patients, physicians will have lower premiums and health-care costs could actually be held down.
Wrong again.
New information in a national database that collects reports of every judgment and settlement paid in malpractice demonstrates just the opposite. An analysis of that data by a consumer-advocacy group reveals malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002. Meanwhile, doctors" premiums didn't go down.
Damage awards greater than $1 million decreased more than 10 percent between those years. Doctors" premiums weren't affected.
There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money.
Granted, the way doctors practice medicine could be affected by the threat of lawsuits. They order tests as "defensive medicine" for fear that not doing so could land them in a heap of trouble. Limiting damage awards wouldn't assuage that fear. It would, however, unfairly hurt patients who deserve compensation.
Limiting damages to wronged Americans would have no impact on health-care costs. The president should stop perpetuating the myth that it would.
For More fact-filled Links try these:
http://www.abota.org/education/archive/mythsandfacts.asp
http://www.texmed.org/pmt/lel/cln/pa_myth_reality.asp
Cronyism and Politics in Healthcare System
Specialized Lobbyist and cronyism are influencing our Healthcare system to the detriment of the public. How do we safeguard the system to prevent the effects of this type of influence peddling as it regards a citizen's right to impartial accessibility and availibility of medications? Can we ?
OCTOBER 18, 2004
Bush Misleads on Flu Vaccine
President Bush has tried to avoid any responsibility for the flu vaccine shortage by making misleading statements. During the presidential debate last Wednesday, President Bush said the problem was that "we relied upon a company out of England."[1] That isn't true. Chiron Corp., the company whose vaccine plant was contaminated, is a California company - subject to regulation by the U.S. government - that operates a factory in England.[2]During the debate, President Bush also said, "we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country."[3] That isn't true either. It was the British authorities who, after inspecting the plant, revoked the factory's license on October 5th.[4]In June 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration inspected the Chiron plant.[5] Initially, the FDA found that the plant was contaminated with bacteria but later announced, "the problems were corrected to their satisfaction," and allowed the plant to continue to operate.[6]Sources:
"With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making" New York Times 10/17/o4
Visit http://www.misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion »
OCTOBER 18, 2004
Bush Misleads on Flu Vaccine
President Bush has tried to avoid any responsibility for the flu vaccine shortage by making misleading statements. During the presidential debate last Wednesday, President Bush said the problem was that "we relied upon a company out of England."[1] That isn't true. Chiron Corp., the company whose vaccine plant was contaminated, is a California company - subject to regulation by the U.S. government - that operates a factory in England.[2]During the debate, President Bush also said, "we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country."[3] That isn't true either. It was the British authorities who, after inspecting the plant, revoked the factory's license on October 5th.[4]In June 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration inspected the Chiron plant.[5] Initially, the FDA found that the plant was contaminated with bacteria but later announced, "the problems were corrected to their satisfaction," and allowed the plant to continue to operate.[6]Sources:
"With Few Suppliers of Flu Shots, Shortage Was Long in Making" New York Times 10/17/o4
Visit http://www.misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion »
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Why insurance shouldnt be related to Employment
Ok, for those of you who dont know, i work in a rural county hospital. We are the primary physician for many people with Medicaid who can't get doctors to take their Medical insurance.
Last nite a fellow came in, he cant read, has other physical/intellectual challenges...has worked for WalMart for 6 yrs. He was recently transferred to a WalMart in a new area. When he was transferred he had insurance where he'd worked for 6 yrs. When he got to the new store, the personnell dept gave him the usual new hire paperwork, with no one to assist him, remember he cant read. In order to find someone to assist him with the paperwork, remember he's in a new area, he was late getting the paperwork filed at the WalMart....consequently, he was informed he is without Health Insurance, for at least one year, until re-enrollment comes around. Now, someone with these kinds of challenges, who obviously wants to pay his own way, stay off of the government system, provide his own insurance, had insurance with the same employer before he was transferred, deserves better treatment in our society. If i am not mistaken, this is a violation of ADA rules... I plan to call WalMart corporate, beginning with this employer,
I will post here regarding any "stink" i can raise.... (rw)
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html
Last nite a fellow came in, he cant read, has other physical/intellectual challenges...has worked for WalMart for 6 yrs. He was recently transferred to a WalMart in a new area. When he was transferred he had insurance where he'd worked for 6 yrs. When he got to the new store, the personnell dept gave him the usual new hire paperwork, with no one to assist him, remember he cant read. In order to find someone to assist him with the paperwork, remember he's in a new area, he was late getting the paperwork filed at the WalMart....consequently, he was informed he is without Health Insurance, for at least one year, until re-enrollment comes around. Now, someone with these kinds of challenges, who obviously wants to pay his own way, stay off of the government system, provide his own insurance, had insurance with the same employer before he was transferred, deserves better treatment in our society. If i am not mistaken, this is a violation of ADA rules... I plan to call WalMart corporate, beginning with this employer,
I will post here regarding any "stink" i can raise.... (rw)
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/ada.html
Friday, October 15, 2004
Info on the Healthcare plans of the two parties
