Idiotic. That is the American health care system in one word.
Just today, my wife is calling the doctor to find out about getting a required meningitis vaccination for our daughter before she starts college. The nurse suggests that we call our insurance company first to make sure the shot is covered. Seemed kind of silly to do, after all you hear at least a few times a year stories about young people dying from a case of meningitis. Must be covered, right?
Nope. Not in the "finest" health care system in the world.
Where is the logic in that decision? No we won't pay for a vaccine, that may prevent a virulent, deadly illness. If, however, she does contract meningitis, they will pay for the visit to the emergency room, a stay in intensive care, numerous tests, and medication, which may in the end prove useless in preventing a rapid death. So the insurance company would be willing to pay what would no doubt approach a six figure bill to a hospital, should she become ill, but they will not pay, what must be a relatively minuscule amount to provide preventative care.
And the Democrats are caving to these insurance companies, their lobbyists, and the Republicans, and will not provide public option to compete with these scumbags.
Idiots.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Mermaids on the March
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In an effort to restore luster to the "world's greatest deliberative body", sometimes known as the United States Senate, Sam Brownback has introduced legislation to ban the creation of centaurs and mermaids. The Senator, (and former Presidential candidate..God help us) managed to get nineteen of his esteemed colleagues to co-sponsor this urgently needed legislation. In response, Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah announced the formation of NAPM the National Association for the Protection of Mermaids. Spokespersons for the centaur lobby have yet to make themselves heard.
Seriously, in the midst of the biggest economic crisis to hit the U.S in decades, fully 20% of the Senate is willing to do battle against the creation of mythical creatures. Jefferson, Madison, and Adams would be so proud.
Is it any wonder that science education in the United States continues to suffer? Legislation such, as this continues the proud anti-science philosophy of the Bush administration. Coupled with the notably fact free op-ed by Sarah Palin which completely ignores the scientific fact of climate change, the Republican war on science is still going strong.
Now, there are scientific experiments being conducted that do combine human and animal material. The experiments are designed to help discover new approaches to treatment of diseases, like Parkinson's. They are not trying to be modern day Dr. Frankenstein's.
As a country, we need to be encouraging scientific research and development. I am not advocating unfettered research, but please let's not look at these research projects through a religious prism. These researchers are not playing God, but trying to make our lives better and healthier.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Republican Congressman Reveals the Inconvenient Truth
Sometimes a politician while trying to stick to his talking points inadvertently reveals the truth behind the rhetoric. That seems to be what happened yesterday to Rep. John Kline (R) of Minnesota. Appearing on a Minnesota Public Radio program Kline admitted the real reason he was troubled by a public option being a part of a health care reform bill.
Now what would be bad about a health care program, that was cheaper and designed to save money? I doubt you would find many among the general public that would object to less expensive health care. So I wonder who Mr. Kline is speaking for when he objects to a less expensive health care plan? I wonder which organizations are contributing to the Congressman's re-election fund? Think you might find a few insurance and pharmaceutical companies among them?
Rep. Kline, in the same quote, reveals another reason he fears a public option. The realization that companies will push their employees toward a government run plan and move away from providing private insurance for their employees. Which they should. Tying health care to employment is an idea whose time should never have come in the first place. If including a public option is a first step to removing the health care burden from employers, and introducing an equitable government run plan for all that is another step in the right direction.
"[O]ur fear is that if you actually get in there looking at the legislation that it's set up in a way that employers would increasingly opt to letting their employees move over to the public, to the public option. And because it is cheaper, it's designed to save money, which the government-run program has some very clear advantages, and the claims that it's gotta pay for itself that through the first three years"
Now what would be bad about a health care program, that was cheaper and designed to save money? I doubt you would find many among the general public that would object to less expensive health care. So I wonder who Mr. Kline is speaking for when he objects to a less expensive health care plan? I wonder which organizations are contributing to the Congressman's re-election fund? Think you might find a few insurance and pharmaceutical companies among them?
Rep. Kline, in the same quote, reveals another reason he fears a public option. The realization that companies will push their employees toward a government run plan and move away from providing private insurance for their employees. Which they should. Tying health care to employment is an idea whose time should never have come in the first place. If including a public option is a first step to removing the health care burden from employers, and introducing an equitable government run plan for all that is another step in the right direction.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Dennis Kucinich Sets Dr. David Gratzer Straight
Dennis may not be a big man, but don't pick a fight with him if you don't have facts to back you up.Via the Political Carnival
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Moral Case For a Right to Health Care
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which is our true blueprint for government says the following: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I would argue that very few things are more important to promoting the general welfare than having quality health care available to the citizenry. In addition, promoting the general welfare should also govern the regulations that keep our food safe, our environment clean and our financial markets secure.