Some excellent articles. Some information on the plans of the two party's to attempt a fix on the ailing healthcare system in america today. (rw)
The San Francisco ChronicleOctober 11-15, 2004
IN CRITICAL CONDITION: HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA
"Why health care costs are rising fast. Plus the Bush and Kerry health care plans."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/11/MNGII96CVP1.DTL
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/11/MNGII96D031.DTL
"Retirees hit hard as health benefits are lost."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/12/BUGMN979TS1.DTL
How Canada provides health care for all.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/15/BUG7T8E81H63.DTL
From Don Mcanne @ Quote of the Day a listserve for those interested in this Topic
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day
I found these points and reference articles:(rw)
"Point:There are major fundamental flaws in our health care system that cannot possibly be corrected by addressing each as an isolated problem. Comprehensive reform will be possible only by forming our own, universal, monopsonistic purchasing system, a single payer system.Explanation:Flaws include such factors as an irrational overpricing of certain services and products (e.g., pharmaceuticals), the excessive and expensive administrative burden placed on health care providers, the failure to provide greater incentives for a higher quality, lower cost primary care infrastructure, and the wasteful and detrimental excesses of high tech care in a system characterized by regional and selective excess capacities.The last point is not receiving enough attention but is extremely important. It is timely now because Health Affairs has released a series of twenty articles on the topic. They can be downloaded for free, but only until October 21! After that time you will need to be a subscriber or will have to purchase each individual article to access them on the Internet.
The Health Affairs articles are listed under "7 October 2004" at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusives/index.dtl?year=2004
We cannot possibly control costs and improve quality unless we harness the power of monopsonistic purchasing. And that just happens to have the added advantage of ensuring affordable, comprehensive coverage for everyone."
DM@QOTD
The San Francisco ChronicleOctober 11-15, 2004
IN CRITICAL CONDITION: HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA
"Why health care costs are rising fast. Plus the Bush and Kerry health care plans."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/11/MNGII96CVP1.DTL
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/11/MNGII96D031.DTL
"Retirees hit hard as health benefits are lost."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/12/BUGMN979TS1.DTL
How Canada provides health care for all.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/15/BUG7T8E81H63.DTL
From Don Mcanne @ Quote of the Day a listserve for those interested in this Topic
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day
I found these points and reference articles:(rw)
"Point:There are major fundamental flaws in our health care system that cannot possibly be corrected by addressing each as an isolated problem. Comprehensive reform will be possible only by forming our own, universal, monopsonistic purchasing system, a single payer system.Explanation:Flaws include such factors as an irrational overpricing of certain services and products (e.g., pharmaceuticals), the excessive and expensive administrative burden placed on health care providers, the failure to provide greater incentives for a higher quality, lower cost primary care infrastructure, and the wasteful and detrimental excesses of high tech care in a system characterized by regional and selective excess capacities.The last point is not receiving enough attention but is extremely important. It is timely now because Health Affairs has released a series of twenty articles on the topic. They can be downloaded for free, but only until October 21! After that time you will need to be a subscriber or will have to purchase each individual article to access them on the Internet.
The Health Affairs articles are listed under "7 October 2004" at:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusives/index.dtl?year=2004
We cannot possibly control costs and improve quality unless we harness the power of monopsonistic purchasing. And that just happens to have the added advantage of ensuring affordable, comprehensive coverage for everyone."
DM@QOTD
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Healthcare Meltdown
There is a Healthcare Crisis in America. What are some of our options? We hear legislators tell us that a National Health Plan would make Healthcare unwieldy, costly and inefficient...That tells me they dont know that it is already. If they are not able to recognize the current state, can they really predict the outcome of any proposed intervention? I think not.
"Americans tend to believe they have the best health care in the world, but in truth it is a second-rate system and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive.
It need not be this way."
Read the October "TIME" Magazine Article here: Please comment
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/october/health_care_can_be_c.php
"As shown in several of these papers, health care systems fail to provide in full measure such simple life-saving, morbidity-sparing interventions as immunizations, diabetic glucose monitoring, and the use of drugs for those with heart attacks. Every region and every state exhibits underuse of effective care, some more so than others. "
Read this "Health Affairs" article here: Please comment
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/october/practice_variations_.php
"Americans tend to believe they have the best health care in the world, but in truth it is a second-rate system and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive.
It need not be this way."
Read the October "TIME" Magazine Article here: Please comment
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/october/health_care_can_be_c.php
"As shown in several of these papers, health care systems fail to provide in full measure such simple life-saving, morbidity-sparing interventions as immunizations, diabetic glucose monitoring, and the use of drugs for those with heart attacks. Every region and every state exhibits underuse of effective care, some more so than others. "
Read this "Health Affairs" article here: Please comment
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/october/practice_variations_.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