Even if one accepted the argument that health care is not an express right, should we not as a moral country seek to assure that all have access to health care. Is it just for a country to have a system that sends increasing numbers of it’s citizens into filing bankruptcy?
“The results of a study to be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine show that "medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies in 2007." More strikingly -- "between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6 percent.”
Past studies have also indicated that the vast majority of those forced into bankruptcy, were insured, yet still unable to pay their bills.
Now every other advanced government in the world provides health care to its citizens. Though some are more efficient than others, all seem to spend less and achieve better results than the U.S.
“ In 2002 the United States spent $5,267 per person on health care. Canada spent $2,931; Germany spent $2,817; Britain spent only $2,160. Yet the United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than any of these countries.”
None of the proposals being debated in the congress will be a “socialized medicine” program like the Canadian or British system. In the British system doctors are employed and paid by the government. Canadian doctors, however, run their own private practices and bill the government. So the argument that Doctors will not be paid under a national health care program is a false one. Personally I would prefer the single payer type system and take the profit motive out of health care. That, however, is not happening under any current proposal.
Many Americans continue to proclaim the US as the best country in the world. How can we be the best country in the world when we have infant mortality rates higher than such world powers as Slovenia, Cuba, and the Czech Republic? We need to understand that we can learn from the experiences of other countries, and use that knowledge to craft a system that works for us.
An article (read the entire article) in the Boston Globe, explains in detail how France and the Netherlands approach health care. There are differences between the two countries approach, but in both virtually all are covered. The government in both countries is involved in regulating prices and setting budgets. The people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payment and taxes.
The author conducted extensive research over the course of a month. This is what he found:
“But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.”
As to the specialized care question, the article does state that the French and Dutch do have longer waits for specialty care. Those waits do not seem to have a detrimental effect on overall health. In addition, as the article points out, few in those countries decide to skip the specialist because they could not afford it.
In addition, while the US does have some advantages in cancer treatment, those numbers are not as significant as critics suggest.
“And, it’s true, the US has, overall, the world’s highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that’s partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something health care reform would not diminish. Besides, it’s not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher.”
Even the much maligned (by the G.O.P) Canadian system offered excellent results in cancer treatment.
“For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.”
The same article also points out that survival rates varied widely by region across the United States, and that survival rates for African-Americans were significantly lower across the board. It does not take a statistician to figure out that economic standing has a serious impact on the quality of care one receives in the U.S. In Canada, The Canada Health Act, dictates what services must be provided by a province to its citizens. Those, essentially, are to provide healthcare to every citizen regardless of age, economic status, or pre-existing condition. If a province does not meet these requirements, the federal government can withhold its transfer of funds.
The bottom line for me is that health care reform is necessary if we are to regain our standard of living. Ranking 16th out of 20 advanced nations is not good enough.
There will always be obstacles to overcome to achieve success in business and in life. Those obstacles, however, should not be insurmountable. In a land of plenty, it is not too much to ask those who have plenty to pay a fair share for the opportunity they have been given.
In a country as rich and blessed as we are, our goal should be to improve the quality of life and the opportunity for all. As FDR said:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Providing does not mean handouts. But it does mean leveling the playing field. It means fair wages for all, not exorbitant salaries for CEO’s. It is fairness and justice; we seek, for that is the “American Way”.
Even if one accepted the argument that health care is not an express right, should we not as a moral country seek to assure that all have access to health care. Is it just for a country to have a system that sends increasing numbers of it’s citizens into filing bankruptcy?
“The results of a study to be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine show that "medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies in 2007." More strikingly -- "between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6 percent.”
Past studies have also indicated that the vast majority of those forced into bankruptcy, were insured, yet still unable to pay their bills.
Now every other advanced government in the world provides health care to its citizens. Though some are more efficient than others, all seem to spend less and achieve better results than the U.S.
“ In 2002 the United States spent $5,267 per person on health care. Canada spent $2,931; Germany spent $2,817; Britain spent only $2,160. Yet the United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than any of these countries.”
None of the proposals being debated in the congress will be a “socialized medicine” program like the Canadian or British system. In the British system doctors are employed and paid by the government. Canadian doctors, however, run their own private practices and bill the government. So the argument that Doctors will not be paid under a national health care program is a false one. Personally I would prefer the single payer type system and take the profit motive out of health care. That, however, is not happening under any current proposal.
Many Americans continue to proclaim the US as the best country in the world. How can we be the best country in the world when we have infant mortality rates higher than such world powers as Slovenia, Cuba, and the Czech Republic? We need to understand that we can learn from the experiences of other countries, and use that knowledge to craft a system that works for us.
An article (read the entire article) in the Boston Globe, explains in detail how France and the Netherlands approach health care. There are differences between the two countries approach, but in both virtually all are covered. The government in both countries is involved in regulating prices and setting budgets. The people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payment and taxes.
The author conducted extensive research over the course of a month. This is what he found:
“But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.”
As to the specialized care question, the article does state that the French and Dutch do have longer waits for specialty care. Those waits do not seem to have a detrimental effect on overall health. In addition, as the article points out, few in those countries decide to skip the specialist because they could not afford it.
In addition, while the US does have some advantages in cancer treatment, those numbers are not as significant as critics suggest.
“And, it’s true, the US has, overall, the world’s highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that’s partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something health care reform would not diminish. Besides, it’s not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher.”
Even the much maligned (by the G.O.P) Canadian system offered excellent results in cancer treatment.
“For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.”
The same article also points out that survival rates varied widely by region across the United States, and that survival rates for African-Americans were significantly lower across the board. It does not take a statistician to figure out that economic standing has a serious impact on the quality of care one receives in the U.S. In Canada, The Canada Health Act, dictates what services must be provided by a province to its citizens. Those, essentially, are to provide healthcare to every citizen regardless of age, economic status, or pre-existing condition. If a province does not meet these requirements, the federal government can withhold its transfer of funds.
The bottom line for me is that health care reform is necessary if we are to regain our standard of living. Ranking 16th out of 20 advanced nations is not good enough.
There will always be obstacles to overcome to achieve success in business and in life. Those obstacles, however, should not be insurmountable. In a land of plenty, it is not too much to ask those who have plenty to pay a fair share for the opportunity they have been given.
In a country as rich and blessed as we are, our goal should be to improve the quality of life and the opportunity for all. As FDR said:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Providing does not mean handouts. But it does mean leveling the playing field. It means fair wages for all, not exorbitant salaries for CEO’s. It is fairness and justice; we seek, for that is the “American Way”.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Funny Commercial
Clever commercial from the Netherlands. I always knew those hermetically sealed containers could be a hazard....
Good Time in Motown
Sunshine, food, free concerts, and a holiday weekend can still bring thousands of people into the city of Detroit. Headliners at the 21'st anual Comerica CityFest included; Buddy Guy (pictured), Todd Rundgren, Ray Parker Jr., and Betty Lavette. Now if we can only figure out what to do on the other 361 days of the year to bring this much needed vitality to the city.I was able to visit the festival twice during the July 4th weekend. While the crowd on an overcast Thursday evening with two lesser known bands headlining, was not huge, the Sunday afternoon finale was a different story. On a sunny, warm day the streets of the New Center district were crowded. Long lines were the rule at the food booths where you could get a taste of barbecue, Greek, Thai, Italian, or just about anything else you might have been in the mood for. On days like this one can feel proud of the old motor city.
Of course, even as the streets teemed with people, in the shadows of what used to be the General Motors Building, you could not help but remember all the problems this city faces. Enormous office buildings with high vacancy rates, restaurants boarded up, no major supermarket located in the city, and more storefronts closing everyday. Yet the bigger problem, as it has been for decades, is getting people to live in the city in general, and more specifically downtown.
There has been some new residential development in recent years. New townhouses have been built near the Medical Center, and in the Fox Theater and Comerica Park area. Some new loft buildings have also popped up. That is a start, however, I fear that keeping residents long term will be difficult. Having to drive miles to run normal errands like grocery shopping can quickly become tiresome. I also worry that many of the young urban professional types, attracted to city life, especially nightlife will look to leave in a few years when clubbing is no longer a priority. Once settled, with a family to raise the plight of the Detroit school system will send many fleeing to the suburbs. The next generation of the young hip crowd, may move in to take their place, but to make a city thrive, you should have a diverse population. That means attracting, residents old, and young, black and white, wealthy and middle class.
I realize we will likely never be able to provide a thriving, vital downtown experience that a Chicago has to offer. There is after all, only one Chicago. That does not mean we cannot strive to build a downtown that has more to offer every day of the year. I hope that Detroit's new mayor, Dave Bing, and potentially an influx of new city council members will work toward that goal. City officials have to stop treating suburban residents as enemies, and instead regard them as potential customers. Customers who visit the city for ballgames, theater, casinos, and annual festivals. Perhaps, with improved city services, schools, and essential businesses in neighborhoods, some may even be potential residents.
Whether we live within the city limits, or in the suburbs, we are all from Detroit. What happens in Detroit, the vitality and success of the city has more impact on the life of those in the metro area, than any city council meeting in whatever little suburb you happen to call home. I will continue to root for the city, to be successful, because we all need and deserve more weekends like this one.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Exit, Stage Far Right
Goodbye to you!
Not sure what she is thinking... (actually that gives her too much credit).
I don't know if there is a scandal to follow, as some suspect. If that rambling incoherent speech she gave today proves one thing, it is that John McCain deserves no respect. Putting that woman on a national ticket, a 72 year old heartbeat away from the White House, is the most reckless thing a major Presidential candidate has ever done.
----------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)